Great Western Coffee Shop

Heard on BBC radio Devon news this morning that today is the day that bidders for the Great Western franchise have to put their names foreward so hopefully we will finally find out who First are up against.

List of bidders wont be announced until after Easter - I understand 12th April is the likely date

Could be interesting!

Woody's right!

Paul Clifton, BBC South's Transport correspondentm, tweeted this a couple of hours ago....

Paul Clifton (@clifton_paul)
09/02/2012 14:58
Competition for next Great Western franchise: First Group, Stagecoach, National Express, Arriva (DB) & Renfe. Keolis withdrew.

The 'after Easter'date is probably the announcement of those that pre-qualify. This lot already do.....

So the French surrendered without a fight?

(http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-stirthepot.gif) (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

Ah, mon Dieu! (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/misc/smiley-vault-misc-027.gif) (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

Between 2 if you ask me

Did we?  :o  :D ;D

Seriously: I'll put my cards on the table and offer my personal support to First Group / First Great Western.

CfN  ;)

I always like to see something new, so my vote goes to Renfe.

Tapas from El Chef Viaja?  :D

It should be pointed out that this list of five potential operators is not a list of bidders, merely those that have submitted answers to the pre-qualification questionnaire (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-passenger-franchise-great-western/great-western-pre-qualification-questionnaire.doc). (MS Word Doc)

IMO Stagecoach shouldn't get it to prevent a monopoly on London to the West.
NX/Arriva shouldn't get it for obvious reasons... >:(

Govia would have been perfect - I wonder why they withdrew? Bitten off more than they can chew...

I'd like First Group to keep it.

First Group have the background on the route, are fully involved currently in the projects that will impact the future franchise so to me it makes sense to keep the same people involved in the future.

And plus First Group have done it's best with what it has. There are faults, have been delays, but a change of management won't make that go  away.

So..keep First Group in charge, it will continue the good work it is already doing with Network Rail to improve things.

(This is obviously just opinion and speculation)

If there was any likelihood whatsoever of that being considered a problem, they wouldn't be bidding.

The government's plans to combine SN and FCC set a big precedent, by wiping out all the existing competition on the Brighton Line...

Paul 

Gatwick Express run to Brighton?....

Gatwick Express is just a sub-brand of Southern, and in the peaks the services do run to/from Brighton - hence the units only being branded with the word 'Express' on its own nowadays...

Paul

true....

From the Bristol Evening Post (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Firms-line-bid-Great-Western-contract/story-15187516-detail/story.html):

I doubt Virgin are interested! It contains local routes...

I agree about Virgin, more likely to be Stagecoach.

Hmm.  ::)


Reality check required here?  :P

As a relatively unbiased observer I'd be happy if First retained the franchise as well. Of course they have their faults and have made mistakes, but they really have done a lot of good since 2006 after what might be described as a faltering start. Capacity remains a serious problem but when I was a customer using Oxford station frequently my experience was transformed from the Thames Trains days (for the better!). It's also good to see what First has done to boost traffic on the west country branch lines, with very impressive results.

Wasn't overly impressed with NX's stewardship of Wessex Trains (particularly towards the end) although oddly they did a nice job at Wales and West and subsequently Wales and Borders. Arriva leaves me fairly cold on ATW and XC, I'm afraid, and Govia (in the form of GoAhead) were responsible for the truly awful Thames Trains operation so their copy book is forever blotted in my world. Goes to show that a company that is capable of operating a truly excellent bus service (GoAhead is the parent of the Oxford Bus Company) doesn't necessarily make a good train operator. I have fairly limited experience of Stagecoach but my few journeys on South West and East Midlands Trains have been perfectly fine, although in common with others I wouldn't be too keen on the idea of them controlling both FGW and SWT. And it might cause some kind of aneurism at Hogrider Towers should Stagecoach also win GW...  :-X

I will state that my wish which is that First will get the new Great Western franchise.

I know they had a bad start (I hope they have learned from that) although some of the blame has to be put  with the DFT under the previous government.

There are still some problems which  still need solving  and I am sure the management at First will agree with this. Hopefully some of the overcrowding will be solved when new trains become available such as some possible class 170's etc. from Scotrail  from 2015 and some of the class 165/166 dmu's from the Thames Valley.

National exress did in my opinion do a good job with the wales & borders franchise a lot better than Arriva/DB are doing so far although they do sometimes have their good idea's such as perhaps stopping more Manchester - Milford Haven trains at some of the smaller stations such as Pyle

Personally I'm not a fan of First.

I'm still narked by decisions stemming from the Dec 06 timetable; just little things like the 1803 Gatwick to Reading not stopping any more at Dorking West (because the franchise didn't make it necessary), so that now it runs non-stop from Deepdene to Guildford and then sits at Guildford for 6 minutes; the continuous de-celeration (it seems) of services especially on the Cotswold Line and the lack of ambition it has shown on that line since the re-doubling with a dubious service pattern. Many other little things besides. Anyway, that's just my personal opinion.

Personal opinions are perfectly valid, Steve Bray. ;)

In a possibly rather absent-minded moment, I seem to have volunteered to draft up a response (on behalf of the Coffee Shop forum) to the Great Western franchise tender consultation.

Any views, such as yours, will be very welcome - and they will help to form the basis of our response, as users (and indeed potential users) of railways in the Great Western area!

Chris. :)

I have an open mind on this one,lets wait and see who offers what first.My only reservation about First getting yet another bite of the cherry is that we would effectively then be exchanging a public monopoly (British Rail) on Great Western for a private monopoly and that is not what privatisation was suppose to be about.Certainly in my own neck of the woods Devon and Cornwall First have not measured up to stake holders hopes whose discontent been strongly communicated to Government by a cross party coalition of MPs in the run up to the bidding process.Not surprisingly then in the last few months there has been a dramatic improvement in train puntuality west of Exeter after what seems years of unreliability.Amazing what happens when your backs against the wall.

In general terms I believe we should expect any new franchisee to:

Run a reliable service briskly.

Have a timetable which gives all stations a commuter service for work school and college to the nearest large town or provincial centre to cater for 8/9 start and 4/5/6/7 finishes with a couple of trains in the day for the odd half day. Also possible  late "Arts Trains" to cater for night at the cinema theatre etc.

A connection to London to get you to London no later than 11:00 with a return after 20:00 or later depending on distance.

Reliable trains with sufficient capacity to prevent standing on regular basis OK this might upset the "bean counters" by having units spare at midday but to compensate the units won't be thrashed as much and  it gives more maintenance time and therefore should if the TOC is working correctly increase reliability.   

7 day a week railway with all stations open on Sundays unless there is absolutely no likelyhood of any passengers.

ATOC must be made to sort out fares the current farce it can't last.

Basically I would give it to any bidder that says that that there will be more trains, with more capacity running more reliably through smarter, accesable stations open  7 day a week   at the end of the franchise than at the beggining. If they add a simple fare structure without stupid anolmolies then I'd go for them.
 
If it's going to be a long franchise then we should DEMAND that the whole service is much better at the end than at beggining. Look at Chiltern almost too successful with their route modernisation, extra stock, extra trains and there's still the Bicester curve to come.

Just as an  incentive why not give the succesful TOC a bonus based of the reduction of road traffic in the area at the end of the franchise? Sorry saw the rock and the pond  I await the ripples.

Over the past day or so, this topic has developed into a very interesting and lively debate over a couple of (sort of) related issues.

In the interests of clarity, I've now split a few of those slightly divergent posts off from this topic and used them to form a couple of new topics: one on the lessons of Melksham's service levels for the new franchise, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10331.0 , and one on the extent to which locally-resident management may influence service levels at a station, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10333.0 .

I hope this will help to encourage an ongoing discussion on all three subjects, without them getting too inter-mangled here!  :P

CfN  :)

Thanks, Chris ... this had become one heck of a thread to unpickle too!

This isn't REALLY a proper quote as I've used 8F's post as the basis of a "Powepoint Slide"  :D


1. Yes, but "reliable" and "frequent" needs to take priority over paring off a few minutes.  Give me a train every hour that takes 30 minutes in preference to a train every 2 hours that takes 25.

2. Yes - and you suggested a wide commuter range.  People should be able to arrive at some point in the 45 minutes prior to their start, and leave again within 45 minutes of their finish ... be that a start time of 8 or 9, and an end time of 4, 5 or 6.  And they should be able to set off home later too - "sorry, can't stay late - last train" is a real promotion killer

3. Yes - only in exceptional circumstances should a daytime service drop below every 2 hours.

4. The "art train" doubles as the late night connection back from London too.

5. Yes - up to 120 miles, you're in potential commuter land and should be able to get to London by 08:30 and leave back after 21:00; up to 200 miles, your 11 a.m. / 8 p.m. is fine.

5a. Please do not overlook outbound business people - from London, should people be able to reach anywhere within 120 miles by 09:00 and within 200 miles by 10:00 ?

6. Ideally, all trains should run all the time "nearly all seats taken".  I don't want to pay for 2 or 3 seats most of the time because trains only run at 33% to 50% capacity.  And that will lead to *some* standing at peak times.  Perhaps the target should be to avoid the need to stand for more than 30 minutes, and to have a cap on acceptablity of train loading at 120% of the number of seats?

7. Yes - and Sunday services shouldn't start too much after weekday services.  07:30 is NOT too early for the first train.

8. Yes, please!

I have NOT include the rock that you threw into the pond, 8F, because I'm not sure how you would measure that and I think it could become one of those statistical nightmares that cost a fortune to calculate and was prone to all sorts of manipulation - ORCATS raid gone wild thing.

Struck by the similarity of the last response to 8F, and the responses generated by the Cornwall Council survey, http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10064.0 . 

It is an unfortunate legacy of the historical development of our system, that the Network is effectively London-centric, with a majority of service provisions being built around that.  While obviously carrying less passengers, the railway in the regions is no less an important part of the local transport plan.  It would be refreshing for the peripheries of the GW network to be given more consideration in terms of rail service provision.

You could get them - but the stock, needing to carry fewer people, wouldn't ne suitable for long-distance runs to London. Choice to be made....

Agree fully with your comments Grahame

Like 5a forgot that being London centric and spending most of my working life communting. But I did do a lot of trips to palces Leeds and derby being favorites used be regulars for breakfast on the i think the 07:50 St. Pancras Derby in the 70s.

re your point about a reliable regular 30 minute journey time and an unrelialble 25 minute every 2 hours I meet you at 271/2 rilways should be run briskly.

Re the rock I'll conceded that but if you don't throw it you will never know how far the ripples might go. You never know some statistical genius might be able to work out a simple measure. How about a traffic count at one point on the main Chippenham Melksham road?

I'm intrigued by your rock idea, 8F; I was wondering if you had some idea of the magnitude of change that it should aim for, and the size of the reward? (say, x% traffic-->^y million reward).

Hmm, maybe my memory is a bit clouded but I seem to recall Thames Trains as doing a good job for me as a West Drayton commuter with trains starting from Slough or Maidenhead. In those days it wasn't a case of can I find a seat as it is now, it was where would I like to sit. Even in the AM peaks. It's not so good now with the trains starting form further afield at Reading or Oxford.

Thanks Trowres one of the great things about throwing rocks is to get other people to pick up the ripples. I like your idea X% reduction = ^Y million reward. Nice and simple.

We've got the germ of an idea here. Lets see how much further the ripples go.

List is out - Bidders are :

First Great Western Trains Limited (FirstGroup plc)
GW Trains Limited (Arriva UK Trains Limited ^ DB (UK) Investments Limited)
NXGW Trains Limited (National Express Group PLC)
Stagecoach Great Western Trains Limited (Stagecoach Group plc)

Press release from the Department for Transport confirms the list of pre-qualified bidders for the next Greater Western franchise, as well as the Thameslink and Essex Thameside franchises:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20120329/

National Express? spare us!

I want either first or stagecoach to get the new franchise it will be terrible if National express get it although they could surprise us.

Stagecoach - no, as it will end competition for London to the West. Just watch SWT's advances go up in price!
NX - no, for obvious reasons.*
Arriva - no because of XC and because of lack of competition in South Wales.

Looks like it's First for me!

_{*Why have NX even prequalified? I thought they'd been BANNED from UK rail, the reason why NXEA was axed?}

NX were not ever (and IIRC could not be) banned on a 'one out all out' basis, as legislation didn't allow for it.  It was all just so much political hot air, as NXEC and NXEA were "completely separate" companies...

Paul

God forbid Arriva. Their bus operation (at least in Aberystwyth) is incompetent, before they abandoned the TrawsCambria Optare Tempo fleet they frequenty put one of the two special buses meant for the Aberystwyth - Cardiff service on the much shorter Aberystwyth - New Quay - Synod Inn route and have now retimed Aberystwyth - Carmarthen services to a hopelessly unrealistic schedule meaning nearly all services on the route are 5-10mins late. They also are not exactly very good at listening to passenger complaints ('Fix My Transport' told me Arriva won't respond to comments made through that site.) Rail-wise, ATW are looking like being a whole year late introducing class 67 + mrk3 + DVT sets on Cardiff - Wrexham - Holyhead express service(s), yet in the meantime they have still been charging WAG for the push-pull service PLUS charging extra for the 175 that is standing-in for the non-existant mark3 sets.

Not to worry I have been told by some contacts I know that certain members of the WG are getting very annoyed with Arriva ( thats utting it politely).

In fact I am hoping for National express to run the next wales franchise (Just goes to show how much I hate ATW)

Agreed 100%.

I have to be honest and say that First, particularly during Haines and Hopwoods steward ship have been the only lot that have given the impression of knowing what they are about.

I'm still a little uneasy with First Group's decision to walk away early from FGW to save money. Yes I know they were perfectly entitled to do so, but I still don't like that. Shareholders first, government second, passengers last.

I'm also a bit cynical about all the recent improvements that FGW have brought in and crowed about. That just seems like a charm offensive. Many of the recent improvements could've been delivered earlier in the current franchise and doing them now seem like a distraction technique designed to gloss over the problems in the past.

So. New broom please.

SNCF didn't make the first cut for any of the franchises. Interesting.

I agree with you, I don't think it shows great levels of commitment to the future franchise.

I understand the charm-offensive thing, but weren't the 180s and most of the extra sprinters dependant on the introduction of London Midland's 172s, so couldn't have happened much sooner?


My hope for the next Wales franchise is the the idea from Labour's and Plaid's WAG election manifestios of a non-profit operator. WAG seems to have identified TOC profits, one of the sources of wastage of money in the priviatised railway, and the Scottish parlement has identified a different one (the mass re-liverying when TOCs change). Shame the Westminister government is blindly sticking with full privatisation and ignoring all of that (and other huge wastes like having stock leased to TOCs rather than owned by TOCs, or owned by the state with a free lease given to TOCs as part of their franchises).

Of course if TOCs owned the rolling stock there would need to be a totally different model of privatisation, more like the suituation before nationalisation with seemingly perminant operators. That might not work very well today now that railways are predominatly loss-making.

We can look at every one on the short list and find "issues" with them from the past, and / or passengers who are less than keen on them.  But to some extent that's the effect of the system and the environment in which they operate, and to a further extent it's exactly because they've been around a while.

And because they've been around a while, they should be able to get this franchise operation right - especially if they're given the right metrics on which to bid and operate, and the correct incentives.

Written earlier today ...

On the other hand a director of a business is legally required to ensure share holders get the best return on their investment.

RENFE seem to have slipped slightly in their plans for world railway domination as well....

Correct. The DfT tender document for the 2006 Greater Western franchise saw the reduction in West DMU fleet size which caused most of the problems round Bristol. The rest of the problems being mainly due to the ex Wessex Trains / NEx units being somewhat knackered. Now you'd think DfT might have learnt something from that excercise and all those 'fairs fare' protests round Bath / Bristol but it seems not as the GE franchise has been awarded to Abelio on the basis of parking up large chunks of their EMU fleet.

I disagree, the goalpost's have changed dramatically since the current franchise was let, firstly IEP should have been in around about now, the Economy isn't what was forecast and during the last governments time in office there was no chance of any franchise longer than about 7 years.

But the government set the terms of the contract, which clearly gave the holder the option to walk away.  Why would you stick with it and lose money for three more years when you know that you won't get any credit at the retender, because the government will only look at the terms offered going forward. There's been no evidence to date that a good track record counts for anything when it comes to reletting of a franchise. 

Cough ... I agree with John R there, actually ...  ::)

I knew what I meant! My apologies, getting my railway operators mixed up again! :)

I hadn't realised SNCF had actually put in for the GW. That said Messroom Gossip being what it is some would have you believe the Japanese and Chinese were actually in the frame until yesterdays announcement. I think somebody may have got their wires crossed with all this talk of Japanese Bullet Express Electro - diesel Dromedaries doing the rounds at the momant.

Whoever gets the franchise it's going to be a real stinker for at least the first 6 years.
Electrification/IEP/Crossrail/Crossrail EMUS, anyone of which has the potential to cause major problems let alone introducing all four more or less simulatanously. Although if the Crossrail units are ordered in time then they should have shaken down before they venture West of Paddington.

I wouldn't expect large premium payments to appear in any of the bids at least for those 6 years. It might come down to who will ask for the least subsidy.

However, I would like to see it go to whoever puts forward the most ambitious investment plans over above electrificataion IEP and Crossrail. Evergreens 4, 5 & 6!

Quite. You can't really argue with that.


Personally I would like DfT to wander over to Northern Ireland and see how the public transport is organised and operated and see if that model of operation could cope with the UK mainland transport system, seems to work like a charm whenever I go over there and use it. None of this cost cutting to win franchises ver there, just a transport system which works extremely well...

Won't work like that, I expect the cheapest compliant bid which embraces IEP and doesn't cost the taxpayer much wins the day in all probability. The DfT and the TOC can then have one of those mock battles to blame each other when it is found (like 'Operation Princess') that lots of little Bullet EDMU Railbuses swarming around and queuing at the pinch points doesn't give a better railway overall. If Crossrail does come indeed down to Reading then thats all the extra capacity there swallowed up before they have even finished knocking it about...

Interesting to see that the refutations of my point of view all mention the TOC and the governments. Not a peep about the passenger.  ::)

And to pick up on vacman's point about the last government not offering franchises for longer than about 7 years.

Merseyrail. 25 years
Chiltern Railway. 20 years
Arriva Trains Wales. 15 years
TransPennine Express. 11 years.
South West Trains. 10 years
GNER. 10 years (franchise withdrawn by govt. after 2 years)
Northern. 9 years
CrossCountry. 8^ years

As a passenger I'd still prefer First though, based on the pre-qualified choices. From extensive personal experience I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Arriva's management of ATW, and CrossCountry has failed to live up to many of the promises made at the beginning of the franchise. NEx made a reasonable fist of Wales and West: for a while they also did a good job at Wessex/Wales and Borders. However they let Wessex go to rack and ruin by the end of the franchise, and their track record elsewhere (NXEC) leaves a lot to be desired.

I have not used their services very often, but Stagecoach appears to do a very respectable job at SWT (cue howls of disagreement from Hogrider County). However, were Stagecoach to control the GW and SW franchises that would give them a near monopoly on all rail transport southwest of London.

None of the choices is perfect, but weighing the various factors up in my mind I'd still much rather see First keep GW.

Of the four, I'd probably go with National Express. Initially I thought no, coloured by their NXEC fiasco. But much has changed in the NX rail division since then.

They certainly have a skilled person leading their bid team in Elaine Holt.

Unfortunately her tenure at EC might best be described as controversial.

This is my concern, that no matter who wins the franchise, that we will be stuck with a lot of new, shorter trains. Routes that most would consider to be main lines would be downgraded to short DMUs* with high density bus seating and no catering.
Such matters as seating layout, we are told have not been decided yet. This is no doubt true, but does anyone really expect a new DMU* to have a proper intercity internal fit out ? I certainly dont, and as for catering, forget it ! Suburban DMUs* dont have catering.

The new multiple units could no doubt be run in multiple to give longer trains, but previous experiences suggest that most will run as single units, especialy as the claimed or expected reliability/availability is most unlikely to be achieved.

*With provision to also use electric power, a grand idea in theory but adds cost, complexity and things to go wrong

New names and reinventing your self in a blaze of glitz proves nothing to me. And we had NEx running Wessex Trains previously. They didn't know what a C5P DMU body overhaul was then either. Just vynil everything it will be fine. Won't it?

First Group for me please.

BR for me! Or Intercity NSE and Regional if you want.

I think it's a little early to be complaining about how the IEP (note: this stands for Intercity Express Programme) fleet will shake down. No final build plans, let alone internal layout, has been settled on. Nor has an order been placed.

One thing I can be certain of, whatever the new Intercity fleet's internal layout, it won't have high density bus seating.  ::)


I don't remember a 'blaze of glitz'. Just quietly undoing the mess left by Bowker, balancing the books and looking to the future.


Wos one of them then?  ;)

I wouldnt worry too much about IEP as the orders hasn't been placed and a number of people in the industry are still campaigning to get it scrapped particulary do to the cost's of these new Intercity trains where Alstom have offered a much cheaper alternative.

As a frequent user of ATW I certainly hope they don't get the GW franchise in fact I would much rather National express got it than Arriva. I fact I will be glad when the Wales franchise comes up for renewal.

The whole island of Ireland has a derogation from the EU directive though, IIRC because of the small scale nature of their operations. It can't be used as a precedent.

Paul

I AM worrying about IEP, alot. My opinion is scrapping IEP would now be politically unacceptable, due to all the publicity the government has been spouting about the assembly plant in the north-east. Unless Alstom offer to put a similar plant in the same area, that's that. I hope these people in the industry of whom you speak will therefore switch to just campaign for Hitachi's IEP to be built just as a plain EMU, no bi-mode, no axillerary generators, and restricted to a few lines that are relativly cheap to clear for the longer coaches. I think taid industry campaigners would have more chance of success with their campaign then, but DaFT will still take some pursuading sadly.

So therefore Europe should perhaps look at Ireland and see if it might be worth granting derogations on the basis that Ireland seems to be quietly getting on with it rather than wasting taxpayers money on pointless refranchising programs etc. NIR and Iarnrod Eireann can get on with planning their investment and operations for the longer term as they kno they are going to be there in the longer term rather than kicked off after an arbitary period.

I don't think anyone can claim the current set up is entirely satisfactory and certainly costs more to operate than BR did although direct comparison isn't actually possible.

If you don't know what a coded unit periodic major body repair + strip and repaint is you'll easily get a job on NEx fleet I would have thought.
 ;)

Alstom arern't a preferred bidder though, are they.  So they can talk about anything they like, but for them to actually offer a solution there would have to be a new competition - in which case who's to say Siemens won't have a better product?

You seem to giving far too much weight to the ususal internet rumour mill - and if you think the DfT are listening to it, then I think you are going to be disappointed.

Paul

Well, you certainly seem to have already decided  that the seating layout won't meet the requirements of the train technical specification, because you keep repeating this point.  But with no evidence whatsoever, to be honest, other than personal opinion.

The problem with insisting on an 'intercity' spec is that much of the eastern end of the route, such as Oxford, Reading and Newbury to Paddington services actually require a high capacity London commuter type service - because that's what the east end of the GWML has turned into over the last 30 years.  Effectively, Reading is an outer suburban station, in the same way as a places like Guildford is.

Paul

Which is why FGW removed all those grotty old IC70 seats and replaced then with Grammers in a higher density seating layout. In order to provide more commuters with seats. Which would most people prefer to do? Sit in a Grammer seat or stand in the isle next to an IC70?

So maybe the answer is to seperate the two flows and run the longer distance trains rightaway through Reading and Newbury? The answer to that is probably no as passengers from the West of England tend to get on and off at Reading for the Heathrow Coach, XC services etc..

The Japanese Bullet Dromedary will in all probablility look like a long wheelbase Voyageur with a coathanger on the roof of one coach. Both internally and externally. Think of a 22x and a class 395 getting overly familiar in a siding round the back of the depot and you'll get the general idea.

Hang on - that's playing with statistics and then blurring the results to phrase an emotive question.  Clever!  ;D ;D

---

Let's say a carriage can take 70 in comfort, 80 in a squeeze
Let's take a 100 minutes ride from Paddington to Bristol ... it might load as follows:

25 minutes with 90 passengers
10 minutes with 75 passengers
15 minutes with 60 passengers
15 minutes with 52 passengers
15 minutes with 45 passengers
20 minutes with 60 passengers

Total passenger minutes = 6555
Standing minutes (80 seats) = 250
Standing minutes (70 seats) = 550

So for a saving 300 standing minutes, you are committing people to 6005 minutes in squeezed seats rather than conformatble ones.

The question, then, is:
"do you prefer
a) to stand for 9% of the time and be really comfortable when sat down
b) to stand for 4% of the time but be squeezed in when sat down"

These figures are, I believe, realistic for a train at a very busy time.  At quiet times you'll be standing 0% of the time, and the choice is between comfortable/seated and squeezed/seated.

Yes but I always thought those IC70 seats were uncomfortable junk anyway. You had to be a funny shape or be good at slouching to get comfortable in them which is probably why most railway enthusiasts liked them.

In essence what your saying is that the longer distance trains, ie those beyond Oxford and Bristol should run rightaway through Swindon, Didcot and Reading and the Thames Valley commuters should have some sort of short distance Hi density jobbie of their own, possibly based on the proposed 15 minute interval Bristol services formed of Japanese Bullet Railbuses. That way the longer distance trains from Plymouth / Pzed / Swansea don't have to have so many seats per coach as the stuff used purely to shift 'disgusted of Goring' around.

That's exactly what I suggested in my submission to the franchise consultation. It's currently a very unsatisfactory compromise between the needs of longer distance travellers and commuters from Swindon inwards. I'm sure a few 110mph Class 350s shuttling between Swindon and London in 12 coach formation would soak up much of the demand from Swindon, Didcot and Reading, and prevent the situation whereby full price travellers to South Wales or Bristol have to stand for the first hour out of London.  You could even tempt commuters to use them by offering cheaper season tickets than if they use the HSS.       

Problem with all that is going to be pathways as I see it. Your 110 mph 350's aren't going to get very far up the two track section from Swindon (Bourton / Shrivenham if your lucky) before a 125 mph Japanese Bullet Dromedary from Bristol or South Wales is chasing along behind it. From what I understand Line 5 & 6 from Ladbrooke Grove inwards are going to be dedicated Crossrail tracks and thats going to compound pathing extra things even more irrespective of who runs the GW. The other thing being of course is that if you remove the Swindon / Didcot traffic from the proposed 15 minute interval Bristol - London service I doubt Bristol warrants a IEP train to Paddington every 15 minutes on its own with the other traffic taken out.

However if you call Bristol the end of the 'suburban' patch and run IEP every 15 minutes with saloons of no higher seating density than the current HST trailers and run 10 car in the peak / 5 car off peak that sort of sorts that out. 'Shop' style catering. Combine the Bristol and Thames valley flows using IEP means you can run most of the other services with lower density seated stock, saloon layouts in the layout of HST trailers as they were before refurbishment. As the Bristol services are supposedly going to be all electric as well as the Oxfords you just build your EMU only version of the Bullet Dromedary as high denisty stock as per current HST saloon layout. It cant stray out of its Patch as the wires aren't going beyond Newbury,Bristol or Oxford (except towards Wales when somebody makes their mind up how far to wire it and what if any diversionary routes to electrify). 

According to the latest issue of RAIL (No 693) only line 6 will be lost to Crossrail BUT with the depot at North Pole coming into use for the IEP trains it will only have access to the main lines so take up paths that side.  (Old Oak has the flyover so can access both the main and the relief lines).

Is that the Rail that comes out this Wednesday?

That's a change to what was previously proposed, I think. The track layout that's been on ORR's website for a while shows a four track section alongside the 'reversing facility' but only a relatively minor change would be needed to have a 5th track for a bit further out from Paddington.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

No reason why that can't have been altered since of course, so that isn't intended as a criticism of Rail.  (Yet...)  ;D

Paul

Yes - came through the letter box this morning.  There is a double page spread on Crossrail.

I wouldn't read too much into anything in 'Rail' magazine, I gave up on it years ago when they started going on about 47's with traction main alternators in them. Daily star of the railway magazine world that comic is.

I can't see quite how you manage to bore twin tunnels under London and then constipate the thing at the Westbourne Park end by providing only one dedicated running line. As far as I know both lines 5 & 6 are going to Crossrail from Ladbrooke Grove although I see no real reason to provide it with dedicated lines at all as long as some sort of double lead Jn is provided to access Crossrail somewhere West of Westbourne Park.   

At less than 4 secs per mile difference at top speed, I don't think the lower maximum speed is going to be a material difference, although I'll admit that the call at Didcot could prove more problematical, particularly if the intent was to keep the 350s on the fast lines (which I think would be needed to keep the overall time differential limited). So I'm not saying that there aren't problems, and you've raised some valid points. But I would challenge the assumption that Bristol is to be treated as the end of a long commuter run, with high density stock and calls every 10 to 15 minutes. 

The Bristol commuters are being treated that way now as the layout of the HST's is optimised to the requirements of moving the volume of traffic from Swindon onwards towards Paddington. So moving them from Bristol to Padd in IEP trains with a saloon layout of no greater seating density than currently provided on HST standard class trailers is not a worsening of their lot and enables to the traffic to be handled with one type of train with no extra pathways to worry about. My concern with IEP is of course that with 26 metre coaches the actual cross section of the coach is going to be reduced to around class 153 dimensions or less to get them into Bristol TM in the first place. Lateral width is just as great a factor as seating pitch, a trip on a Voyageur will remind you of that fact.

Once you get the Thames Valley Traffic moving on the Bristol services as it does now the other longer distance runs can have saloon layouts with less seats and more legroom. 2 hour journey times being the cut off point. 

Yes 10 seconds a mile on the top speed doesn't sound a lot but remember IEP will accelerate a lot faster than the current HST does, particularly the electric only version with no whacking great bus engines or fuel tanks underneath to weigh it down. Its not going to be like the current HST's being left for dead by the Heathrow Connects as both trains come off the 30/50 restriction at Ladbrook Grove heading out of town. IEP will soon catch up any stray 350 units getting in the way if the service not run to Japanese levels orf relaibility or greater. And this is UK infrastructure we are talking about here. 

Another way of looking at this is that Hitachi's data sheet reckoned that their 26m coach train will be 2.7m wide, compared to a normal Mk3's 2.74m 

That's actually wider than a 444, which is quoted as 23.6m x 2.688m on the data plates; yet when I compared the interior width of a 444 at shoulder height, it's just the same as an HST (to within a cm or so).   What I suspect is that the external dimension is not as directly relevant to usable space as might be thought, and I certainly don't think the Voyager is a good precedent, as it fairly obviously has a lot of 'thickness' in the body, as well as a tilt profile, which IEP won't need and therefore won't have.

Paul 

That doesn't actually follow from what Rail is saying.  They could be saying there could still be room for 5 lines for the Paddington station approaches, widening out to 6 nearer the station AND 2 lines for Crossrail.   It really depends how they lay out all the various routes towards OOC sidings, as far as I can see.  The diagram I linked to earlier has various sections showing 7 tracks across the formation, so presumably it is wide enough?

Paul

The thickness of the bodyside is a matter of the construction and isn't related to the tilt. Other things such as the strength of the bodyshell and expected crashworthiness have more relevance to how much of the internal volume is used up by the coach structure. The Mk3 doesn't meet modern standards so it would be reasonable to assume the IEP bodysides will require to be thicker depending on what they are using to build the vehicles.

What is obvious with the Voyagers is that there is a massive amount of dead space above the window line and at roof height. There is a 8" cut out in the roof in the centre with a flat panel where the dynamic brake grid sits (to keep it within gauge) but no corresponding dip in the internal roof line or centre lighting strip.

2.7 metres is approximately class 158 cross section. I suspect however the IEP bodysides are going to be somewhat thicker than the lightweight aluminium construction used on the 158 though.

I'd wait and see what the other industry sources and magazines come up with first, Rail isn't noted for its in depth research and factual reporting. I tend to wait and see what Modern Railways come up with before passing judgement.

I guess it will only be the mainline in Cornwall since the council is look at taking over the branch lines

My bad punctuation, I didn't intend to link the two features.  ???  I should have said the Voyager has thick walls; and it also has a tilt profile etc...

Paul

You're perpetuating the myth that everyone travelling from Bristol to London is a commuter. Many are business travellers, who are not well catered for by the current configuration (nor are families, at the risk of reigniting a regular debate).

4 secs a mile actually, so it takes 15 miles to close the gap by a minute. 

I grant that I have no actual evidence as to what the internal layout of the new trains will be. I do however have considerable experience of new shorter trains on other routes.
I dont consider that 4 car voyagers are an improvement over HSTs or loco hauled coaches, they are too short and have high density bus seats.
I dont consider that the replacement trains used between London and Portsmouth are an improvement over those used previously as they have 2+3 seating that used to be confinned to suburban routes.
And did not a new franchisee recently replace 12 car trains with 8 car, explaining that this was OK as the new shorter trains had higher density seating.
I expect that the new trains will have seating a bit worse than a high density HST, I would expect two tables per vehicle, with the rest of the seats in bus layout, in accordance with accepted modern practice. I will be very suprised if the seats are mainly facing seats with tables as used to be the norm for inter city services.
And as for catering I suspect that this will be limited to a trolley, or perhaps a microbuffet if we are very lucky. DMUs dont have kitchens !

I forgot to add another reason as to why this will be a very difficult franchise to run for the first 6 years and the large elephant in the room called ERTMS which somehow has to be integrated with electrification and new and old rolling stock. Not easy as they've found on the Cambrian and that was not  electrified at the same time, uses one type of rollingstock and probably has less trains in day than between Reading and Paddington has in 2/3 hours..

We'll stick with the schooolboy maths and ignore any difference in acceleration between an electric IEP and a class 350 then? Your 15 miles figure means IEP will be getting checked down somewhere around the loops at Challow, long before its sat at Foxhall Jn waiting for the 350 to clear the up fast platform at Didcot. There seem to be a lot of signal checks around Didcot now without adding any more trains to the mix.

And yes I suppose it might be said that the current HST saloon layout isn't optimal for all markets but I doubt (with DfT holding the purse strings and having the ultimate say) that any new long distance stock built these days has seating density of less than that provided now in the HST fleet. That seating layout doesn't appear to have deterred anyone from using the HST's.

Which is probably why the Cambrian was used as a self contained trainset in order to test and prove the concept of ERTMS. You would hope that enough has been learnt from that excercise to enable it to be rolled out with greater expediency across the network. As I understand it the level of ERTMS proposed for the GW is initially the level one variation which retains the lineside signals. One of the problems being is that you have to install ERTMS in and around the current GW-ATP system as essentially ERTMS level one is the latterday replacement for GW-ATP. I don't think the health and safety mandarins are going to be to happy with the idea of shutting down and removing GW-ATP before ERTMS is in situ to replace it. Nor do you want to be in a situation of having to put GW-ATP into IEP as the equipment is essentially obsolete and there are already delays in getting things like Trackside beacons and cab displays repaired when they fail.

Voyagers do not have 'high density bus seats'.  ::) A Standard Class coach has a maximum of 66 seats (Coach B). Compare that with a FGW HST Standard Class coach B: Prior to refurb with old IC70 seats: 76. After refurb with Grammer: 80 LD, 84 HD.

Voyager http://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/SiteImages/Assets/3/VOYAGER_Seat_Plan.pdf
FGW HST (old) http://www.rail-britain.co.uk/downloads/FGW_HST_Coach_ABCD.gif
FGW HST (new) http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/HSTHD.jpg

I've done some 'fag packet' maths. A Voyager trailer coach B passenger saloon is approximately 16 metres long (from door to rear of toilet). A FGW HST Standard Class coach B passenger saloon is approximately 18 metres long (from rear of toilet/luggage rack at each end).

Voyager. Length to seats ratio: 0.24, Or roughly 1 row of seats every 96cm.
FGW HST (old): 0.23.
FGW HST (new HD): 0.21, Or roughly 1 row of seats every 85cm.

I do agree however that Voyager sets are too short. But it must be remembered that the service frequency over the core CrossCountry network is today double that of the frequency prior to the Voyagers introduction. Passenger numbers have also increased way beyond those forecast at the the time of the introduction of Voyagers.

All that said, I'm still no fan of the Class 220/221, but their Standard Class seating density is actually 'better' than FGW's. And they ain't bus seats!  ;)

It would be interesting to actually measure the HST trailer and Voyager interiors up properly to see if your fag packet maths is correct rather than trying to extrapolate too much data from a 'not to scale' seat plan. Also remember that both HST and Voyager have 'priority' seats at the ends at greater spacing than the other seats in the saloons.

I still find FGW HST's more comfortable and less noisey than Voyageurs in standadr class. However apart from that annyoing bit of pointless conduit stuck on the bodyside below the window line which digs into your upper arm AXC HST standard class HST trailers are slightly more comfortable and better lit than the FGW Standard HST trailers

It would be very interesting and a refreshing change for a new operator to take over. Will be interesting to see a new livery and company name, and to see how they would change the timetables, including hopefully bringing back the London-Bristol express services.  However I can allmost gaurantee that it will be First Great Western again and we'll see this into the 2020's and 2030's!  I will be happy to be proved wrong though!

Some of would sooner see First carry on as latterly they seem to be running the show most competently. None of the other names inspire confidence to be honest. And some of have been around long enough to have had direct experience of one of the names on the list and have absolutely no wish to see them back.

If First do win the contract, there could be a problem with the clash of accronyms with Fishguard & Goodwick station (FGW). It might be helpful if they re-named themselves to Great Western - First Trains (or something like that).

Can't see that being an issue. FGW (if they win the franchise) won't be serving FGW. Just like SWT, who don't serve Slaithwaite, or SET who go nowhere near Settle.  ;)

Besides that, the official acronyms for TOCs are 2 letter codes.

Not a problem currently is it?

I think only the really confused will enter a CRS station code where they meant to type in a train operator....

I think the welsh sence of humour has escaped you lot lol

Yes this is what's needed.  And before electrification too in my opinion.  At peak morning and evening weekday times, as well as the busier times at weekends too there should be additional services introduced.  Swindon-London Paddington services (and vice versa) calling intermedietely at Didcot Parkway and Reading for the London bound commuters.  Whilst some services to/from Bristol/Weston-Super-Mare/Taunton could run non-stop between Chippenham and London Paddington.  And South Wales services running non-stop between Swindon(or even Bristol Parkway) and London Paddington.  This would help segregate all the London bound commuters and the non-commuter people travelling long distance to Bristol, Taunton, Cardiff, etc.   Rather than the way it is now with the Bristol-London services stopping every 10-15 minutes to accommodate all the commuters from Swindon, Didcot, and Reading.

But sadly such a change I really can't see happening, under any operator. 

When electrification is complete in 2017 and the new 4 trains per hour between Bristol Temple Meads and London Paddington, surely though  two of these services per hour will be proper express/limited stop?  I'd imagine that 2 services per hour will probably retain the familiar Bath Spa>Chippenham>Swindon>Didcot Parkway(1 service per hour)>Reading>London Paddington calling pattern.  But for the 2 additional services one of them could run non-stop to Reading from Temple Meads, and the other could call Bristol Parkway and then non-stop to London Paddington.

On the FGW issue, it'd probablly only be a problem on fourms like this, where the acronyms are used quite a bit. Elsewhere there should be enough context to make it clear whether somebody is talking about the station or the train operator.

Not a problem yet I agree, but the station code has only recently been revealed and the station isn't open yet.


FGW units (though perhaps staffed by ATW west of Cardiff) would serve FGW if I had my way (I think the daytime boat train should be an extension of the Portsmouth - Cardiff service), with it going to Carmarthen (and to Milford Haven every two hours) the rest of the time.

As for calling patterns on Intercity routes from Paddington, I suggested the following (hourly) services in my responce to the franchise consultation:

^   Fast to Swansea calling at Reading, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea
^   Cheltenham Spa services calling at Reading, Swindon and Gloucester (minor stations between Swindon and Cheltenham served by local trains if feasible)
^   Semi-fast to Cardiff Central calling at Reading, Didcot Parkway, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport and Cardiff Central
^   Semi-fast to Bristol Temple Meads calling at Reading, Didcot Parkway, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads
^   Fast to Bristol Temple Meads calling at Reading, Chippenham, Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads (if any service is going to pass non-stop through Reading, I suggest this one)
^   To Bristol Temple Meads calling at Reading, Swindon, Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads
^   As above minus Swindon stop
^   Semi-fast to Oxford calling at Slough, Reading, Didcot Parkway and Oxford (perhaps with one or two extra stops between Reading and Paddington)
^   Semi-fast to Worcester/Hereford, calling at Slough, Reading, Didcot Parkway, Oxford and Cotswolds line stations
^   Semi-Fast to Westbury (with extensions to Exeter) (serving all stations not covered by sufficient local trains, given the following)
^   To Plymouth (and beyond) running non-stop to Reading. From there Westbury stops might be provided in some (perhaps alternate) hours and perhaps occasional Newbury stops, but otherwise non-stop Reading to Taunton also.

I'm sure I read somewhere that what I have highlighted is in fact going to be the plan when IEP and electrification comes to fruition. Lord only knows how they will path the things through the pinch points but thats the plan. And thats DfT aspiration and not train operator specific. Two of the four trains per hour from Bristol to Padd are in fact going to run via Parkway / Hullavington anyway and not via Bath.

Found it;

Um, let axe the Didcot stops on Cotswold trains please! :o

I'm sure that's uppermost in the government's mind: introducing a new operator so that a new set of liveries, uniforms and company names will keep the trainspotters amused. And as for this "Bristol-London express" service that you bang on about at every given opportunity, how on earth does it make sense for any operator to leave behind customers wanting to use the service at stations like Chippenham and Swindon to keep a few gricers with stopwatches on board amused? Mark Hopwood has stated on the record (although I forget where, forgive me) that although he can understand the aspiration, it simply wouldn't be practical.

Not quite sure how you'd have coped in the days of BR, XPT, when liveries, uniforms etc remained constant for years and years.

Aren't they moving towards the ScotRail model, where a standard livery is applied, and the TOC just slap their logo on?

Isn't that why EC have painted their trains grey?

I'm not aware of the existence of any such policy - think you must have dreamt it. However in many cases where there's an imminent change of franchise trains will be repainted in a "neutral" livery to make it easy for the new franchisee to apply their colours. East Coast is meant to be a temporary measure until the franchise is re-privatized, hence most repaints have been into a neutral-ish grey livery with limited branding. The same logic was applied whilst the SRA was operating South Eastern Trains, and to the current Abellio Greater Anglia franchise which only lasts a matter of months before a longer term deal is let.

The FGW West 150/1 units which have received simple paint based liveries have done so because paint is considerably less expensive to apply, particularly with liveries based on on or two colours. It also produces a much tidier, cleaner looking vehicle which maintains a higher standard of finish far longer than those appalling Local Lines vynils which are already looking shabby. Vynils also conceal corrosion issues extremely well as was found with the ex NEx / Wessex Trains 150/2's. In short, Vinyls are a no brainer on older stock.

I see someone has found a 'Heart of Wessex' vynil and stuck it on the side of one of the 150/1's. A reminder of the rusty past.....

Quite. Livery froth is not a good and proper reason to support a change of franchise operator.

I would like to know what the maintainance depot strategies of each potential franchise operator are. First quickly removed DMU maintainance from Canton Car Sheds and built up facilites at SPM and Exeter as a very positive first step. This gave First directo control of its DMU maintainance. National Express were happy to subcontract maintainance to ATW at Canton Car Sheds when they ran Wessex Trains and Arriva obviously operate Canton Car Sheds. Any move to take GW DMU maintainance back to Canton Car Sheds must be regarded as a very retrograde and backward step.,

The appalling state in which National Express handed over the "west" DMU fleet at the end of the Wessex franchise would be reason enough for me to feel very nervous about their potential stewardship of the entire GW area.

I have kept some pictures on file to remind me how bad some of the actually 150/2's got, not that I need any reminding. Reason enough not to want NEx anywhere near the GW. I don't think 'Appalling' covers it adequately to be honest.

What I'm saying is that no the most important factor in the new franchise is not a change of livery and company name.  But I am saying that it would be interesting and indeed a refreshing change for a new operator and new liveried trains.  After First Great Western has been with us for quite some years now, especially on the mainline routes out of London Paddington.

I remember well and have fond memories of the good ol' days of BR by the way.  Very much missed.

Whilst from a rail journey enthusiast's point of view it would be brilliant if we were to see the return of the limited stop/express services between Bristol(Temple Meads) and London Paddington again.  It does indeed make for a far more relaxing and comfortable journey to be stopping at only one or two intermediate stops enroute rather than this faffing about stopping every 10-15 minutes between Bristol and Reading(yes I know, for the services that don't stop at Didcot Parkway there is a half hour duration between Swindon and Reading).  I've even heard non rail-enthusiast people comment on this too.  But it's not just about that.  As others have commented on this thread regarding this issue too.  The current Bristol Temple Meads-London Paddington(and vice versa) services are no longer the express services they should be, and are more like long distance commuter services.    Board a Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea service out of Paddington after 3:30pm on a weekday and mostly the passengers onboard will be commuters heading home to Reading, Didcot, and Swindon.  And many passengers for Bristol, Newport, Cardiff, etc are left standing for the first hour of the journey!

As forum members such as John R and Rhydgaled have very sensibly suggested.  Some peak time services between London Paddington and Bristol(and onto Weston-Super Mare and Taunton), and South Wales should have stops such as Reading, Didcot Parkway and Swindon cut.  And additionally new services between Swindon and London Paddington to serve primarily the commuters to/from London.  I'm sure it would be possible to path two such services per hour in each direction.  This would then help segregate all the commuters and the long distance non-commuter passengers travelling to places like Chippenham, Bath, Bristol, Weston-Super-Mare, Newport, Cardiff, Swansea.

As for leaving behind passengers at Chippenham, I wouldn't be in favour of that.  Personally I'd like to see such services as London Paddington>Chippenham>Bath Spa>Bristol Temple Meads.  I'd certainly retain two services per hour between Bath, Chippenham and London. 

Mark Hopwood at FGW may well think it's impractical to implement such changes, but perhaps another managing director of the possible new operator taking over the franchise may take a different view?

Whatever happens, bring on 2017 and electrification and the new 4 trains per hour between Bristol Temple Meads and London Paddington, where we'll at long last see the true limited stop/express/non-stop services back again.  I'll be travelling on those services. 

Excellent and sensible suggestions there.  Let's hope they take note and give it some good consideration!

But secretly your bored with Dark Blue and Neon Squiggles and hanker for something else to keep your 'red pen' amused.  ;D

However repainting rolling stock (or more usually these days sticking garishly coloured Vynil on haphazardly all over the bodywork) and changing all the uniforms for another ill fitting offering from Flanagan and Allen just because a franchise has changed owners is just wasting money. Money that should be spent on more important things. Trains dont go any better just because you stick another livery on them or stick lime green ties on the staff. Only fools believe that.

There is an old saying that holds true regarding 'Better the Devil you know'. And you'd be surprised how many people who work for FGW actually think that. During 2005 I wanted First to win the franchise. And during 2012, seven years further down the track I still do.

I expect if Mark Hopwood thought it was feasible to run services rightaway through Reading and lay on extra services for the commuters with the existing infrastructure and rolling stock he would have done so by now. Anyone who uses the services on the GWML will tell you Reading and the approaches each end are the pinch point. So the services booked to run rightaway through Reading will take their turn in the queue at Kennet Bridge and Tilehurst along with the services booked to call at Reading. As I understand it the through road is finishing anyway as part of the Reading remodelling. You might of course get some doughnut who's never been near the GWML come in with a new TOC and tell you their going to do it but until Reading is sorted it isnt happening.

Sorry, but it covenanted into the sale of the land between Robert Gordon (Squire of Kemble) and the Cheltenham and Great Western Union Rly Co that all trains are to call at Kemble, so lay off with this minor stations lark!!

Admittedly, I believe the last precedent on this type of contract clause was the closure of Badminton Station, but I wonder if it would happen today if they tried?

Oh, didn't know that. Anyway, what I mean there is that the London services wouldn't call at the stations between Swindon and Gloucester to speed them up and there'd be an hourly all stops service from Swindon to Cheltenham (or further up) to serve the other stations.

Some of the calling patterns there are influenced by my desire to save IEP guage clearance costs by using Intercity 225s beyond Cardiff. Swansea, Carmarthen and Pembroke Dock (the latter two with a diesel loco taking replacing the class 91 beyond Swansea) alone wouldn't use enough of them, so there's a Bristol fast (via Bath) for IC225s to operate that wouldn't call at Reading if passing non-stop through Reading is allowed  and I tried to keep down the number of stops on the Cheltenhams so that they could be IC225 operated (instead of the Bristols) to save IEP clearance from Swindon to Cheltenham.

I understand the desire for faster (London) Swindon Cheltenham services by missing out the Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse stops, but you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. From the station usage figures posted elsewhere in the coffee shop, Kemble has about 300,000 passengers a year and Stroud some 400,000. I helped out in the Kemble booking office in the 1970s and early 80s and the proportion of 1st Class passengers paying full fare out of the total number of tickets sold was said to be the highest in the country. It was not unusual to take ^900 for the '9am' alone when average wages were ^30 per week. Throughout the day 80% of all tickets sold were to London and whilst I have no modern day information I don't think it is a lot different, albeit with more season and advance ticket holders. Making Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse passengers change at Swindon would be a retrograde step and I doubt revenue loss would be made up by additional passengers at Gloucester or Cheltenham attracted by faster journey times. Slicker working when reversing at Gloucester would be more beneficial.

I would be interested in understanding the clearance work for IEPs from Swindon to Cheltenham. The line was laid out to broadgauge and the current tracks follow the same solum, so I am not sure where the pinch points would be. The Platforms are straight enough so I cannot see any side-swipe from the longer, thinner carriages. Presumably the only real issue is Stonehouse with its two carriage length platforms which really could do with lengthening. I expect Network Rail would charge about ^10 million to do that - my builder said he would do the pair for ^75k!!

       

Nearly all rail users want to see the minimum number of stops in the service between their boarding point and destination station. Ideally they would like to see no intermendiate stops. However this is living in cloud cuckoo land. The TOC has to weigh up a lot of factors in determining the stopping pattern of its trains and the result will never be ideal for anyone. The TOC's ideal would be no stops between start and end stations as every stop adds to fuel costs. It first has to consider what its franchise specification determines what it must provide and the present time is for all users to make their wishes known with a new franchise coming up. However those making their aspirations should not be disappointed when their wishes do not appear in the final spec. Its that old story - a necessary compromise and if you get just one out of a dozen aspirations in the final spec then you will have done well. Within its discretion, a TOC will include the requisite number of stops that will maximise its revenue and thus profitability whilst annoying as few of its users as possible.
Regarding Reading stops, this request to reduce the number of trains stoping at RDG is a hardy annual but as Mark Hopwood has pointed out (and most FGW MDs before), if more trains had Reading stops deleted you would instead see more trains waiting in the distance to get through the station but unable to because of the train in front stopping at Reading. More capacity at Reading with the current rebuilding of Reading station might increase the possibility but with many 3 minute gaps in paths, there will still be the possibility that non-Reading stop trains heading out either side of Reading would be held up by a train that has stopped.
Re the suggestion that Cotswolds trains stop at Didcot, that would in deed be popular with many CL rail users. There are probably more CL users whose destination is Didcot than Slough. However the Slough stops were kept in after the last franchise spec because of the protests of Slough users losing some of there HST trains to PAD. Stops in CL trains at Didcot are just not feasible because to get into Didcot from Oxford means crossing other tracks and with more and more trains running there is too much congestion. This is why fast trains to London from Oxford run by FGW and Cross Country had their Didcot stops removed some years ago.

Thanks. I do feel like a lone voice sometimes trying to point this out. I'm sure however that someone sitting in an armchair knows more about the limitations of Reading than someone who spends a fair amount of time stopping at TR28 or TR36 due to a train standing in the down platform at Reading. And I think you'll find that if you ask people about non stop services you'll always get the responce that their home station should be the first calling point and b*gger anyone else.

Does a new livery on the trains cure all this? Does a 'refreshing change' overcome all the inherent pinch points on the GWML network? Ermmmmmm No.

Sounds like Swindon - Cheltenham might be fairly easy to clear for the over-long IEP coaches then. Good, IEP's acceleration would probablly handle an all-stops between Swindon and Cheltenham much better than an Intercity225. That said, the line from Cardiff through to Haverfordwest was orriginally broad gauge I believe yet I've read several opinions that there would be some significant issues for IEP clearance between Cardiff to Carmarthen. From what I've read, there also doesn't seem to be much hope of getting an IEP to fit to Pembroke Dock, which (along with wanting to get electrification as far as Swansea, avoid underfloor diesel engines west of Swansea on IC services and to avoid (dead) 'diesels under the wires' between Swansea and London) is why I think bringing IC225s to Great Western (or creating similar trains with mark3s and new locos) is important.

Why do you want to provide slower trains using older stock beyond Swansea and what do you propose to use as motive power to drag them with? The 67's as I understand it are all in use, unless your going to build a follow on order for 68's on the back of the DRS build former VT class 57/3's (2750 flywheel bhp / 2150 rail hp with no ETS demand) are all that is available. Please note class 57 has no multiple working or remote control capability and the fire system requires it to be manned while the engine is running as things stand at the moment. There is no room within the locomotive to install a TDM cabinet in the former boiler room as the rectifier cubicle occupies the available space. Even the ETS contactors are outside the locomotive located in the fuel tank battery box area.

I'm not sure I understand this fixation with 91's /  Mk4's anyway to be honest.

As someone who hangs out the window preying for TR28 and TR36 to be off most days, I can confirm you are not a lone voice on this ;D

What are you - a vampire? :o ::) ;D

Don't think so. He wasn't on the Up Sleeper tonight (and it's a full moon too)...
 ;) ;D

Having now seen the drawing in Rail, it seems to me that they've gone for a negative story about the loss of one of six tracks, whereas if they'd done a comparison with the 2007 Crossrail drawing I think they've actually provided an additional length of track 5 towards Paddington.  Surely the point is that with nearly all the relief line services heading towards Crossrail, including Heathrow Connect, there should be plenty of capacity anyway.  Presumaby ORR would have allowed for the infrastructure that was intended when approving the Crossrail track access options?

I see they also explicitly report that Paddington P13 will close - am I right in supposing that the probable benefit of this will be to turn P12 into a continuous long platform, of similar capability to any other main platform - and P14 will be the only short platform remaining?

[As an aside - perhaps this and the associated earlier posts should have been in the main Crossrail thread...]

Paul 

IEP trains, as planned, will have 26 metre-long coaches - FACT
26-metre carriges are not expected to be able to fit through Narberth tunnel - OPINION
Intercity 125s currently operate to Pembroke Dock, and hence do fit through Narberth tunnel - FACT
Mark4 carriges from Intercity 225s have a C3 mark on them and are a similar size to class 175 vehicles, which have operated to Pembroke Dock, and hence should fit through Narberth tunnel to serve Pembroke Dock - DEDUCTION FROM FACTS
IEP (especially the bi-mode) will be 'diesels under the wires' (although with the diesel engines switched off, they still add weight and power consumption) - FACT
Intercity 225s are electric, 140mph trains - FACT (ok so they need cab signalling to go above 125, but so does anything else)
The planned operation of IEP trains beyond Cardiff to Swansea and Carmarthen is likely to encounter clearace issues, which will cost money - OPINION
Underfloor diesel engines will degrade the quaility of service beyond the wires - OPINION

As I see it, this leaves a few options:

• Let DaFT do things the way they are planning, leaving diesels under the wires to Cardiff and spending money on clearing the line from Cardiff to Swansea and Carmarthen for bi-mode IEPs running on diesel power*. Pembroke Dock & Tenby lose London trains and future potential for restoration of London services to Milford Haven and Fishguard trains is also lost
• As above, but with Intercity 125s running on diesel power all the way from Paddington to maintain Pembroke Dock - London services
• Ban IEP trains west of Cardiff, saving guage clearance costs and a number of bi-mode IEPs (which can be electric units for East Coast instead, saving the cost of a few diesel engines), and electrify to Swansea. This however requires use of old stock (mark4 or mark3 coaches) that will fit our loading guage, or a seperate order for new stock that fits. New stock likely to be too expensive, so use mark3s with new locos or Intercity 225s. Yes Swansea gets old stock, but it does get electrification which in my opinion more than makes up for that. Also:
  
  • Pembroke Dock gets to keep London trains without running diesels under the wires
  • Since the mark4s/mark3s should fit the existing loading guage, the potential for Fishguard/Milford - London services is retained
  • Passengers beyond Swansea get to keep loco-hauled trains rather than having underfloor diesel engines forced upon them

Even if the 67s are all in use, some are on frieght duties and I think there are stored frieght locos (60s and 66s) out there. I'd want those used to drag East Coast's IEPs beyond the wires though, and they don't have the TDM they'd need to work with the DVTs. The class 47/7s had TDM (the wrong kind though apparently) so the stored 47s out there should have room for the equipment. I'd suggest heavily refurbishing a few of them, giving them new engines (or perhaps engines taken from any leftover stored frieght locos that are newer than 47s) and TDM. That should do the trick of replacing the electric loco (which would be left at Swansea, where Landore could maintain them). I'd have a few diesel locos based in Bristol and Swansea, the Bristol ones for dragging IEPs to Westen-Super-Mare and working the sleepers (diverted via Bristol with electric traction from PAD to Bristol) and the Swansea ones could also be used on the Wales franchise's push-pull LHCS sets.

I did suggest the alternative of push-pull mark 3 sets with new electric locos if you don't like the idea of using IC225s. Personally though I think it would be better to use the mark4s as they are slightly newer and already have the power doors needed to get them past 2020.

* Article here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/02/25/better-trains-could-be-worse-for-west-wales-91466-23004740/ Personally I also have my doubts about one or two spots between Cardiff and Swansea on the main line, Neath station being one.

I thought we would get to the real reasons for Mk4 stock in the end.. ;)

As regards 47's only the original 47701 - 47717 batch had TDM. Early class 47 ETS conversions retained a steam heat bolier (dual heat). The ETS equipment on these was therefore carefully wrapped round the end of the new dual wound ETS / Auxilary alternator. It was from these 47701 - 47717 were created, the TDM cabinet going into the place of the steam heat boiler. Later 47's were electric heat only and the ETS gubbins went in the former boiler compartment. Therefore these locomotvies would be unsuitable for conversion to TDM remote control due to space considerations within the bodyshell.The higher numbered 47/7's did not have any form of TDM equipment fitted, the RCH cables on the end were provided for use with PCV propelling control vans where the driver in the PCV used the controller to provide a series of lights by the desk to tell the driver how much power to apply. 

If your going to repower any locomotive these days your options for power units are limited to Tier III off road compliant engines like the MTU 16V4000R43 or the Caterpillar lump going into the 68's. Reusing old freight loco engines to replace the Sulzer 12LDA28C in the 47's is out of bounds these days.

You cannot fit TDM into 67's for reasons of space, weight and axle load so therefore your restricted to either adding a batch of Eurolight (class 68) onto the end of the current DRS order fitted with TDM or using class 57/3 in hauled mode to move the Mk4 stock. By the way simply because it says C3 on the end it doesnt neccessarily follow that they are cleared or can be cleared for routes currently used by HST's, 158's or 175's. My understanding is that IEP on the East Coast augments rather than replaces the IC225 stock so the Mk4's may not be available in any case.

I suspect therefore the extent that Intercity services run to and beyond Swansea depends on how much of the SWML the DfT and WAG agree to spend on electrification and how much money can be found to knock structures around to let IEP run West of Swansea. Its just possible the DfT may see sense and restrict the coach length to 23 metres (at 2.74 metres external width) when they see the costs involved with hacking the railway around to fit 26 metre coaches. By the way just because it says C3 on the end of a Mk4 doesnt mean to say that it can be cleared to run on routes cleared for class 158, 175 and HST traction.

If there was space for TDM in those 17 locos, then I'd be supprised if a sufficently major refurbishment of any 47 couldn't make space for TDM (unless those 17 were slightly larger than the others).

Ok, it would have to be new engines for 47s or new TDM-equiped locos then.

My understanding was East Coast IEP is supposed to replace the IC125s. However, my idea bars IEP west of Cardiff, so the bi-mode IEPs that are currently destined for that route would instead be electric and go to East Coast instead of GW as currently planned. That would allow them to free up some IC225s, but the total IEP order might still need increasing slightly to cascade all the IC225s (unless you split the IC225s between GW and EC, which I would prefer (London - Scotland should really be LHCS in my opinion) but I doubt the two half-fleets would be large enough to make maintenance managable.)

But that would still be bi-mode IEP. Bi-mode IEP is even more daft than IEP having 26metre coaches in my opinion, at least if you have long coaches you can restrict the clearance for them to electrified lines (mainly, the odd short drag to Weston-Super-Mare shouldn't hurt much) and save most of the diesel-related expense.

Turning a class 47 into a class 57 constitutes in my book 'a fairly major refurbishment'

As we use AC main power generation these days you have to provide a traction rectifier to supply your DC motors which means all the space in the boiler compartment on 57's is occupied with erm.. Rectifiers!. Not sure where your TDM box is going, on the roof or under the secondmans side seat? As mentioned before the class 57 ETS contactors / switching is outside on the bottom of the loco due to lack of space inside.

You wouldn't hitch a diesel loco on to drag an electric train from Bristol TM to Weston Super Mare, too much faffing for the distances involved. Ten minutes delay on a twenty five minute trip? You wire to Weston, use Bi-modes or stop running through trains.

Certainly does. In the past I've referred to my hypothetical 47s with new engines and TDM as 57/7s.

What are the advantages of having the engines generate a different sort of power to the sort the traction motors need? Does it really have to be done that way, or can you avoid the rectifiers (or is there any component that 47s had but is superceeded with smaller equipment these days) to make some space for TDM gear? Otherwise, it'll have to be new locos, unless there's a way to fit TDM and train electricity supplies to stored frieght locos, which I doubt.

Note that I did say IEPs to Weston, not the same thing as the IC225s with the 10-minute loco-swap at Swansea. With the IEP to Weston, there'd be no 'faffing around' taking one loco off and putting another on like there would be with the IC225s at Swansea, the IEP just runs up to the waiting loco and attaches. That'd take about 3 minutes surely, not 10. Heading for London would be a bit more of a problem (unless the loco can be driven from the cab of the IEP), but still wouldn't take 10 minutes (as I say, you should be able to swap locos on an IC225 set given that time).

Think we need to think about suppliers for new rolling stock very carefully....70018

Are we looking for aesthetics or practicality for the modern age and future?   I would be happy to see "Flying Dutchman" or "Fugly" running a financially sound, reliable, frequent, safe service on the line that serves our town.  I would be equally happy to see the service run by sprinters / pacers displaced by South Wales valley electrification, or by push-pull units with a Compton and 3 x A class carriages of goodness-knows what vintage which are currently being scrapped.

Has there been a particular issue with new 70018??

Reading a number of responses [to the consultation] I've been copied on, the concentration has been on service levels and providing good connections and practical systems to support them and ensure that all the ducks line up to make a big success. In fact I can't recall any that specify stock type - that's a luxury we can compromise on; the nearest one response came was in asking for trains that are uniform with others at work in the area, in support of looking after them with a common pool of engineering knowledge and the ability to share backup and standby units during heavy service / repairs, etc

If we are bringing back steam traction then you are doing the firing, oiling round / ashpan emptying and dome polishing. I don't sign any of that. ;D

70018 had some kind of fire in its engine compartment which, from what I can gather was caused by a fuel leak on the engine causing fuel to get onto the exhaust / turbochargers and ignite.

Not quite sure what this has to do with the perils of buying modern equipment as the exact cause of the fuel leak isn't known.

But coupled with the fact that this ain't a new problem....

AC main power generation gives you the advantage of one less set of brushes to maintain and removes the possibility of electrical 'flashovers' which were an ever present risk with DC main generators. You may not be old enough to remember class 50 but suffice to say the main generator was the biggest single source of problems. Alternators can be controlled accurrately using smaller control modules and solid state kit which you can't really do with the much larger sperate field windings on DC main generators. I think its only about 10 amps excitation current into the exciter stator on a class 57/6 running at full bifters / top speed. AC machines are generally smaller and can run faster than their AC counterparts. The only penalty you pay is having to have a recitifer which given the other advantages isn't a problem. I think in this day and age a proposal to re-engineer 50 year old loco's and retain DC power generation (in order to come up with some sort of loco to avoid having Bi-Mode IEP) having would be laughed at and not taken further. Your 57/7 would in fact end up much the same as a class 57/3 or class 57/6 inside (complete with alternato and rectifier) but with a Tier III compliant engine instead of a refurbished ex US Navy engine. If you go and have a look round the inside a 57/6 you will see there is a place for everything and everything has its place, nothing that isn't required (like Vaccum brake gubbins) is in there and everything is the size and weight it needs to be.

To be honest I think the public wouldn't be impressed at some proposal to drag them around at sub warp speeds to Swansea with some kind of re-engineered 50 year old loco either. 57/3 did struggle a bit (and still does on Saturdays only) with a Pendolino on the back.

What do you mean it isn't a new problem?

Any new design of diesel engine takes a while to settle down. Seem to remember there were one or two firey issues with MTU's in the early days, although this was to do with the fitting of the engines into the power cars as much as anything, (screws getting left in intake ducts etc). Genbacher lumps aren't a new design per se but this is its first rail application as a common rail diesel engine for traction use as opposed to being a stationary spark ignition natural gas burner. Bound to be one or two issues to sort out.

You don't sign Bristol Temple Meads either do you?

The platforms are split using a St Andrews Cross as the demarcation point between platforms rather than signals. The signalling does not allow trains to run through one platform and into another under permissive working, the interlocking prevents it. The train first draws up to the St Andrews Cross at the end of the first platform and is then given verbal authourity to pass the St Andrews Cross and enter the occupied second platform.

Three minutes to do all that and couple on? Nearer ten I think.....

A more reliable 57 with TDM is basically exactly what I was thinking with the 57/7. To get the reliability I'd consider replacing everything except the bodyshell. If it wouldn't work right build some new locos for the job.

I'd be supprised if they get on an Intercity 125 at the moment and be more unimpressed than they are with 150s, 153s and the odd Pacer. I think they would be more unimpressed still if the London train was withdrawn due to IEP coaches being too long, leaving them with 2-car DMUs (150s and pacers). Perhaps if they had something like a Voyager instead of the IC125, they wouldn't be quite as unimpressed as being stuck with a 150, but the current IC125 would be much nicer than a Voyager. As far as the public is concerned, an IC225 with a diesel loco instead of the class 91 wouldn't be much of a change from an IC125 (except that IC225s have power doors). In passenger terms, the quality of a IC125 or IC225 is much greater than any DMU.

Unlike an IC125 (or worse, something with underfloor diesel engines) the diesel fuel and engine would not have to travel under the wires from Swansea to London if you use my IC225 idea, a 140mph, electric, class 91 would take over. Under the wires, an IC225 might accelerate slower than a IEP, but that's one reason why I made sure there were fewer stops for Swansea trains, so the IC225s can run at their top speed (as fast as an IEP's) for more of the time.

Fair enough, I don't know the working arangments at Bristol Temple Meads. This would be a hell of a lot easier if the government weren't being so stingy with the electrification programe. Building bi-mode IEPs, unless they add pantograph cars to ALL the class 22x units, retain quite a few IC125s, increase the scope of their electrification considerablly and still need more diesel Intercity trains (which I doubt) is totally unacceptable in my opinion, given the need to cut greenhouse gas emmisions.

Design costs money, building new units/locos with proven designs would be a lot cheaper, even with some modernisation and improvements this would solve the problem of running new units with unknown faults to find while in service at a significantly lower cost, the latest batch of 390's how much more would it have cost for a new design?  The class 158 why can't we build more with better disabled access it's a proven design

In my opinion, if we are going to build DMUs at all, 158s are what we need. I think they are cheaper and lighter than the 17x DMUs, and look as modern. Being lighter, they should also be more fuel efficent, just what we need if wires aren't going to spring up everywhere.

I do agree that we should be able to build more class 158's no doubt one of the best dmu's to have ever been built.

In fact I must admit that CSRE pacesetter unit does remind me a bit of the class 158's if only the passenger doors were at the end of the carriages.


By the way who wons the design's for the class 158? as it would be great if the design could be modified to suit todays requirements such as DDA compliant toilets etc

The 158's were built down to a weight (and a cost with the phase two batch from 158815 onwards). How many 158's do you go on in high summer where the air con works properly on all vehicles?

The design only just met the crashworthiness standards of it's time and would most certainly not meet the current standards for new build DMU rolling stock.

Never been on a 158/9 with faulty air con... Maybee got lucky

Am I right in thinking that the 158 aircon was built by a company on the Isle if Wight? Sure I've seen a panel under the seats that says, 'Temperature Ltd, Isle of Wight'

I can think of only one time when I've been uncomfortably hot in a 158 with failed aircon (as it happened the guard couldn't make the windows open either). Anyway, I nearly added a comment about putting more relibable air-con in any new 158s in my post.

Being lighter and cheaper, I think 158s are just what is needed (we have plenty of heavy, suburban door-layout, 170s and 172, but the only recent regional express units we have are the 175s, which are heavier and more expensive than 158s and not nearly as flexible (or visually appealing) thanks to the lack of corridor-connections on the cab).

You cannot say class 158 is cheaper than the current DMU offerings as they are no longer being built today. The factory which built them now after a couple of changes of ownership produces class 17x and 37x. You would not be allowed to build class 158's to the exact spec nowadays as they do not comply with the crashworthiness requirements for new builds of rolling stock. The newer builds are heavier as they have stronger bodyshells to meet the requirements. Class 158 had one or two structural issues which required modification after entering service, the bodyshell and some of the strngthening members underneath being a little too lightwight in places. One senior Regional Railways manager referred to class 158's as 'Garden Shed Engineering' although much work has been done to them since then. FGW units have the earlier 'Temperature / Westinghouse' type aircon although some units have recieved the more reliable 'Liebherr' air con at various times. The units numbered higher than 158815 had a far less reliable 'EBAC' aircon system fitted at build to save money, fortunately none of these units run for FGW any more.

Correct as far as 158701-814 are concerned although not all 158's still have the original aircon installed. The Liebherr fitted ones are identifiable by having extra large grilles / vents on the roof over the passenger doors. This is a complete new system and not a revamp of the existing system (although the existing control panel is retained) and is as good as it gets where class 158 aircon is concerned. Not surprisingly all SWT 158 / 159 have Liebherr kit fitted.

By cheaper I meant cheaper to run. Being lighter, they should use less fuel and cause less damage to the tracks, hence cheaper. Manufactring cost probablly wouldn't be much different, probably slightly more expensive once you've built a factory to build them.

The 158 with failed air-con that I was overheating on was an ATW unit (I think all their units are numbered higher than 158814). I was travelling on the Cambrian coast line at the time.

But as I keep telling you, you cannot build new units to the exact class 158 spec anymore as they don't meet the requirements for crashworthiness for new build stock. Therefore a 2012 version of 158 will probably weight the same or slightly more than class 172.

Newer units have newer common rail diesel engines. BR era 15x all use variations of mechanically fuelled and governed 1980s truck engines. This combined with the ZF six speed transmission used on 172 will enable less fuel per mile to be used by the newer units.

Anyway I'm glad we all seem to like 158's as they are the same external width as the IEP vehicles. So that sort of thing is what we all have to look forward to in FGW-shire....

I like 158s - just to interject a comment here, if I may? ;D

Would you go to Paddington in one?

I would.  ;)

Regularly go Bristol TM - Waterloo in one. Perfectly acceptable.

That is an SWT unit though, the 159's and SWT 158's seem to have a bit more legroom over the FGW 158's, which are a bit cramped for me (6ft 1in).

Still an OK ride though.

 ;D the trouble I cause eh? I don't mind being shot down when it's explained properly as you have done  :)

Yes: I'd be happy to travel to Paddington in an FGW one, from Nailsea.

I've done Nailsea to Taunton on an FGW 158 many times - a very comfortable journey. A journey in the opposite direction, even lasting twice or three times as long, would hold no fears for me.  ;D

I tend to sit at table seats, which means I tend to avoid legroom problems. I agree the FGW 158s don't have enough legroom in airline though. I did Cosham to Cardiff on one in airline once and there was not nearly enough legroom. That's just a flaw with the layout of FGW sets though, not 158s themselves.

On the journey in question, I then boarded a 175 for onward travel to Haverfordwest. Much better legroom but the seats could have done with being softer, like the ones on the 158 I had left. The problems could easily have been the other way around, I expect I can't blame either on the class of unit.

If IEP coaches are going to be the same width as a 158's (which, though quite narrow, are only 0.03m narrower than alot of stock, including 175s) and three metres longer, trying to make them cover a wide area of the network is bound to be an expensive mistake isn't it?

I did Brighton to Great Malvern then to Gloucester on a 158 and it was perfectly fine, my only complaint was no plug socket :)

Legroom is much worse at a table seat if someone is sat opposite though. Unintentional footsie often occurs. As for the 'airline' seats, some in each coach have greater legroom. Go for the ones behind the rows which have under seat equipment.  

There has been some very interresting corespondance in teh last couple of Modern Railways about what is the British loading gauge and the fact that a C1 vehicle (allege go most places gauge) may not clear a supposed C! route because apparently the physical clearances are shrinking.

I presumme what's meant by that is as work is done on lineside structres or new ones added they creep a few millimetres closer to the track.

We know that happened outside Padd after the realingement and before wiring when the King's safety valves hit one of the overbridges bridges due to the ballast being too deep. We've got the same thing at Taplow on the Main lines where the ballast is too high and therefore trains can't stop on the Main lines because of the high step up is deemed unacceptable.

The FGW 158's are on the same seating / table plan as they were under Wessex Trains. Some of them have Richmond seats and the others have refurbished OEM 158 seats. I think there may have been a bit of tinkering with the seat pitch at the ends to create priority seats for less mobile customers though.

The SWT units have OEM 158 / 159 seats in them but with extra padding. Nice and comfy on the posterior but a bit tight on legroom as the seat pitch is the same as previously. Not sure I could hack 3,5 hours on one.

Ahhh, but 'tis only 3 hours from Bristol - Waterloo. Less on the return.  :P ;) ;D.

Downhill on the way back presumably...
 ;D

Tend to agree - Salisbury to Basingstoke was about as far as I felt comfortable with on a 159. Although I changed into a Voyager at BSK which wasn't exactly an upgrade.

I travelled West Cornwall to Shrewsbury (or vicky versa)  on a Class 158 many times in Wales & West days and didn't find it at all bad, though it did get busy in places, but that was a shortage of carriage(s) problem!

Put another way I'd prefer 6 hours on a 158 Penzance to Shrewsury, than less than an Hour Taunton to Bristol Temple Meads on a class 150, 153, 143 or even a class 221

Back on the topic of potential bidders for FGW (and with due apologies if anyone has already posted this elsewhere), Barry Doe comes out very strongly in favour of First retaining the franchise in his column in RAIL issue 698.

Is it December we find out?

Yes that was when we were supposed to find out but as I posted on the Intercity express program thread it looks like it will be delayed til January/February 2013 (This information taken from WNXX and person who made the post is normally pretty reliable)