Great Western Coffee Shop

I wonder if it^s worth reviving the old Pullman-type service twice a day on the Great Western Main line to Paddington? When the high speed diesel service came in 40 years ago, it was the bees knees.

Cardiff to Paddington came down from 2hrs 30mins hours to 1hr 55mins, but twice a day it was 1hr 43mins! Faster than today! The trick was ensuring that those two up trains were given priority over freight and were nonstop from Newport. I used to commute regularly to London back then. Every week I would catch the 7.25am from Cardiff and arrive reliably in Paddington at 9.07am.

To try to keep pace with the 49 minutes journey time on HS2 for the 135 miles from Euston to Birmingham by 2026, if Cardiff had a limited Pullman service not stopping after Newport, cutting out Bristol Parkway, Swindon, Didcot Parkway and Reading, 85 minutes for the 150 miles to Paddington would keep our end up, as it were.

Hopefully Dicot and Swindon stops will be removed from Cardiff services after electrification, when Bristol - London goes up to 4 tph.

Hopefully services and connections will be improved - or at least remain available - from Oxford, Didcot, Chippenham and Swindon to Newport, Cardiff and further west. Such, in terms of passenger numbers, are significant flows.

Hopefully we won't see multiple paths eaten up by occasional vanity trains which run with otherwise under-utilised stock, break up clock face operation for other services, and have passengers moving their journeys up or down by half an hour from ideal time to catch the "Green Dragon" which is 10 minutes faster. Such was possible and perhaps sensible in the days gone by when the main lines only carried about a half of the services now running, and a train journey was an adventure rather than a regular trip, or even a commute.

IIRC the proposal is that the additional Bristol TM via Parkway trains are not scheduled to stop at Swindon.  Please remember that Swindon has a population of 209,000 that makes it larger than the Borough of Reading (155,000), though the Reading Wokingham area has a larger population (300,000).  However, unlike Reading, there are no local stations around Swindon so all the flows from the surrounding area are concentrated here.

There is a considerable flow of passengers from Swindon both to Bristol, the South West and South Wales.

Don't forget to add in the parts of Reading that are now West Berkshire District Unitary Authority, also the South Oxford area which is part of the "greater" Reading area.  Reading has greater connectivity than Swindon, you are trying to compare tomato's with apples.

Is there the demand for such services?  Or is it a nice to have?  By demand will the train depart / enter Wales at full to 80% of its capacity, if its not then it could be argued its a nice to have therefore the Welsh Assembly could subsides it

An obvious stop to miss out for a specifically Cardiff to London express would be Newport - odd that this wasn't suggested :)

Well once there are 7 tph going through Swindon and Didcot (4 Bristol, 2 Wales and 1 Chelt), I would expect at least 3 of them not to stop at any of these!

We need to get journey times down - not just in the peaks, but all day.

Reading stops should be retained due to the connections required (except - perhaps - a couple of trains in the peaks that are full already)

The other long distance inter city lines have managed to successfully segregate medium distance flows whilst still retaining limited stop services for destinations further out from London. On the GW, we've crammed more seats in, and then said we've got to stop at the intermediate stations to make sure they are filled.

Running the two additional services to Temple Meads appears to give Bristol a disproportionate share of the benefits of electrification and IEP. I would have thought a timetable could be derived that sends 3 each to Cardiff and TM, enabling the Swansea starter to run fast from Newport to Reading, with a cross platform connection at Cardiff into a stopper. The additional service from TM would then run fast from Bristol Parkway, enabling both Bristol stations to have 1 fast train ph.

As for local flows, a couple of peak emu services would be more than adequate to soak up the demand of commuters from, eg, Bath and Bristol Parkway to Swindon. 

I personally would keep the no of stops on each train constant so there can be an every 20 minute service taking the same time (a la Virgin on Birmingham services). So one would call at Didcot, Swindon, one at Swindon Chippenham, one at Didot, Chippenham (all at Reading and Bath).

Your alternate stopping pattern allows long distance journeys from these places but it would be impossible to travel from Swindon to Didcot or Swindon to Chippenham.

I personally would keep the no of stops on each train constant so there can be an every 20 minute service taking the same time (a la Virgin on Birmingham services). So one would call at Didcot, Swindon, one at Swindon Chippenham, one at Didot, Chippenham (all at Reading and Bath).

OK but still a poorer service.  Much better if we could fit some local services in.  Like a Bristol TM to Oxford.

OK but still a poorer service.  Much better if we could fit some local services in.  Like a Bristol TM to Oxford.

There is no need for any local service to London. A Bristol to Milton Keynes service could cover new small stations at Corsham, Wooten Basset, Grove and Wantage etc.

Agree. To go back to the point about whether they can be fitted in, I notice that London Midland's 110mph emus do the 97 miles from Euston to Nuneaton in 69 minutes with 2 intermediate stops. That compares with 125mph HST's also taking 69 minutes for the 94 miles to Chippenham with 2 stops. OK, granted that IEP will be more fleet of foot than HST's, but the Class 350s are up against tilting Pendolinos, so it shows what can be done with a bit of imagination (and dare I say it, competition between operators).

Another useful intermediate service would be one calling at Severn Tunnel Jn to Bristol Parkway and Swindon. Currently those using STJ as a railhead station from Monmouthshire and the southern Forest of Dean don't have a convenient journey option to London.  

The key barrier to growth is getting Crossrail open, extending it to Reading and switching the Heathrow Express to run as part of Crossrail.

Then all Slough stops, etc, can be removed from the fast lines, allowing for 16 tph express London to Reading which can funnel out to various destinations (including local services to Wooten B and Severn Tunnel).

The minute you stop a train on the fast lines between Padd to Reading, you reduce the capacity by at least one path.

There wil be less of a demand for fast line trains from Slough after Crossrail, as the EMUs will be super fast at accelerating (compensating for the stops) and most commuters won't have to change onto the underground to get to their destination.

I'm sure semi fast trains will run out to Reading, reducing journey times for Maidenhead commuters.

Is it just me, or am I seeing something of an outdated view being expressed in certain quarters in thinking that all commuters want to go to London, and that the counties to the west of London, once you get out of the suburbs, are green fields, moors, downs and farms all the way to Bristol?

Wiltshire, where I live, sometimes describes itself as a "rural county" but that's misleading, as the majority of the population here - and that population is growing - now lives in the urban areas - Salisbury, Chippenham, Trowbridge, Melksham and Warminster being the largest five, and that "mostly urban" label still applies even after Swindon ceded to become its own local urban authority.

People travel, often daily, between those towns and beyond - there's no sudden divide at any border and they need to have good transport links between those towns, and to Bath, to Bristol, to Southampton, to Oxford, to Taunton, to Newbury, to Andover, to Yeovil, to Cardiff, to Exeter, to Reading.

All very true, but there are so many competing voices crying out for attention. Bristol is likely to have two major centres for commuting when some of the new offices around Temple Meads open for business, the other being Abbey Wood. Trains to both from South Wales, Weston s Mare and Bath are already heavily used. Rail features heavily in plans for the future - what chance of reinstating the left turn from Montpelier to Ashley Down?

Is it just me, or am I seeing something of an outdated view being expressed in certain quarters in thinking that all commuters want to go to London, and that the counties to the west of London, once you get out of the suburbs, are green fields, moors, downs and farms all the way to Bristol?

Of course, HS2 will open up more commuter flows for places such as Huntingdon, Stevenage, Bedford, Luton, St Albans, Milton Keynes, Watford, etc. More station calls will be inserted as InterCity trains will use HS2, with quick journey times.

Perhaps the west of the capital needs a London - Bristol Parkway HS3 line - taking the South Wales, Bristol and Devon/Cornwall traffic away, allowing the existing GWML to stop more - leaving expresses for Swindon, Didcot, Oxford, Maidenhead and Slough. This line would have one intermediate station - say at Reading or Heathrow. I am aware that this is unlikely to happen due to cost; I am simply demonstrating how an HS line could help the region.

As for fast line calls at Slough and Maidenhead - absolutely not - especially in the peaks. Each call knocks off 1 tph from the 16 maximum, slows the service down and reduces reliability. These places can be served by Crossrail to London and Reading - and semi fasts will be provided. Journey times will be the same as today, as no Tube transfer.

I was left fuming when I found out that Maidenhead calls had been inserted on Oxford trains - no no no. Slippery slope. It needs nipping in the bud now.

As for fast line calls at Slough and Maidenhead - absolutely not - especially in the peaks. Each call knocks off 1 tph from the 16 maximum, slows the service down and reduces reliability. These places can be served by Crossrail to London and Reading - and semi fasts will be provided. Journey times will be the same as today, as no Tube transfer.

I was left fuming when I found out that Maidenhead calls had been inserted on Oxford trains - no no no. Slippery slope. It needs nipping in the bud now.

Why is it always the (often packed) Oxford services that have to stop more?

Angry passenger blasts rail company over empty first-class seats

None of the standing passengers on a packed service were allowed to use empty first class seats without paying extra

(http://i2.getreading.co.uk/incoming/article4804578.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/stx-Reading-Station-4-4804578.jpg)

An angry rail passenger has blasted a train company for making elderly people and parents with young children stand on a 95 minute journey.

Vic Steele, 72, said the First Great Western (FGW) service between Cardiff and Reading was packed on a Saturday afternoon journey with no standard class seats available.

But none of the standing passengers, which included a woman in her 80s and parents with a toddler, were allowed to use the many empty first class seats without paying extra.

Mr Steele was promised vouchers after he complained to FGW, but he received nothing until the Reading Post contacted the rail company.

He said: ^The train was well overloaded. There were people lying in the aisles through the train, they were in the vestibules. Where I was standing there was a man and woman with a two- or three-year-old and they were trying to hold an 80-year-old woman.

^There were over 100 first class seats and I said to the guard, ^ve got arthritis and angina you should let me sit on one of the seats or should at least let this couple and elderly lady sit down^. But he said ^nobody will sit in those chairs unless they pay first class fares^

Mr Steele, who lives off Oxford Road, West Reading, had his journey from hell as he was travelling back home from Cardiff on November 2. An urgent business trip had meant he was not able to buy a ticket and reserve a seat in advance.

Mr Steele had been pursuing a complaint through FGW, but turned to the Reading Post after the vouchers promised as compensation did not materialise. He said: ^When you are paying that sort of money, if they haven^t got a seat for you they should tell you, then it^s your choice if you buy a ticket.^

FGW spokesman James Davis said the company would be sending vouchers after being contacted by the Post. Mr Steele confirmed later he received vouchers to the value of half the cost of the journey.

Mr Davis said he did not believe it was common to have to stand so long, but acknowledged there is a shortage of rolling stock. He said: ^We don^t own the rolling stock ourselves, we lease it and we can only lease rolling stock that is available to us. We^ve done significant work during the past franchise to improve the capacity available to us on that stretch.^ And he said the future electrification of the Great Western line and new intercity trains would help improve the service.

Mr Davis said Mr Steele had been offered an upgrade to a first class carriage for a modest fee, but he had declined the offer.

The Cambridge Flyers are non stop! Why is it always the (often packed) Oxford services that have to stop more?

He said: ^When you are paying that sort of money, if they haven^t got a seat for you they should tell you, then it^s your choice if you buy a ticket.^

He said: ^We don^t own the rolling stock ourselves, we lease it

"He" being the FGW spokesperson.  I thought they owned some of the stock - 5 HST sets - or am I out of date?

Sorry - in awkward mode tonight  :o

My thought on reading the article was, if you want to sit in 1st Class you should pay for a 1st Class ticket. Being elderly or infirm doesn't automatically entitle you to a free upgrade.

Then my other thought was, if I saw someone elderly or infirm, who was standing, then I would give up my seat to them.

With electrification South wales is supposed to be getting a 1tph fast service to London which will run non stop between Newport & Reading with the Cardiff terminators serving all stations to London as they do now.

So if both the additional London - Bristol Parkway - Bristol TM trains run non-stop as well (Have I remembered this correctly?) Swindon gets a reduced service from electrification. 

Ellendune - Oxford services stop at Slough, so they shouldn't be given any more stops. The Slough calls should be removed.

Graham - I agree that everything (bat some peak services) should stop at Reading, including Oxford fasts.

The only problem with removing all these fasts from Reading and Slough the Relief Lines just don't have the capacity to carry all the extra people, not even extending the 10 car Crossrail services to Reading, unfortunately those who chose top live 120 or more miles from London will just have to put up with the extra 10 mins on their already 2 hour plus journey knocking out the stops on these services will not help because semi fasts on the Mains will have to be introduced.

So how many are we stopping - remember each call reduces the max 16 tph by at least 1tph.
So Oxford fasts stopping at Slough removes 2 paths. If they stop at Maidenhead too , that's another 2 paths, so we're already down to 12 tph.

Regarding the stops at Swindon, I'm all for much quicker services, but not at too big a cost in connections from the intermediate stations.  Perhaps a good compromise would be one of the two services each hour stopping at Swindon and the other at Reading, so the four trains per hour could be:

1x Bristol TM, Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington
1x Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Swindon, Paddington
1x Bristol TM, Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Reading, Paddington
1x Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Reading, Paddington

Added to that the South Wales/Cheltenham trains:

1x Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading, Paddington
1x Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington
1x Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stonehouse, Stroud, Kemble, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington

That has the following benefits:

• Keeps the Swindon stops as similar to now (though one more from Bristol rather than Swansea, so not quite as good), but the odd extra train to/from London due to the hourly Cheltenham service.
• Connectivity towards Bristol/Cardiff from Didcot and Oxford is maintained.
• The fast service from Bristol to London (via Parkway) is almost maintained as one train skips Swindon, the other Reading.  I really can't see a big enough market for two trains non-stop from Bristol to London each and every hour for much of the day.

And an added luxury would be a 4-car 110-115mph EMU running hourly between Bristol TM to Bedford, calling at Bath Spa, Corsham*, Chippenham, Wooton Bassett*, Swindon, Wantage Road*, Didcot (?), Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Bicester Town, Winsford, Bletchley, Woburn Sands, Lidlington and Bedford.  Stations marked with a * are reopened and have a suitable service as a result, and that might enable the odd stop at Didcot to be removed from the trains listed above without spoiling connectivity.

This option is based around a new 4tph Reading/outer Thames Valley to London Paddington
peak service, with Heathrow Airport served by a 10tph Crossrail service.

An indicative peak 20tph main line service specification would be:
^ ten trains from long distance destinations (9 IEP, 1 HST)
^ six trains formed of high capacity EMU stock from outer destinations such as Oxford and
Newbury, all of which would be able to run non-stop from Reading (or potentially beyond)
^ four new trains formed of high capacity EMU stock running from the Reading area. These
would call at Twyford (alternate trains), Maidenhead and Slough (alternate trains).

Based on implementation of Option A3 most of the outer suburban EMUs would be 12-car
length, with a high seating capacity and capable of at least 100mph operations (110mph
preferred). The four additional trains would cross from the relief lines to the main lines at
Maidenhead or Slough, with the other 16 trains running on the main lines from Reading.
To free up the capacity necessary to operate the above increased main line service level the
existing Heathrow Express service would be replaced by a significantly increased Heathrow
Airport to Crossrail service (10tph rather than 4tph as currently planned), all of which would
run, at peak times, on the relief lines. At peak times the Heathrow Airport services would
need to be skip-stop to maximise relief lines capacity overall, whilst in the off-peak four trains
per hour could run non-stop on the main lines.

As well as providing increased peak capacity on the GWML a further aim of the option is
to improve services between much of Central London and Heathrow Airport, by increasing
frequencies to a total of 10tph and running all of these through the Central London
Crossrail tunnels.

The resulting peak 16tph Crossrail service pattern has been assumed to be as follows, though
other variations may exist:
^ 8tph Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 (running limited stop on the relief lines)
^ 2tph Heathrow Airport Terminal 4 (running skip-stop on the relief lines)
^ 4tph Reading (running skip-stop on the relief lines), based on Option A1
being implemented
^ 2tph Slough (running skip-stop on the relief lines).

The number of Crossrail services terminating in the Westbourne Park area from the east
would be further reduced from the currently planned 14tph to 8tph at peak times.

And an added luxury would be a 4-car 110-115mph EMU running hourly between Bristol TM to Bedford, calling at Bath Spa, Corsham*, Chippenham, Wooton Bassett*, Swindon, Wantage Road*, Didcot (?), Oxford, Oxford Parkway, Bicester Town, Winsford, Bletchley, Woburn Sands, Lidlington and Bedford.  Stations marked with a * are reopened and have a suitable service as a result, and that might enable the odd stop at Didcot to be removed from the trains listed above without spoiling connectivity.

The key barrier to growth is getting Crossrail open, extending it to Reading and switching the Heathrow Express to run as part of Crossrail.

Perhaps the west of the capital needs a London - Bristol Parkway HS3 line
... I am aware that this is unlikely to happen due to cost; I am simply demonstrating how an HS line could help the region.

  . . . and do not forget Didcot with its enormous and continually growing employment centre at Milton Park. Although there are Didcot people who work at Milton Park, I t5hink the majority of its workers come from miles around. There are certainly many who come from Cotswold Line area but only a small proportion use public transport because they have to change at Oxford and then at Didcot for the shuttle bus, meaning that it is usually quicker to use a private car (A34 foul-ups excepted).

I would suggest something like this (a slight modification of IndustryInsider's suggestion):
1tph Bristol TM, Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington
1tph Bristol TM, Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Reading, Paddington
1tph Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Swindon, Reading, Paddington
1tph Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Reading, Paddington
1tph Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading, Paddington
1tph Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington
1tph Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stonehouse, Stroud, Kemble, Swindon, Didcot, Reading, Paddington

You might have trouble adding the extra stops into the via Parkway Bristol services though, as they may be relying on keeping passengers from intermediate stops off the trains to justify their insanley large fleet of 5-car IEP units, much less capacity per unit than the current IC125s. Would be ok if the IEP fleet was all 9-car.

That pattern seems similar to the model produced for IEP, and shown elsewhere. The "insanely large" 5-car fleet doesn't look so mad when two are coupled from PAD to BRI, with one 5-car continuing to WSM, something shown in the working model for post IEP.

Perhaps having 2tph to Swansea, both skip stopping after Cardiff to reduce journey times? One could be extended to Carmathern.

(I think we'll need a flyover at Slough). I still think that a semi fast 10 car Crossrail would cover it, and leave the fast lines to 6 tph.

it's one of the problems with the GMWL that there are few palces where a stopper can be overtaken by a fast and also provide cross platform interchange.

If someone can tell me how to do it I have a video of an ICE and IC arriving in parallel at Mannheim to effect a crtoss paltform interchange. No defensive driving as the IC overtakes the ICe whislt running down the paltform.

Sorry, but it still looks mad to me since:
(a.) I believe portion working with units that aren't through-gangwayed should be stopped altogether, not increased and
(b.) although there are alot of 5-car sets I don't think it's enough to double up everything.

But the line to WSM from BRI will not be electrified, so any extended services will need the hybrid sets.

Interesting comment on the flyover. at slough.

Why not?   The 2009 electrification RUS assumed that a phase of a future programme that covered from Bromsgrove to Plymouth, primarily for XC purposes, would include Weston.

Perhaps we should wait for the latest iteration of the electrification strategy to be issued before writing off various options as impossible...

The idea of having 2 5 car IEPs is ludicrous and should be BINNED.

I mean it is potty - just run a 10 car IEP (no 8 or 9 car units please) all the way to Weston.
SCRAP the hybrid version and use the millions saved to extend the wires a tiny but more to Weston.
It is stupid to uncouple and re couple - with the performance risk - just to save a unit or two! Coupling also extends journey times (unacceptable), as will having a diesel engine and fuel (REDUNDANT for 90% of the journey) weighing the train down.

Also- the two First Class carriages will be miles apart, which means two stewards! Presumable the 1st compartment near the London end will be packed and the one halfway up empty...

Who came up with this crackpot IEP? This mess needs sorting...

However, to make the best of the mess we have been landed with, I propose something like:


The GW and HST replacement on EC contracts have been signed so it doesn't matter what you, I or anyone propose, it won't happen.

now the contracts are signed it would cost another small fortune to change them.

Would it though? Canceling the would be costly, but I'm often told by a certain poster on another forum that interior layouts and train formations are subject to change based on comments from the TOC. Think I also read somewhere that the contracts allow for cascading IEPs to routes other than the ones currently planned. I'm working on the assumption that, as long as the same (or VERY close) number of vehicles are ordered the costs will be the same.

I've asked on this forum before who I should write to in FirstGW about comments the TOC can make on the IEP order, but was met with a bunch of comments from folk who didn't agree and got nowhere.

Would it though? Canceling the would be costly, but I'm often told by a certain poster on another forum that interior layouts and train formations are subject to change based on comments from the TOC.

But the type of change you were suggesting was to the basic specification of the train (electric or bi mode, length of sets, etc) and not tinkering with the internal layout. Hitachi will already have entered into contracts with suppliers on the basis of the agreed contract, so as an example, they are not going to want to go around reducing the number of diesel engines ordered at this stage.

Is it better for there to be one super express and two slower services per hour, or is it better to do my suggestion and spread the stops evenly to the 3 trains so all journey times are similar?

The different combinations for each of the 6 trains would retain all connections between stations, with the advantage of faster journey times for all.

Is it better for there to be one super express and two slower services per hour, or is it better to do my suggestion and spread the stops evenly to the 3 trains so all journey times are similar?

The different combinations for each of the 6 trains would retain all connections between stations, with the advantage of faster journey times for all.

Maybe yes.  Could you elaborate more on the calling points for the 3 services from/to South Wales and the 3 services from/to Bristol Temple Meads.

First Great Western boss says there is potential for South Wales trains to London only having to stop at Reading

Operations director of First Great Western Ben Rule said that the idea of trains from South Wales to London only stopping at Reading is being explored

(http://i2.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article8046312.ece/alternates/s615/pullman-paddington.jpg)
The Swansea to Paddington First Great Western service

The prospect of hourly train services from South Wales only stopping at Reading before arriving at London Paddington has been raised by operations director for First Great Western Ben Rule.

Addressing a meeting of Cardiff Breakfast Club he said that the company, which is part of transport group First Group and operates the Great Western Mainline London to South Wales franchise, was exploring it as an idea in on-going timetable discussions for the next franchise from 2015 onwards with the Department for Transport.

The new franchise will run until 2020 ^ although there is break option after three-and-a-half years.

Introducing Mr Rule to the audience chairman of the Cardiff Business Council, Nigel Roberts, confirmed that the business led organisation is in discussions with Secretary of State for Wales Stephen Crabb over the potential of introducing a direct service from Cardiff to London ^ following the example of Manchester which was two morning services direct to London.

However, while discussions are continuing the main thrust of the specification requirements for the franchise ^ which the Welsh Government has no direct say on ^ have already been set out and currently there isn^t provision for any direct trains from South Wales to Paddington.

However, this is not to say that a service could not be included ^ even after the franchise is signed off next year. But a direct service could require a subsidy, potentially supported by the Welsh Government.

Mr Roberts said: ^Our strap line is that Cardiff is the closest capital to London and First Great Western play an important part in making sure that is the case. We have been having discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales exploring options of there being a dedicated train that would actually go from Cardiff straight through to London. If we were able to achieve that before electrification that would cut significant time off the journey. If we are able to create a Welsh express with Welsh produce it really could do wonders for us here."

Mr Rule said that the timetable for the next franchise would be confirmed next year and that discussions were continuing with the Department for Transport. However, he confirmed that while at an ^idea stage^ there was potential for an hourly service from South Wales to London, with only one stop in England before Paddington at Reading Station.

This is because investment in the rail network in the south-west of England will provide for an additional train an hour to go through Bristol Parkway.

Mr Rule said: ^We have done a lot of work on the franchise and there is lots more to do, but it really is an exciting time for railways in this part of world with faster trains and more capacity on the way on the back of a huge investment [electrification]. And while it is the biggest investment since Brunel we are conscious that we have some very big shoes to fill.^

The arrival of new electrified high speed trains from 2018 will shave around 20 minutes of current journey times to London from South Wales.

Mr Rule said that speed could be improved further by addressing congestion issues in the Thames Valley area.

First Great Western has been exclusively offered the next franchise.

Mr Rule said: ^The rationale behind that is there is a lot of work going on in this part of the world and having continuity and an experienced operator is probably the right thing to do while the railway is being rebuilt (electrification).^

First Great Western provides 9,500 services per week, which is up by 1,000 since 2007. Despite their high profile only 14% are intercity trains.

Mr Rule said: ^In the 1970s the Great Western Mainline was the second fastest in the world and only behind the bullet train in Japan, which was a tremendous achievement for a Victorian railway. We are running more high-speed trains than at anytime since the network was built, and quite considerably so. We have also made timetable improvements and spend considerable time listening to stakeholder and customers. But we have to balance a number of different factors in terms of what people want on service frequency and stopping patterns with capacity and our ability to make the business pay by filling the trains up as much as we can.^

The train company accommodated 97 million passengers in 2012, up from 86 million in 2006.

Mr Rule said: ^This causes us problems as we have overcrowding. It is a nice problem that so many people are wanting to travel with us. Like for the rest of the rail industry in the UK there has also been a relentless growth in passengers since privatisation and even during the economic downturn it only flatten that growth for a year or so, before starting to increase again. This has meant having to introduce new rolling stock during the franchise with 100 additional trains since 2008.^

Cardiff Breakfast Club is sponsored by Blake Morgan, Cardiff Business Council, Lloyds Banking Group and the Western Mail.

I'm getting a little tired of 'biggest investment since Brunel' being trotted out by FGW management. Hardly any of the money is coming from First Group's coffers.

the only major English city outside London to make a positive net contribution to the national economy...

We haven't had any local services between Didcot and Bath since 1965.  That is why we are served by the HST's.  A local service from Bristol to Swindon to Didcot (e.g. restoration of the short lived Oxford service would be very welcome) and this would allow removal of more of the Didcot stops. However these were removed because there were not enough paths for a robust service.

On the subject of taxes and subsidies, I was interested to read in this Guardian article (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/16/bristol-smart-city-future-technology) that Bristol is


This is a blessing and a curse; it means that governments (Labour and Conservative) tend to direct investment elsewhere on the grounds that Bristol can fend for itself. So we shouldn't be surprised to see subsidised empty seats gliding through Parkway, or flying over what I think we're still allowed to call the Bristol Channel.

Makes you wonder though: what could Bristol achieve if it was allowed to keep its own tax revenue?

New ^4.5m trains running from London to south Wales will be slower than those 40 years ago, a transport union has claimed.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport union says research shows 1970s services were faster than those advertised by Great Western Railways for Intercity trains.

The promised London to Cardiff journey time is 113 minutes, compared to 105 minutes under British Rail in 1977.

GWR said the union was not comparing like with like.

It also said electrification of the track would increase speeds to match some of the 1970 times, and there were more frequent services now that also stopped at more stations.


Line break
Speeds promised by 2018:

London - Bristol Temple Meads: 90 minutes

London - Cardiff: 113 minutes

London - Swansea: 164 minutes

1977 advertised speeds:

London - Bristol Temple Meads: 85 minutes

London - Cardiff: 105 minutes

London - Swansea: 163 minutes

Source: RMT

RMT general secretary Mick Cash said the report demonstrated the failures of rail privatisation.

"Privatised rail services are not only more overcrowded and expensive they are also slower.

"And of course as well as being publicly owned, British Rail trains were publicly manufactured for far less cost in the UK, as opposed to the new IEP trains which are manufactured in Japan."

Express train

GWR said some of the RMT's facts were incorrect, challenging a claim that the London-Bristol journey time would be slower.

"The fastest Bristol-London journey time, quoted by the RMT, in 1977 was one hour 25 minutes. Following electrification and the new trains, this will be one hour 19 minutes, that's six minutes faster than in 1977.

"In 1977, six trains ran every two hours between Cardiff-London and Bristol-London, compared to 12 trains every two hours following electrification and the introduction of new trains. That's double the number of services.

"The fastest Cardiff-London journey time, quoted by the RMT, in 1977 was one hour 45 minutes. This will be the same with the introduction of electrification and new trains."

RMT is in dispute with GWR over plans to cut guards and buffet car services.

Stuart Cole, professor of transport at the University of South Wales, said there had been one express train in the 1970s which ran direct from Cardiff to London without stopping.

"There was no Bristol Parkway then. They've picked the train which was the fastest as far as I can understand it; one train in the morning which did one hour 41 minutes. Most of them took longer than that.

"It they took the average journey times, that would be much more sensible."

Calling for a publically-owned railway system, Cardiff Central Labour MP Jo Stevens said privatised rail had been a failure which delivered "little by way of improvements for passengers in Cardiff but plenty by way of taxpayer subsidies for the directors and shareholders of [Great Western Railway]".

And of course as well as being publicly owned, British Rail trains were publicly manufactured for far less cost in the UK, as opposed to the new IEP trains which are manufactured in Japan.

I didn't know Newton Aycliffe was in Japan?

Gosh, London to Bath in 69 minutes, never see that again.

Didn't often see it in the 1970s, either. The HSTs are getting slower - it's the age of the trains.

Are they not being assembled in Aycliffe IKEA style after the hi-tech hi-value stuff has been done in Japan?

AT300 capacity :
- 648 seats on a 10-car AT300 v 522 seats on a low-density HST: a 24% increase
- 576 standard seats on a 10-car AT300 v 458 HST standard seats: a c.26% increase in standard class capacity
 The new trains will be delivered during 2018 and will be built in Japan

From the slide used by Ben Rule (Operations Director, Great Western Railway) in his presentation to TravelWatch SouthWest in Taunton on Saturday:

Are they not being assembled in Aycliffe IKEA style after the hi-tech hi-value stuff has been done in Japan?

288 standard + 36 first, is that the same as the IEP fleet (I only remember the 315 seats for a 5-car and 627 for 9-car IEP but that was before the first/standard ratio was adjusted)?

I'm not sure whether Newton Aycliffe can be described as a 'manufacturing plant'. At what point does an 'assembly plant' become a 'manufacturing plant'? Certainly I've read that all the friction-stir welding will be done in Japan before the components are shipped to Newton Aycliffe for assembly.

Cross-platform connections were mentioned by a couple of people (in posts I won't quote because, even if I was going to go back through the whole thread to find them, they're several years old!). They sound handy but, apart from the reliance on precise timing, they're only going to work for people on that particular connecting service. For instance, if you travel Kemble to London and don't want to wait for the one-an-hour intercity, will one of the Gloucester ^ Swindon trains connect with one of the other services from Bristol or S. Wales? If so, will there also be a connection for the next one ^ and what about the return journey? Or will you end up waiting for the hourly service anyway?

Good point. But, whether the answer is to get the connector or wait for the through train, wouldn't it be better to have such information available on the platform, through display or announcement, rather than restricted to those "in the know" with RTT? But then, of course, the crowded train would no longer be crowded and the empty one would be crowded!

From the slide used by Ben Rule (Operations Director, Great Western Railway) in his presentation to TravelWatch SouthWest in Taunton on Saturday:

Ah, yes, that's the other thing I meant to put in my post above. Frequency of service trumps journey time, to a large extent, IMO. Obviously this depends on the nature of the journey: the longer the journey and the more "attractive" the route, the more important speed becomes and also the more willing you become to wait for a connection from a slow feeder to a fast intercity service. So with Bristol to London, I'd prefer a frequent service at the cost of lower speed. If going to Glasgow or Edinburgh, I'd probably delay my journey or bring it forward in order to get a faster journey, rather than travel at my preferred time but more slowly. The journey becomes more speed critical and less "clock critical". Swansea to London is probably somewhere in between. OTOH, there comes a point where the journey is so long you might as well make into a journey rather than just reaching a destination, eg a sleeper to the Highlands. IMO anyway.

Also true. Let's say frequency of available and accessible trains, then. So to sort out the timetable, we need to sort out fare structure too. Not surprising, really.