Great Western Coffee Shop

Okay,

Have taken various routes in last few weeks

WOS-PAD


Cheltenham-PAD

On the WOS -PAD route ADO is operating (if at all) as in the good old days


On the Cheltenham Pad rooute - SDO operates in the new wank way

Why can they do one on one line and another on the other

And dont say - trains cant stop at XYZ if SDO doesnt exit - that is a HUMAN decision and a HUMAN decision can be changed.

anybody who gets off the train if there is no platform is an idiot and deserves it - they may learn not to do it again - especially if the TM announces which carriages are are on the platform

But as soon as SDO is active the HST's lose Grandfather Rights which allows them to stop at stations to short for the train so when they stop without SDO from now on they're breaking Health and Safety regulations.
And as soon as it is active they can't take it away.

"Yes, we got it wrong."

This was Mike Carroll's description of the policy of stopping first class coaches on short platforms, when he spoke in Charlbury on Friday evening. And he also said the contraption in the power cars that bikes have to be put in and pulled up in was "over-engineered" and was costing delay time as well, so would be looked at urgently.

So what are they going to do? Go back to the old situation (or a new new situation at stations not served by 125s before December), of stopping with standard class on the platform. He said this will be happening within four weeks, once all train crews have been given a briefing. I'm assuming he didn't just mean the Cotswold Line.

This wasn't about grandfather rights, it was about a policy decision to stop the front end of HSTs on short platforms, whatever coaches those were.

While drivers in the morning peak on the Cotswold Line may have got the message, Charlbury bloggers are reporting first class on the platform on occasions off-peak.

And if a Worcester-bound train is in reverse formation it will still have to stop with first class on, in line with pre-SDO practice, as there are no off-platform train stop markers alongside the track at the stations and at Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham the signals and the single-line token machine cabinets are at the end of the platforms, so that's where the driver must stop.

Not sure what will happen Oxford-bound at Shipton (several 125 services call here already), Ascott, Finstock and Combe (if the halts train is ever covered by a 125), as drivers will need help at these places to stop with standard on. So maybe an urgent stop marker programme is on the way, just in case (a 125 has worked the evening return halts train at least twice already).

As I've said before, if the SDO fails (has anyone heard of this happening while a train is in service yet?) the idea that 125s will run non-stop Oxford-Worcester, then non-stop to Hereford, would be the final straw hereabouts for FGW's tattered reputation. And in six years of Moreton-Oxford commutes, I can recall just two occasions (both at Charlbury) where some clown tried to open a door off the platform.

THAT IS A HUMAN DECISION

And any human decision can be reversed if the people choose to

That is my point

Most H&S rules are only there for the idiots of the world who probably deserve what they get

There do seem to be places where health and saftey rules seem absurd to you and me - the warning signs on a cup of coffee that say "may contain hot liquid" are one that comes to mind.

However, what was accepted and the norm in past ages is no longer so; I was brough up on the old slamdoor 4 EPB units on the Southern Region, with door catches strongly sprung inside and I don't recall too many people falling out of trains.  We were all used to them, treated them with respect (open a 5 m.p.h. coming into a station if the door was trailing, but let the train be nearly at a stop if it was facing and gooing to "wedge" in the wind).    But people would throw their hands up in horror at a suggestion like that today.

And that's not because people are more "idiots" now than they used to be.   It's because people simply aren't used to the older ways.   And the HSTs are getting old. I recall reading elsewhere on this forum about a teenager who was panicking when she couldn't get out of the train at (?) Castle Cary (?) as there was no door opening button, not realising she had to open the window, stick her hand out through the very hole labelled "do not lean out of the window" ... and fumble for the handle.  She probably had an IQ higher than mine, BUT it was here first time on FGW and such older stock - the train was twice her age - an it was something she was not  used to.

In my youth, I was also used to getting off trains at short platforms and judging whether to jump down onto the slope of more one more door up.  Today's youth is no less bright than I was but doesn't have the same experience so commonly, so the now-much-rarer case of short station, long train has to be protected against via things liks SDO and skipping stops if the ruddy thing isn't working.

I've had to help people to open the door as they were poking the 'Door Unlocked' sign  ;D

SDO is good, without it we wouldn't be able to stop at stations such as Ivybridge, where I have only had to endure a 10 minute delay, instead of 90 mins!

Personally, I agree entirely with Mookiemoo on this one. This whole question of grandfather rights defies logic, common sense and practicality.

A solicitor acquaintance of mine summed it up neatly with the following analogy.  He said it's like telling a man he mustn't beat his wife: the man replies, 'but my neighbour beats his wife!'  'Ah!' is the response, 'but that's alright, because he's been beating his wife for many years: what we're telling you is that you mustn't start beating your wife from now on!'

Before SDO, just how many people did actually go to all the effort of pushing down the door window on an HST, reaching out and opening the door and then taking a deliberate step out, without first looking to see whether there was a platform below for them to land on???

I have a more practical concern over the inordinate gap between the train and the platform edge which happens sometimes at Bristol Temple Meads, where the combination of the curved platforms and some types of DMU leave a gap of some two feet, outwards and downwards, to negotiate. Not a problem for me personally, but it's not easy for the disabled, elderly or those with young children, for example.

you may think it defies logic ,common sense, and practicality, but to enable HSTs to stop at places like Worle SDO had to be introduced too conform to  the Railway group standards rule book / Western Region Sectional Appendix.
These Documents are Not common or garden Health and Safety at work act stuff, but are far more reaching than that, i suppose if you dont work in the rail industry its probably difficult to comprehend there importance,
Although cant really find an answer as to why the stopping position was changed ,and bikes had to go in the power car on a rather odd bike rack .

Hmmm.  Interestingly, Mike Carroll couldn't produce an answer to that one, either:


Now, at the risk of boring some other members (for which I'm truly sorry, honest!): can you please explain this 'grandfather rights' thing to me?  To set the scene, in my simple terms as 'just a passenger', I am puzzled that some long trains are allowed to continue to stop at short platforms, because they have done so for many years, but no other trains which had not done so before December are allowed to start stopping there.  Sorry if that's a rather long sentence!

What I'm puzzled by is, simply: 'existing trains - alright to carry on doing it, but no new trains allowed to do it.'  If it's that dangerous, why not say "NO trains are allowed to do it from now on!"?

And finally ... any comment from a FGW point of view on this situation?

"Now, at the risk of boring some other members (for which I'm truly sorry, honest!): can you please explain this 'grandfather rights' thing to me?  To set the scene, in my simple terms as 'just a passenger', I am puzzled that some long trains are allowed to continue to stop at short platforms, because they have done so for many years, but no other trains which had not done so before December are allowed to start stopping there.  Sorry if that's a rather long sentence!"

Which is precisely my point - its either safe or it isnt

Grandfather rights are a HUMAN invention which can also be uninvented or extended is said humans choose to

And as for gaps at stations - try getting on or off at WOS or Foregate street

i am a verybshort female - my inside leg is only 24 inches

I have to clamber almost on all fours onto the train due to the fact the platform is so much lower than the train

and I am not disabled but it is embarrasing to say the least - I have to take my bag off my back - put it on the train, then climb up like a toddler

There are many "Granfather rights" on the railway, I will try to explain as best I can, back in the good old days any train could stop anywhere because people used common sense back then and didn't sue people, then at some point in time (the 80's I believe??) someone decided that it was unsafe to stop long trains at short platforms, however, they couldn't simply "ban" long trains from short platforms because of the chaos it would cause so it was decided that any "new" trains couldn't stop at any station unless they fitted into the platform, likewise any stations that were built after that date would need to fully accomodate any trains that stopped there. Grandfather rights only ever applied to trains with slam doors though I believe, because of the fact that with slam doors a passenger would need to open the window to open the door and would see if there was any platform below them, whereas on a sprinter or any train with power doors, you simply press a button and the door opens and you are more likely to just walk off. Does this help?? ;D

Not really as we are now 20 years on.............

I know WHAT grandfather rights are, I just think they are stupid

over the 20 years they have had plenty of time to phase out grandfather rights if they chose to - and clearly they haven't

As I have said before, if someone opens a HST door, and steps out without looking especially when the guard will have warned several times which doors are on the platform, then they should be given an award - for the person most lacking common sense you can think  of

What if a person is deaf/happened to miss the announcement (some are VERY unaudible)  ???

Then you have the back up - never step or walk onto something if you havent looked first

And if you are deaf ad blind - maybe you need a minder (seriously)

Yes I know hat you were saying, I was simply answering chris from nailsea's question!!!!

The main difficulty seems to be the decision always to stop the front of the train at the platform. This is why North Somerset trains lose so much time on their way into BTM. Instead of 5 platformed standard class coaches, there is now only 1. At Nailsea around 70 people try to board through 2 doors onto a coach that is already overfull due to the same arrangement applying at the previous few stations. So guess what, the dwell time increases from around 1 minute to 3 or 4. Multiply this by all the previous stations which have short platforms, and surprise,surprise, the train can't ever run on time.

Look forward to next May when they extend the journey times to take account of the increased dwell times.     

That is why (in my opinion) it was a mistake to replace Adelantes with HSTs on local services.

HSTs are great on long distance trains with stops far apart (the best in the UK in my opinion).

Ok, there are more seats on HSTs.

BUT- on the Cotswold line, these extra seats are not needed! So now we will have:

*Increased journey times as acceleration is reduced**- this is magnified as the trains have to call at every village station enroute, and the fact that punctuality is poor due to the single track.

*Increased dwell times, as people are not used to slam door, so take ages to get off, leave doors open; trains which are too long for the short platforms; having to put bikes in the engine, get out onto the platform then get on the train; trains stopping with hardly any second class on the platform.

There is hardly any scope, therefore, for trains making up time! Yes, the timetable will be made more slack, and Hereford and Worcester people will have an even longer journey to London (and it will make no difference to punctuality!)

** I know that some disagree with this- but look at the figures. I have also heard that drivers are not meant to "rev" the engines too much in stations (noise).

The Adelantes are perfect for the Cotswold line.

Do not get me started on SDO! It is an insult to the British people, which only exists because of our obsession with Heath and Safety and the fact that the UK is a major suing community.

we have the Yanks to thank for this!!! I agree with you about the Adelantes, I think a good old saying is "horses for courses" HST's might be great trains but you wouldn't want one on the Looe branch!!

Revving engines was only really applied to the old engines, which were meant to be driven at notch 2 until the end of the platform (snail pace).

The new MTUs are allowed notch 4 departures I believe, which is faster, although not many drivers seem to do it.

Blame "Thatcher" the Snatcher for stealing free school milk, for bringing Britain into the SUE everybody culture and the crazy H & S that followed.

That woman did more damage to Britain than a MR ADOLF HILTER.

And as much damage to the railways as DR BEECHING!

As a matter of interest the Beeching report is now avalible on line and actually makes interesting reading , Dr Beeching did say close lines XYZ  but also said spend x Million on lines ABC and guess what the government  closed  XYZ but spent no money on ABC.

Many thanks, vacman: yes, it does help - up to a point!  ;)

Problem is, we at Nailsea have only ever had HSTs with slam doors where this is an issue - and as John R has posted here previously, everything was going just fine until SDO was introduced!

I must say I sympathise with Mookiemoo: just because some trains have been 'getting away with it' because of some historic (apparently more than twenty year old!) timetable rule, doesn't mean that some new service for an HST to include a stop at Nailsea shouldn't be allowed without SDO?

If some chump has been getting off an unplatformed 0945(ish) HST at Nailsea and doing a triple somersault down the embankment into the brambles for twenty years, he ain't going to be stopped from also doing it from a new 1015 service - just supposing one were to be introduced!  ;D

Concerning Nailsea prior to SDO, you would not have needed it to stop extra trains there, but as you are probably aware HSTs now stop at Worle and can only do so because of SDO.
if you read the Sectional appendix it states trains of a certain length could not stop at Worle. to overcome this rule SDO was introduced, { this also is the case for lots of other newer type stations}.
 i understand changes are a foot with regards to stopping positions in the very near future especially in the up direction

Thanks very much: could you possibly give us that web address, please?

I'm glad to hear that up trains are likely to have the stopping positions changed. Isn't it as simple as saying that up services will have the rear 4 coaches platformed+ power car?

Of course, this has all come about because First decided that they could save money on local services' rolling stock by making additional calls by Inter-City type trains. But they could only add additional stops (eg Worle. In fact, are there any other?) by introducing SDO. Grandfather rights precluded Worle as it was opened after H&S rules came in.

So when the MP for Weston triumphantly announced that from Dec 07, IC125s would stop at Worle, little did he realise what an impact he would have over the whole of the FGW franchise area.     

SDO in action? Taken on Saturday at Shipton. This is the 15.28 departure for London pulling away, running reverse formation with standard at the front, so the three passengers waiting to board from the two-coach platform were able to get straight into standard class. The Midland Mainline coaches were sandwiching a refurbished FGW buffet.

CANBER has had a link on its website to the original Beeching report, and also to its sequel, for quite some time (link below.)
http://www.beechingreport.info/

You can also find the 80's version (the Serpell report, which incidentally Thatcher rejected) in the link below (thanks dewarw.)
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Serpell001.pdf

There are lots of Stations The same as Worle throughout FGW Land where HSTs can now additionally stop, surely it makes good business  sense to stop HSTs which have much more capacity at these new stations, providing new services and service recovery stops which could never have happened prior to SDO.

Are grandfather rights limited to specific older trains (like HST) only or are they limited to specific stations as well.  The former makes some sense (although I am not sure I agree with teh logic teh logic is there), The latter does not.

Both!

I was wondering whether there were any others apart from Worle where SDO has enabled a station to be served by HSTs as timetabled stops since December? I agree it makes good business sense, but only if it works!

John,

Shipton, see my picture (may not display in some older browsers and do you have to be logged in to see pictures?), is a case in point, as is Hanborough, both Cotswold Line stations served regularly by 125s since December, plus, in emergencies - has happened twice now - the halts at Combe, Finstock and Ascott-under-Wychwood.

True but it does not negate the lack of common sense

Honeybourne has been served by HST for years with I think only 3 carriages on the platform

Even without SDO this could continue - but Hanborough could not be started

Now, if it is dangerous and against H&S to stop at Hanborough, it has to be the same to stop at Honeybourne

Grandfather rights are a load of political twaddle

It is either safe or dangerous - if the first, then no problem, if the second, it shouldnt happen anywhere

Question - since high speed trains have been stopping at short platforms (i.e. since they very first began) how many recorded incidents of injury have been incurred by morons stepping out of a train without looking where they are going?  What was the financial loss?  And was this loss equal to the amount of bad press and pissed off cutomers that have resulted.

And dont say "worle" because a HST could have stopped at Worle if some human in the chain had had the gumption to say, this is a ******* joke.

Ah, that will please my old friend Mr Matthews, of the mill in Shipton.

Stations which can now be served by HST's if needs be are, St Budeaux Ferry road, Dockyard, Ivybridge, Torre??, Worle, plenty of stations on the Cotswold line I believe? Bruton is one which hasn't been mentioned, and i'll bet there are plenty more!!

Think it only really concerns HSTs due to there length, age and having slam doors Tim..

In theory can't HST's stop at any station once they've worked out which carriages to unlock.

Is it just me, or is this thread starting to go round in circles?

1. Grandfather rights. They are no longer relevant, SDO is here to stay, though frankly I still don't believe this stuff about running non-stop past short platform stations if there is an SDO fault. I ask again, has anyone heard of a case of this actually happening yet? Or maybe the SDO system is the most reliable thing FGW operates.

2. Agreed, grandfather rights were often a nonsense, eg Hanborough v Honeybourne. Although they weren't meant to call there, on several occasions, after a previous cancellation, I travelled on 125s where the driver was handed a special stop order for Hanborough at Oxford. In neither of the incidents of doors being opened off the platform at Charlbury that I recall did anyone fall out, as they quickly noticed the big drop, assisted by a shout from the guards, who were always on alert for this.

3. The key issue related to the introduction of SDO was the policy change to stopping the front end of 125s on the platform, even if this meant first class occupying all, or almost all of a platform in the morning peak. On the basis of Mike Carroll's comments in Charlbury last Friday, they are now going back to the pre-December practice of stopping standard class on platforms, as soon as all the relevant staff get a proper briefing about the do's and don'ts. I'm sure there will be exceptions, just as there were before SDO, especially if a train formation is reversed, or no off-platform stop markers for drivers are provided, which I assume is the case at many of the extra stations now being served.

As in, "Oi, ****head, step back inside and shut that door!!!"

Seriously, thanks, Will, for your summary of this: I must say, I was getting giddy, going round in circles like that.

Or maybe its a policy decision to do away with first class.

I have noticed a distinct hostility towards first class passengers on occasiion..............  that we should give up our mobile offices to allow other people to have a seat

Maybe the theory was - piss off enough of us, thwy wont have a first class market so can stick 8 standard cattle cars on in the peak

Just a theory

An interesting theory - but I'm not sure it's viable, though.  (Sorry, Mookiemoo, I'm going to disagree with you on this one!)  :-[

Lots of first class passengers pay the full whack - and that's big money - for season tickets. Pound for pound, relative to passengers carried / miles travelled, that's a lot more than the equivalent rate for standard class.  That's good business for any TOC.

First class is 'generally' not oversubscribed - that's why late discounts/upgrades are often available for first class, to fill seats that would otherwise be empty.  Again, good business for any TOC.

Now, I can only comment from a Bristol - Paddington - Bristol perspective (not WOS - PAD - WOS, which I do accept may be quite different!), but I have often observed that first class is relatively deserted most of the time.  How about a compromise, where we remove carriage G from first class, leaving H and the F part of the buffet car, and add another coach (EE?) to standard class accomodation?  That would perhaps double the capacity of one carriage within the train, and resolve a lot of the current problems of overcrowding - and mean that only one and a half first class carriages would have to be accomodated under SDO, not two and a half!

Now, I'll just duck back down and wait to be shot at!

There was a case in Cornwall where the TM was not SDO trained so the service had to have enough carriages locked out of use so that it could call at every station. I think it must have only been Standard open as it called at Hayle which only accomadates five carriages so everything else would have been locked from Exeter/Plymouth downwards.
I think that this would be a brilliant idea. You could get rid of H rename it F, the buffet G and the First Class carriage H. F could be converted to original HST layout, i.e. all at tables, name it The Family Carriage and have a special Group Booking Line so Groups or Families could book a table.

I'll have to disagree here, first clas can get VERY busy between Plymouth/Exeter and the capital, try going up on the 0505 Pnz-Padd on a week day and just look in the first class! The one compromise could be to convert the buffet to Standard accomodation with tables only. One thing worth noting on the "golden Hind", the 0505 Pnz-Padd, is that a SOR from Truro to Padd is about ^257 and an FOR is about ^330, for the extra ^70 you may as well go FC when forking out that much for a ticket! the "Golden Hind" is the only "peak" train from Cornwall.

On the introduction of SDO it was intended to stop the front coaches onto the platform, First Class normally in the up direction and where trains normally stopped in the down direction ie Standard Class. (we all know that O.K). But despite being told by the people on the ground (including Standard Managers) that it would not work the powers that be snuggled up in their warm little office in the ivory towers of Swindon instructed all and sundry that that was the way THEY wanted it done and that was the way it WOULD be done, end of story.

Then came launch day, trains stopping at new stations with short platforms and stations which have been called at for years on their way to London needing to have bikes loaded into the power cars then unloaded again a couple of stations up the line were arriving into Paddington 30/40 minutes late even with a Guard and a couple of Managers trying to make this cock handed system work.

The answer to this was to trial the old system using the SDO opening the doors to the rear instead of the front, eight trains daily which are the 06.26 Weston-Super-Mare(W-S-M), 0648 W-S-M, 05.24 Plymouth, 06.45 Exeter St Davids, 07.38 Paington, 05.30 Gt Malvern, 05.11 Abergavenny and the 06.09 Abergavenny. Hey guess what IT WORKS this is in until further notice we are told and I for one wonder if those power mad managers in the ivory tower who chose not to listen to us numbties who do the job every day will ever have the balls to eat their humble pie and bring back in the system that has worked successfully for the past er um well forever actually.

I believe that they are going back to the old system soon, only slight problem with the old system is where there are signals on the ends of platforms (you probably know more than me 12hoursunday as your a driver!!), I know that before SDO there was an agreement between NR and FGW that if an HST that stopped at Saltash didn't have the road onto the single line on the bridge then the train would be stopped at the preceeding signal until they had the road across the bridge then they would let the train in to the platform, anyone who knows Saltash will know that if the signal on the up line is "on" then only the power car and the front coach will fit onto the platform as the signal is half way along the platform.

We now have HSTs calling at Bedwyn, Hungerford, Kintbury, Thatcham, Theale and Reading West on my route. A couple of observations from my experience as a passenger looking out of the window:

When going in the London direction, the rear coaches of the train stop over the level crossings at Kintbury and Thatcham, and I see quite large queues of traffic building up. If the trains could pull up further, this might be avoided, and the standard coaches would be on the platform.

Some guards seem to rely on their own observation from the "control panel" point to make sure that passengers have shut the doors behind them before departure. Others walk the full length of the platform to check, which increases station time. The overall time-keeping therefore seems to depend on who's on duty. Actual journey times can easily exceed timetabled journey times (which were already extended for the HSTs) by a good 10 minutes, just in time sat at stations.

HSTs have replaced 180s, which in turn replaced Turbos on the B&H peak stoppers. My rough estimates of first class to standard class seating ratios on the example of the train that arrives in Paddington before 0830 are:

6 car 166 (pre Dec 06):   64:480 (1:7.5)
10 car 180 (pre Dec 07): 84:456 (1: 5.4)
HST (from Dec 07):          100:400 (1:4)

Sorry if my numbers are inaccurate, but you get the general idea. The number of standard seats has in fact reduced (accepted that HST seats are more comfortable than Turbos) and the proportion of first has increased. The take up of first class on these trains is relatively low (compared with, say, London-Bristol services), and some passengers may now even be tempted to down-trade for local journeys since standard class in an HST offers greater comfort than first class in a Turbo. The result is that standard class is now more crowded than before, and 1st class is suffering from relative desertion. To make best use of capacity, FGW need to consider how they can optimise the usage of the first class usage on these "local HSTs", perhaps by pricing or other incentives, or even partial declassification.

Maybeon local journeys then just have a ^5 suplement for First class? similar to weekend first?

I think the vast majority of the problem with all of this is that HST's are now being used to deputise for local stopping commuter services, which they just are not designed for. SDO and serving these stops is a positive step, if it allows HST's to pick up and set down when local services are cancelled or delayed, but they just aren't suitable traction for stopping services.

Stopping HST's at places such as Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Thatcham or Reading West is rather strange it must be said. It is similar to using Virgin's Pendolinos to serve Wembley Central, Cheddington, Wolverton, or using East Coast 225's on Peterborough - Kings Cross stoppers. I agree there is a case for additional calls of HSTs at sizeable towns at the very extremities of the old NSE network (e.g.) Hungerford and support stopping more trains at Didcot Parkway.

I'd also question as to whether places like Worle and Weston Milton actually warrant an HST to London. It's not dissimilar to stopping Wolverhampton to London Intercity Trains at all intermediate suburban stops between Wolverhampton and New Street or Birmingham International and Coventry. Surely the vast majority of these people are commuting just to Bristol?

Great Western appear to be stuffed up somewhere where local and commuter services are concerned, and don't have enough suitable local and regional stock, and it appears to be a rushed and panicky solution, to what is a long term problem. The priority should really be looking at suitable ways to provide high quality commuter and regional services. No doubt someone will point out that there is some good reason why companies like London Midland can have a fleet of turbostars and new 350's on order to replace their 150 and 321 fleet, where as Great Western cannot. Personally, I think a decent order of a fleet of 4 or 5 car 172s with corridor connections for Thames Valley and West services is a far better use of money, and would do far more for the reptuation of Great Western than tinkering around with the electrics of 30 year old trains designed for limited stop mainline express routes. As for the question of who will pay for it, who's paying for the recent London Midland, South Eastern or Southern orders? If they can get new traction, why can't Great Western? And isn't getting rid of 180s largely insane?

Welcome to the forum.

getting rid of the 180s was mad!

Getting new stock requires FGW to spend mon^y! That is why they have not.

London Midland's order might benefit FGW (cascading 150s to FGW, if they have not yet clapped out!).

They are indeed. The services fulfill a dual purpose, running as commuter services into Bristol, and then almost completely empty and refill again at Bristol. Indeed the 0645 from Exeter was only added as an additional commuter service in the infamous December 06 timetable change.

Seems logical therefore to provide an improved and more suitable commuter / regional type service on this part of the network, and leave the HST's to what they do best, i.e. 125mph running with limited stops. HST's with their door layout and acceleration just aren't suitable trains for this sort of job.

I'd assume there is still some demand for direct Weston to London services though, so maybe have a small number of through ones, which only serve Weston and Nailsea (for easier changing purposes than Bristol), assuming a decent alternative and more suitable commuter service can be provided to make up for the smaller stations.

Of course this isn't likely to happen unless more stock is sourced from somewhere.

Well it's a long established practice to utilise Inter-City trains as commuter services from Weston to Bristol. In 1973  there was a 0630 from Weston to Paddington calling all stations (including Parson St and Bedminster) to Bristol, and another at 0807. So I don't think one can blame FGW for starting the practice, and its an effective utilisation of good quality stock which otherwise would be sitting in the depot awaiting its first turn. The introduction of a fourth HST last year was a very welcome improvement, augmented this December with stops on a XC service at Yatton and Nailsea.

Mind you, looking at that 1973 timetable and things have improved a bit since then. Miss the 0936 from Nailsea and you'd have to wait until 1307 for the next train to Bristol. And on Sunday, Nailsea was closed but services stopped at Bedminster and Parson St! 

In the past the situation you mentioned has always came down to the driver and the guard coming to a clear understanding also when a train working a down service in reverse formation the driver will enquire with the guard where he wants the train stopped and what will happen when that plan might change. (i.e when it has been to decided  to stop the front of the train on the platform (First Class) and a passenger has placed a bike in the van!). It's all common sense really but the nanny state has has bubbled over into FGW and seems like the management doesn't like us train crew to make the decisions that might make things easier for everyone.


I have wondered why as FGW have hired in extra HST's to replace 180's diagram's then why not have 14 HST sets with say 6 coaches 5 STD & 1 First then these trains could cover the turns that were worked by the 180's

Good idea!

Something along the lines of Cross Country (old)

6 standard TGS TS TS TS TS TSD = 488
1 First TF = 48

Thats rough calculations based on:
TGS = 76 seats
TS = 84 seats
TSD = 76 seats
TF = 48 seats

I'm not actually sure of the actual numbers.

It does depend what view they have got. It is posiable for both cases to happen. I mean, where the light reflects on the door. Also, a good way to tell is the sound. Sometimes however, if a guard is unsure, they will walk the train, Safety FIRST.

and "service" 999th (after profits etc.) !!!!!!

I'm pretty sure it's profit first, safety second if and when they can get away with it.

Utter nonsence  ::)

Quite right there!

Definitely profits first!

Or does safety come under the profits band (amount of compensation they have to pay out)?

The compensation culture we have is the only reason anyone cares about Health and Safety, FGW included!

That's why the HSTs have locks- really, how many (sane/not stupid) people are going to open and lean out of a window when at 125 mph and fiddle with the door handle?

The fact is that before the central locking was introduced there was a steady stream of fatalities due to people falling out of Mk 3 coaches at speed. It was never explained why, but it stopped once the central locking was installed.

Agreed, John - and IIRC part of the problem was that the door could be opened by a handle on the inside - where that shiny steel blanking plate was fitted, when central locking was introduced?

No Chris, they've never been openable (if that's a verb) from the inside. So it was always a mystery as to how someone could lean out and open the door from the outside at speed. But it happened often enough for the conclusion to be drawn that it needed addressing. 

Thanks, John: in that case, a mystery indeed!  But I don't have a problem with central locking per se - just with the way it's being applied perversely with SDO, for example at Nailsea!

 HST Doors have never ever been openable from the inside, there were two types of lock fitted to slam door rolling stock the type with the openable handle fron the inside was a single acting lock and was only ever fitted to innersuburban commuter stock
The type fitted to HSTs is the only one now in service and this is a double acting lock which has a two stage catch to prevent people falling out if they should try to open the door when the train is moving,and thus you have always had to open the window to operate the door handle

Thanks to you, too, dog box: my memory is obviously more dodgy than I thought!  ;)

However, in view of the fairly comprehensive security of such a lock, it is indeed a mystery how anyone could bypass it, while travelling at high speed?

Or is this a case of, "nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenious!"  :-\

Or could it be that slam doors were outlawed because of the issues that happened on the commuter services that had different locks

And no one bothered to make the effort to specify that FGW style locks are ok - saw it as an opportunity to outlaw all slam doors unless there was centra locking

CDL (central door locks) were only fitted to the HST style locks, all of the old slam door DMU's and EMU's never had any form of door locks fitted, that is apart from the Arriva "bubble car" and the Chiltern "bubble car" which have a strange electro-magnet type CDL. However, at the time, it was not expected for the DMU's and EMU's to be in service for much longer.

The single acting lock was fitted to mK1 Stock and i think that mk2/3 were fitted with the double acting type when new. many mk1s were converted to the newer type.
Regulations dictated all slam doors needed to be locked, mk2/3 were fitted with central door locking ,whilst mk1 vehicles would have been expensive to do and thus as Mookiemoo states only a handful were ever done
All new type trains 170 /5 etc are built with Sdo and thus Hsts now have it to ensure they meet modern regs

You got a bad memory?
Remember the Southall Crash?

The Boffins at the RTC (Railway Techincal Centre) DID get to the bottom of it.

Carriages where fatalities had occured with persons falling from a moving train, were examined in detail and NO FAULT with the door locks or catches could be found.

However rolling stock suffer from Stress, Expansion and Air Pressures, and the faster the speed the greater the effect.
It was found by lasar measurment that carriages twist and deflect with the shocks coming from the wheels and bogies, along with heat expansion and the lower air pressure outside a train at high speeds.
It was found that with this twisting action the gap between the door lock and striker plate could increase, and in a very few cases it was enough to allow the door lock to move past the striker plate and, bang the door would fly open by air pressure.

That is the reason Secondary Door locks operate at Right Angles to the Door Handle lock.

Well thank you. I never knew that.

Do you really remeber it?
If so, which company was involved carrying passengers?
(No one else answer, I want Smokey to answer)

Great Western Trains GWT part owned by First Group forunner of FGW (same Management).

Train Started journey WITH Defective AWS, against Railway Group Standards

First Group had not taken over the running of Great Western by then. It was still operated by Great Western Trains ltd.

Earlier in this thread Willc wondered what would happen if SDO failed on the cotswold line...well it did this morning.  The 0542 Hereford
ran fast between Evesham and Oxford due to an SDO equipment failure (according to TM on later train). Train did not stop at any short platform stations.

Damn

And I got the 0545 WOS cos I had to be in early!  If the 0632 ran fast to oxford it would have made me early enough to get in!

It was still late through Chalrbury....assume it failed somewhere near Evesham and they spent time getting it working

A post on the Charlbury commuter blog suggests that passengers did get on this train at Moreton-in-Marsh, where it had to stop so the driver could hand the single-line token to the signaller. Going the other way, a no-SDO train could pull up short at Moreton signalbox, instead of the driver using the token machine in a cabinet at the end of the platform.

Anyway, there already appears to be a ready-made exception to the rule that 'thou shalt not board an HST with an SDO fault at a short platform'.

Does SDO work on the hybrid sets of refurbished carriages with an old buffet in the middle?  ???

Of course it does...SDO is only a wiring modification to the door control panels

The Train Fellow missed the 0718 from Kingham because of this morning's problem....
http://trainfellows.blogspot.com/2008/02/selective-door-opening-almighty-cock-up.html

All well and good - but as an SC passenger - why did he have a seat in FC without paying the surcharge


I bet there were FC passengers who were passed on that train (I know there are) who did not get a discount or reduction without jumping through hoops to get it!

Everyone between Evesham and Oxford were in the same boat - why do SC get a chance to be upgraded for nothing?

What does this thread have to do with whether people get upgraded to first class for free? You already started a whole new thread on it the other day.

Mookiemoo was referring to the following quote from the Train Fellow, who had to wait for the next train because his usual train didnt stop at Kingham due to the SDO problem (link below) :
http://trainfellows.blogspot.com/2008/02/selective-door-opening-almighty-cock-up.html

Yes I know, I read it. The Train Fellow asked for an upgrade and was given one, as is allowed under the NRCC. I was just questioning why it was necessary to drag out the "keep out of my first class" soapbox on another thread when there's a perfectly adequate one already running.  :)

For the benefit of forum readers, here is a link to it.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1850.msg13338#msg13338

And that quote implies he was intending to sit without paying the surcharge until the revenue inspectors came on and did their job

Oxford Mail article link.
http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.2089862.0.train_missed_out_stations.php

Oh, well I take it the train arrived at Padd on time!  :D

I doubt it, this was Ian L's note earlier in this thread


And the halts train into Oxford and the next Abergavenny/Hereford-London service were both about 20-25 minutes late to Oxford and Reading that morning.

Oh for goodness sake......... they can't even run to time when they miss out all stops.  >:(

No wonder the service is so bad normally!  ::)

------------------------

It is about time we stand up to these Health and Safety talibans. Just think about what will be banned in the next 2 years. We will all be sat at home on hard ergonomically desgined (and passed) sofas, with seat belts on (just in case). Turning lights on will have to be done with remote control. Sockets will be painted yellow for visability.

And as for the thought of getting on a train that travels at 100+ mph...........

Ughhhh- what makes me so angry, is that I am probably not exaggerating that much!

The sooner we put a stop to this nonsense, and it IS nonsense- we ran an excellent railway in the past without all of this c**p, and we know to get off adjacent to the platform- the better. The longer we put it off, more and more stuff will get banned and regulated.

 >:(

[/rant]

Hear Hear Hear HEar Hear Hear Hear

Do I detect just a hint, Mookiemoo, that you are not the world's greatest fan of 'Health and Safety'?   ;)

Seriousally though - is there no body here who does not think H&S is just starting to get too much!

Agree totally.

It has gone beyond a joke. Talk about dumbing down - is it really a surprise when you are forced not to think for yourself anymore???

I dotn ming H&S when it is sensible

When it is for the sole purpose of protecting darwin award candidates, then no

I had a client - factory - sensible rule for the people on the shop floor - no open toed shoes

Except this also applied to me - the IT person who didnt even had a pass to get onto the shop floor!  Apparently it was to protect my toes in case something such as a ream of paper was dropped!

And on the subject of SDO

On the 0841 from WOS to PAD

Why is 1st class being platformed again!

Hi Mookiemoo,

The is the 0938 from Charlbury, first time I have been on it for a week so the first time I have seen it as a HST (been an Adelante for years now).

Agree (and I have it in writing from FGW) that they have supposedly reverted to platforming the rear of the train when in normal formation going to PAD, except when the driver/TM decide otherwise.

So yes I am one of the people who rather than walk the entire length of the platform and slow the train down got on the train at the nearest door and walked down through first class.

Sorry!

But nothing to do with SDO which can operate to selectively unlock doors either way.

Ian L.

But where you one of the ones who kept nicking The Times off the tables?  By the time I got off at Reading there were none left in G and F

Not guilty.....already bought mine from the rack at the station!

At the moment, they are still putting out new stop markers for drivers at stations and briefing staff, so unless the train is one of a handful covered by the 'trial' of what they always used to do, eg the two Abergavenny/Hereford to London morning peak trains and, I think, some Nailsea trains, the chances are that an HST will still stop first class on if heading towards London.

The thing is, if they stop HSTs with the rear power car on the platform for some stations, how to people get their bikes if they loaded them onto the front power car at an earlier station, where the rear car was not on the platform (and no, there has not been a full length platform to swap!)? >:(

e.g.

Loading bike at Evesham- not full length but pretty long so front car platfromed.

Getting off at Charlbury- shorter, so rear car platformed.

They need to be consistent. Make a decision, either all front or all back cars platformed.

For people on the Golden Valley Line, the reversal at Gloucester does not help! ;)

----------------------

;D I am glad that I am not the only one who is concerned......

My understanding is that once new stop markers are out and all train crew have been briefed, it will always be standard class coaches on short platforms, thus including coach A with its bike storage area, unless there is a very good operational reason why it can't be - eg signal positions, I think Saltash was mentioned in this connection earlier in the thread. Stick a great big bike symbol on coach A and I think most people will take the hint.

Thanks, willc!

The 0944 Nailsea to Bristol Temple Meads on Thursday morning did stop with the leading first class well beyond the platform at Nailsea - but it had run in quite slowly, as there were two chaps in conspicuity coats apparently placing two or three new stop markers on the trackside?  I'll have another look later this morning and try to work out what that's all about!

C.  ;)

But I assume there will still be problems like I suggested above, caused by signal limitations, track layout etc.

What happens if someone gets off, and their bike is in the power car/guards van, which is off the platform?

I think that's what happened on the early morning Paddington to Swansea that I was on the other week, which reverses in Temple Meads and calls at Abbey Wood ... stopped with the front in the platform, discussion between customer and train crew, train pulls forward and makes a second stop.

I knew there must be at least one example of this having to happen.

This is not good! Affected stations need to have platform extensions as a priority. FGWs franchise is on the line- and it does not give good publicity (of the introduction of HSTs to short platforms).

The only other thing they could do, is rip out a toilet and put in a "temporary" bike space, for people to store cycles for the final/first stretch of their journey after/before they switch it from/to a power car.

But ripping out yet another toilet will not go down well!

I think the Saltashes really are exceptional cases - there aren't enough about to cause serious problems and train crews will, I'm sure, be wise to them and warn people well in advance. In future it will be standard class on the platform at almost every station, irrespective of whether the HST is in correct or reverse formation, so I can't see there being great difficulties, given that cyclists will be advised to use the TGS and the adjacent power car stowage area at all times.

The stop-start-stop scenario Grahame mentions was seen on the Cotswold Line in the past with reverse rake HSTs, as there were no stop markers beyond the platform ends in the Worcester direction, so the TGS (then the only bike stowage area) would be off the far end. The guards would get passengers off, before using buzzer signals to tell the driver to crawl forward, then when to stop with the back end of the train on the platform so the cyclists could get their bikes off.

I also saw that 'forward a bit ... forward a bit ... STOP!' on the west-bound HSTs at Nailsea a couple of times, in the early days of SDO ...  ;)

Yes, but I expect that even with all the slack in the timetable, this delays services!

Oh well- it should be over soon.

I hope so. I've noticed that the 0811 from Nailsea has reverted to having First class platformed this week.

Ah, thanks, John!  That will perhaps explain this, then:


 :D

However ... the 0944 from Nailsea to Bristol this morning (delayed 15 mins due to 'adverse weather conditions between Teignmouth and Dawlish', apparently!) also stopped with the leading first class carriages well beyond the platform. The two 'new?' stop markers that I noted, by the way, are in the right place for such positioning: one for 2+7 and the other for 2+8.

I must say, it does seem a bit inconsistent, still?  ???

So far I haven't seen any new briefings about changes to what was originally announced, I would assume any service that is not doing what was previously briefed is on a trial basis.

Either that or us staff at Paddington don't get to find out.

What are the "2+7" markers for?

I thought FGW decided to run 8 coaches only, or were they put in before the decision was made?

This morning - the 0632 WOS to PAD was stopping first class platformed - the TM was not one I recognised -was like trying to sit and work on platform 1 of paddington !

 :D