|
Title: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on October 29, 2015, 03:15:13 From the Press Association ...
Quote Rail campaigners have called for investment in trains that are "fit for this century" after new figures showed Britain's rolling stock is at its oldest age in 14 years. The average age of trains is 20.2 years across the country as a whole and is even older outside of the South East, according to data from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). The Rail Delivery Group (RDG), which represents train operators and Network Rail, said thousands of new carriages will be introduced in the next few years. ORR statistics show that rolling stock in London and the South East is 18.1 years old. The figure for the rest of the country is 22.6 years, which is the highest since current records began in April 2000. Merseyrail has the oldest trains of any operator, averaging 36.3 years. Ed Cox, director at think-tank IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) North, said: "Some of the north's outdated train rolling stock could be considered more of a laughing stock, with carriages and overcrowding not fit for purpose for a burgeoning northern economy. "Decades of chronic underinvestment in the north's transport infrastructure has held back the region, with commuters and business frustrated by the poor service on offer." Passenger groups called for a new strategy to improve trains across the country. Martin Abrams of the Campaign for Better Transport said: "These figures are not particularly surprising as we know thousands of passengers are travelling on trains simply not fit for purpose. "In the north of England for instance passengers are still having to endure the decrepit old Pacer trains. The problem is there's no national rolling stock strategy from the Government and that's what needs to change. The Government needs to come up with a plan to replace outdated rolling stock and ensure passengers have trains fit for the 21st Century." A spokesman for independent watchdog Transport Focus said modern trains were "urgently needed" in some areas. Bruce Williamson, of campaign group Rail Future, said: "We need a very long-term, steady stream of investment, without the stop-start, feast or famine we've seen in the past decades which isn't good for the rail industry." He added: "We have a desperate shortage of rail stock across the network so we can't afford to get rid of any of it." Trade unions urged the Government to "get a grip" on reducing the age of rolling stock. Mick Cash, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, said: "The lack of planning on Britain's fragmented and privatised railways has left growing numbers of passengers travelling in clapped out, overcrowded trains while the rip-off rail companies are laughing all the way to the bank." Transport Salaried Staffs Association leader Manuel Cortes said: "Passengers deserve so much better from the rail companies than to be shunted around in old, outdated and uncomfortable carriages. This Government should get a grip and start investing in a railway and rolling stock fit for this century not the last one." Mick Whelan, general secretary of Aslef, the train drivers' union, claimed "the failure to introduce enough modern trains that treat the travelling public better than cattle" was one of the major failings of privatisation of the network. He added: "Those passengers in the regions will always be disadvantaged by the cascading system of newer trains for the South East and intercity services, and hand-me-downs for everyone else." The RDG insisted the private sector has invested billions of pounds in new trains over the past 20 years. The organisation added that trains which have already been ordered will reduce the average age of the national fleet. A spokesman said: "Train companies work closely with the Department for Transport to buy new rolling stock. In the next few years, thousands of new carriages will be introduced with more seats, giving passengers faster and more comfortable journeys." The figures released by the ORR show the average age of rolling stock between January and March. They are at the oldest level since the same period in 2001, when the average was 20.3 years. Long distance stock is an average of 23.7 years old. 1. Merseyrail: 36.3 years 2. First Great Western: 32.4 years 3. Virgin Trains East Coast: 29.3 years 4. Govia Thameslink Railway: 28.9 years 5. Greater Anglia: 27.6 years 6. Northern Rail: 26.3 years 7. Arriva Trains Wales: 24.4 years 8. East Midlands Trains: 23.3 years 9. ScotRail: 20.5 years 10. Chiltern: 19.1 years 11. South West Trains: 18.9 years 12. CrossCountry: 16.6 years 13. Southeastern: 15.4 years 14. c2c: 14.0 years 15. Southern: 13.9 years 16. London Midland: 11.0 years 17. Virgin Trains West Coast: 10.4 years 18. First TransPennine Express: 7.7 years 19. London Overground: 4.7 years Released at midnight (3 hours ago) and staring to make some of the papers. Also expected to be covered on BBC Radio Wiltshire's breakfast show in a few hours. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on October 29, 2015, 03:35:48 Years of introduction (I've done my best - some classes are spread over a number of years)
Sleeper locos 1964 / rebuilt 2002 125 1975 Sleeper carriages 1983 150/0 1984 143 1985 150/1 1986 150/2 1987 153 1987 / rebuilt 1991 158 1989 165 1990 166 1992 180 2002 360 2004 Next arrivals in the South West include: D Train 1978 / rebuilt 2015 Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: PhilWakely on October 29, 2015, 07:00:08 Quote Merseyrail has the oldest trains of any operator, averaging 36.3 years. Unless it is treated as a 'special case', isn't the SWT's Island Line stock 77 years old - which would almost certainly drag the SWT average much older than 18 years? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ellendune on October 29, 2015, 07:29:07 Unless it is treated as a 'special case', isn't the SWT's Island Line stock 77 years old - which would almost certainly drag the SWT average much older than 18 years? That's averages for you. Given the large amount of stock that SWT operates and the few trains required to run the island line it will hardly have much effect. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on October 29, 2015, 08:08:48 To a degree, the age discussion is a bit of a red herring - as Dan Panes (for GWR) said on radio Wiltshire a few minutes ago, virtually everything in the High Speed Trains has been replaced and they're not exactly broken. Much more important is the need for more capacity - which IEP and AT300 will provide on the long distance / main lines - and enough capacity for growth at the actual levels that happen (latest - 5.7% compound) rather than the lower predictions against which long term plans are made (3% compound).
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: paul7575 on October 29, 2015, 08:20:30 With EMU fleets having an expected in-service life of around 40 years plus, and DMU fleets around 30 years, in a completely steady state (without peaks and troughs in ordering) wouldn't the expected average age be around 20 or 15 years respectively anyway? And the 'national average of all stock is 20.2 years as per the press release?
So how different from a 'historic norm' is this figure, and is this a real story? The forced replacement of Mk 1 EMU stock put SN and SWT particularly into a position where huge quantities of stock are relatively new (458,444,450, and numerous 377 versions) - or it would probably be even worse now. Paul Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 29, 2015, 09:27:36 You beat me to this - it rather is a non-story - except maybe for the Pacers....
I agree with Dan Paines - Capacity is more the issue, surely? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on October 29, 2015, 09:42:19 You've got to love the duplicity from the unions, particularly the RMT. Moaning about the age of rolling stock while at the same time striking over the introduction of new stock. ::)
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on October 29, 2015, 09:43:17 Agree. GWR has old HST which from a passenger perspective are the finest stock ever built.
XC has a fleet half the age, but for whatever reason their trains are smelly, with faulty air con, inadequate luggage space, lack of space, no buffet, a poorly implemented reservation system, resistors on the roof that cant cope with sea spray, underfloor noise and too few coaches. And the stupid thing is that I bet the 220/221s cost more to lease/run/maintain than the HSTs do. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on October 29, 2015, 09:44:47 You've got to love the duplicity from the unions, particularly the RMT. Moaning about the age of rolling stock while at the same time striking over the introduction of new stock. ::) It is not the stock per se they object to it is the placement of the door controls within reach of the driver. I am sure that the dispute would end if GWR plated over them Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 29, 2015, 09:47:30 But hav e East Coast done the same /agreed to this on their forthcoming stock? I've not heard that they are doing so - and in which case, why aren't RMT in disagreement with them too?
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: broadgage on October 29, 2015, 10:16:41 Agree. GWR has old HST which from a passenger perspective are the finest stock ever built. XC has a fleet half the age, but for whatever reason their trains are smelly, with faulty air con, inadequate luggage space, lack of space, no buffet, a poorly implemented reservation system, resistors on the roof that cant cope with sea spray, underfloor noise and too few coaches. And the stupid thing is that I bet the 220/221s cost more to lease/run/maintain than the HSTs do. Agree, it is not age that is of concern but capacity and passenger comfort/on board facilities. Elsewhere on these forums I have been very critical of the new IEPs, my objections could be summarised by saying that I expect them to be too similar to voyagers. From the passengers point of view, voyagers were one of biggest downgrades ever. A popular newspaper at the time stated that the then Virgin cross country "had been given a record subsidy to halve the length of the trains" Prior to the voyager fiasco, a few doubters expressed doubts about half length trains without sufficient luggage space or a proper buffet, such doubts were drowned out by the "shorter DMUs are wonderful" brigade. Though of course "shorter" is not a term that should be applied to new trains ! "flexible" sounds so much better. It is now fairly widely accepted that voyagers are not as wonderful as was promised, but no one is going to scrap relatively new trains so we are stuck with the wretched things for years. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on October 29, 2015, 10:37:27 I'm now a regular user of CrossCountry Voyagers thanks to same day Advances undercutting the walk up tickets, and CrossCountry's 10 Minute Reservation system if I'm using a Rover or walk up ticket.
I used to be on the 'Voyagers are crap' bandwagon, but with regular use of them I've changed my opinion. I'm now more than happy to use them. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: bobm on October 29, 2015, 10:46:07 My particular bugbear with voyagers is the communal blinds which cover two or sometimes three windows. Someone sitting behind you suddenly decides they want the blind all the way down and without warning your view is gone. Suggesting a compromise of halfway down doesn't always work, and in any case for some reason leaves me with motion sickness.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Rhydgaled on October 29, 2015, 11:07:53 A common theme from the comments above seems to be that capacity is more important than age. I would agree, but I would say 'suitablility' for the services the stock is used on, rather than than 'capacity' (capacity is a component of suitablity, but not the only one).
I used to be on the 'Voyagers are crap' bandwagon, but with regular use of them I've changed my opinion. I'm now more than happy to use them. I'm also shifting my opinion of Voyagers slightly, thanks to one coach on the Virgin West Coast examples. I still think they are a stupid train (if a line is important enough to justify 125mph Intercity trains you need most of your stock to be long trains, not short units) but that one coach actually has seats aligned with the windows which makes the view far superior to a Pendolino where, even if you have a window-aligned seat, the windows are too small.My particular bugbear with voyagers is the communal blinds which cover two or sometimes three windows. Someone sitting behind you suddenly decides they want the blind all the way down and without warning your view is gone. Suggesting a compromise of halfway down doesn't always work, and in any case for some reason leaves me with motion sickness. Yes, if somebody closes the blind your view is gone... assuming you had one in the first place due to seats not always lining up with the windows. The window blinds seem to be a Virign thing since the Pendolinos also have them.Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on October 29, 2015, 11:26:42 I'm now a regular user of CrossCountry Voyagers thanks to same day Advances undercutting the walk up tickets, and CrossCountry's 10 Minute Reservation system if I'm using a Rover or walk up ticket. I used to be on the 'Voyagers are crap' bandwagon, but with regular use of them I've changed my opinion. I'm now more than happy to use them. Is that not just a way of saying that they are not good enough to be worth a relatively high ticket price? A devalued product might be acceptable at a devalued price. I am a fan of XC staff (they generally seem happy and motivated and give the impression of enjoying their jobs). But the trains are poor IMHO Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on October 29, 2015, 11:35:48 Elsewhere on these forums I have been very critical of the new IEPs, my objections could be summarised by saying that I expect them to be too similar to voyagers. I have concerns about the IEP, but I don't expect that they will be anywhere near as bad as the voyagers, based on my experience of the Javelin trains. The main problem with the Voyagers if lack of space because the body shell was designed with tilt in mind even though the 220s never tilted (and I don't think the 221s do now). Coupled with an unnecessary number of massive toilets, you only get something like 40 to 50 seats per coach and then only 3 or 4 Standard class coaches which is just not enough and rather similar in capacity to something like a 3 car 158/159. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Timmer on October 29, 2015, 11:54:40 I have concerns about the IEP, but I don't expect that they will be anywhere near as bad as the voyagers, based on my experience of the Javelin trains. Agreed.Regarding Voyagers, their cousins the Meridians showed that you could improve on the original Voyager concept, though if travelling on East Midlands trains I always aim to travel on an HST. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: stuving on October 29, 2015, 12:15:57 From the passengers point of view, voyagers were one of biggest downgrades ever. A popular newspaper at the time stated that the then Virgin cross country "had been given a record subsidy to halve the length of the trains" Prior to the voyager fiasco, a few doubters expressed doubts about half length trains without sufficient luggage space or a proper buffet, such doubts were drowned out by the "shorter DMUs are wonderful" brigade. Though of course "shorter" is not a term that should be applied to new trains ! "flexible" sounds so much better. It is now fairly widely accepted that voyagers are not as wonderful as was promised, but no one is going to scrap relatively new trains so we are stuck with the wretched things for years. I think there are several things being mixed together here. One is the "promise". I'm not sure there's much point in comparing a new product of any kind with the vacuous marketing pitch made for it at or before introduction. You could do the same with anything - shoes, ice cream, mortgages, holidays, governments - and get much the same result. It might tell you a lot about marketing (though only what you already know) but not much about the product. I'd ask what reasonable expectations were not delivered. Then in this case there is the trains' lengths, but remember why those shorter trains were chosen. I can remember the explanation: that the service interval would be halved. In round numbers that was from 1 tph to 2 tph for the core, and 0.5 tph to 1 tph for most of the rest. I'm not sure how close to that the actual service change came, but a quick look at a 2000 timetable suggests it was broadly achieved. That in turn was based on the observation that the majority of customers, however you measure that, were doing short not long journeys. Also, as a lot of them were connecting to or from other local service, a higher frequency was a lot more valuable to them than a longer train. If you want the same number of trains but longer, that's a matter of total capacity versus cost, which is a different question and a different kind of question. Finally, of course, there is the detailed design of the trains, which may indeed merit criticism. From my earlier remarks you could say they are long-distance trains but not, on average, full of long-distance passengers. But, as this thread (before it digressed somewhat) has shown, relying on averages can be a mistake. Efficiency, such as in the allocation of space in a train, conflicts (in general) with flexibility, such as coping with a wide range of mixes of passenger types. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: didcotdean on October 29, 2015, 13:30:00 Chris Green on the overcrowding on the introduction of Voyagers:
Quote The underlying cause of the overcrowding was a massive growth in short term travel on the route which we designed as a long-distance route.... We have learnt some tough lessons on overcrowding, particularly overcrowding on a congested railway. I think we have also demonstrated that introducing a fast, frequent service of new trains does attract a lot of new passengers, so the challenge is how to maintain this upward trend at a slower growth rate so we have time to match demand with capacity. Some of those challenges may reoccur although there were particular issue met with the intention to double frequencies over much of the XC network in particular that it was too much in some cases the infrastructure couldn't cope. The principal difficulty with the short term travel on a long distance train is dealing with the peaks - at a particular station everyone might want say the 17:30 and the fact that there is another in half an hour instead of an hour is of no consequence.Some parts of the XC network did not have an increased frequency as it was not possible. An example was Leamington Spa to Birmingham via Coventry. I think the "challenge ... to maintain this upward trend at a slower growth rate" was in the end met on XC by choking off the cheapest fares. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: John R on October 29, 2015, 14:15:23 A few points which may be relevant.
Yes, many services had an increased frequency but some, most notably Bristol to Plymouth were very quickly reduced back to the previous one, resulting in less capacity than had previously been the case. The new trains were relatively inefficient in the amount of seats they offered, partly due to all the toilets being accessible (in part due to the original plan of having three classes, all of which would have an accessible toilet), and the fact that in a four car set there are two cabs/crash free zones, and (as built) one buffet in such a short set. So two four car sets doesn't equal an eight vehicle HST or loco hauled set. Finally, most people have forgotten but the franchise was awarded on the promise of loco hauled sets, which mysteriously became units by the time the stock was ordered. Hmmm... Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Rhydgaled on October 29, 2015, 15:44:56 the 220s never tilted (and I don't think the 221s do now) I think the suituation with 221s is that Virgin's still tilt but XC's don't.Coupled with an unnecessary number of massive toilets, you only get something like 40 to 50 seats per coach and then only 3 or 4 Standard class coaches which is just not enough and rather similar in capacity to something like a 3 car 158/159. With the Great Western IEP and class 802 fleets there are fewer accessible toilets, but most units will only have roughly the equivilent of 4 standard class coaches (depending on what unit you are comparing them to, a 222 has over 65 seats in some coaches I think while 175s only have around 50).The new trains were relatively inefficient in the amount of seats they offered, partly due to all the toilets being accessible (in part due to the original plan of having three classes, all of which would have an accessible toilet), and the fact that in a four car set there are two cabs/crash free zones, and (as built) one buffet in such a short set. So two four car sets doesn't equal an eight vehicle HST or loco hauled set. Which is another thing the GW's 800s will have in common with Voyagers, in terms of seating capacity a 10-car 800 (2x 5-car) will only have 1 more seat than the 9-car class 801s I seem to recall.Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 29, 2015, 15:51:47 I think so - there'll be twice the 1st class capacity of course in 2x800s
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: broadgage on October 30, 2015, 10:14:41 You've got to love the duplicity from the unions, particularly the RMT. Moaning about the age of rolling stock while at the same time striking over the introduction of new stock. ::) It is not the stock per se they object to it is the placement of the door controls within reach of the driver. I am sure that the dispute would end if GWR plated over them And provided a buffet :) Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 30, 2015, 10:20:24 Only to protect the staff, not the buffet per se
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on October 31, 2015, 10:28:20 Further comment on this story at
http://transwilts.org/tw/news/128-gwr-fleet-among-the-oldest-in-the-country with a link to a radio interview with Dan Panes of Great Western Railway on the subject, with a 'counter view' provided by a member of the rail user community. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on October 31, 2015, 13:03:41 ]with a 'counter view' provided by a member of the rail user community. Very modest of you grahame! It was very disappointing to here Dan Panes (cf First Group) talking about the investment we are making in new rolling stock. Remind me Dan - how much are First Group paying for the Class 800/801/802s? And grahame, were you really speaking on behalf of TWSW? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 31, 2015, 13:05:03 ]with a 'counter view' provided by a member of the rail user community. Very modest of you grahame! It was very disappointing to here Dan Panes (cf First Group) talking about the investment we are making in new rolling stock. Remind me Dan - how much are First Group paying for the Class 800/801/802s? Quite a lot of money involved in hiring the beasts actually. It's still investing as it's *far* more than the HSTs/turbos etc cost.... Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on October 31, 2015, 13:39:12 You invest for a return. Investment involves purchasing an asset. Paying a lease fee is not investment. And it may not even be First Group paying the lease fees after 2019.
The investment is being made by HMG and the ROSCOs. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 31, 2015, 14:13:15 Even when the full cost (plus a likely profit) is being paid by ToC(s).....hmmm, debatable
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: TaplowGreen on October 31, 2015, 14:23:54 Even when the full cost (plus a likely profit) is being paid by ToC(s).....hmmm, debatable .........TOCs who are subsidised by the taxpayer. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 31, 2015, 14:27:33 Only some these days - GWR isn't one of them....any longer
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ellendune on October 31, 2015, 14:31:18 Google gave me this definition:
Quote Invest - put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit. Doesn't actually say put capital in. However, the TOC (whoever they may be at the time) are committed to funding the lease for its duration and most of the financial risk falls on them. The manufacturer and leasing company really only take the risk that the trains do not work - though as seen with the Adelantes if the TOC also still have some risk in that case. The TOC takes the risk that the income will not cover the cost of the leasing charges (together with their other costs). A not inconsiderable risk given that they are significantly more expensive than the HST's. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on October 31, 2015, 14:36:05 And as has been said on other threads, similar or fewer seats per train - so there is quite a bit of risk (more than currently) in not covering costs. That's investment in my book - new(er) stock hires (and additional services to run more seats) to encourage extra sales
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on October 31, 2015, 15:04:30 It was very disappointing to here Dan Panes (cf First Group) talking about the investment we are making in new rolling stock. Remind me Dan - how much are First Group paying for the Class 800/801/802s? That struck me at the time, but using the royal "we" of the UK Ltd including its constituent parts, taxpayers, fare payers and companies then "we" may be correct. The invite to the user community from the local radio station had indeed come to TWSW and I was passing on / speaking to their view, which I agree with and was based on past papers and a revising email discussion. As often happens, the press release had gone out ahead of the publicity, with an embargo, so giving (in our case) Dan and myself time to prepare rather than be taken by surprise that morning. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ellendune on October 31, 2015, 20:23:09 And as has been said on other threads, similar or fewer seats per train - so there is quite a bit of risk (more than currently) in not covering costs. That's investment in my book - new(er) stock hires (and additional services to run more seats) to encourage extra sales I thought the full length trains had more seats or am I wrong? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: broadgage on October 31, 2015, 21:12:18 The full length new trains do indeed have more seats than an HST.
Unfortunately, most of the fleet of new trains are half length and provide significantly less seats than an HST. They could of course be run in multiple, with two half length units having a very similar capacity to a full length train. I, and others are concerned that single half length trains with inadequate capacity may be used on busy services. As with voyagers, they can undoubtedly run in multiple and sometimes do, but overcrowded single operation is very frequent. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: hoover50 on November 01, 2015, 19:09:27 I used to be on the 'Voyagers are crap' bandwagon, but with regular use of them I've changed my opinion. I'm now more than happy to use them. Rather you than me. I think Voyagers are absolutely awful trains. >:( I hate them so much that whenever I need to travel from Wiltshire to the Midlands for work, I tend to travel by train via London or else just use my car and drive. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Chris from Nailsea on November 01, 2015, 19:26:58 I used to be on the 'Voyagers are crap' bandwagon ... I'm still on the 'Voyagers smell of crap' bandwagon ... ::) I think Voyagers are absolutely awful trains. >:( Seconded. ;D Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on December 28, 2016, 06:38:18 From The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4069512/Ticket-prices-t-seat-not-s-revealed-decrepit-trains-21-years-old.html)
Quote Ticket prices are up, and you can't always get a seat - now it's revealed our decrepit trains are 21-years-old! * UK rolling stock is older than any point in publicly available records * Campaigners say there is a postcode lottery for train quality * The Caledonian Sleeper service has the oldest trains on average * The findings were made by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) The term "decrepit" is used multiple times though the following article, and it seems that the author assumes that an old train has to be a decrepit train. I'm not sure that I agree though there may be some correlation; how (if at all) does the ORR measure decrepitude? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on December 28, 2016, 09:55:20 I very much doubt it does. Who reads the Daily Mail anyway?
21 years is about half-life for a train, and is very far from decrepit, IMHO Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on December 28, 2016, 10:10:32 Who reads the Daily Mail anyway? 21 years is about half-life for a train, and is very far from decrepit, IMHO Welllllll ... I read it! But only after it came up on a feed, I admit. The same story from the Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/commuters-paying-through-nose-decrepit-9524701) Quote The average age of trains on Britain’s railways is the oldest in at least 15 years. An investigation claims passengers are "paying through the nose for decrepit trains". Ed Cox, director of IPPR North, who carried out the study, said: "It is little wonder Britain lags behind developed nations when commuters pay through the nose for decrepit trains. "People in the north of England will be familiar with trains which leak whenever it gets wet. "This is not what you’d see in Germany, France or Japan, or even down south." UK Train Age by Operator: 1. Caledonian Sleeper (41) 2. Merseyrail (37) 3. TfL Rail (36) 4. Gt Western Railway (33) 5. Virgin Trains East Coast (30) 6. Northern (27) I'm a bit puzzled that the north's "decrepit trains" aren't what you would see in the south when some of the south's fleets (such as GWR) are significnatly older than the Northern fleet. Perhaps that's confirmation it's not age after all, but also the maintenace regime? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on December 28, 2016, 10:24:36 This report has been raised on Daily Mail, The Guardian and The Independent, so not just one news source echoing a grievance.
The use of rail in this country has rocketed over the past 20 years, and whilst I don't personally have a gripe about train age I do about overcrowding and perceived safety. Virtually every rail franchise in the UK has ordered, or is in the process of ordering new trains, just a shame that GWR local trains have not been replaced or added to yet, and the jury is still out whether anything will happen in the next 5 years (please correct me if I am wrong). Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on December 28, 2016, 10:28:22 This report rather shows lack of Southern experience by writers in the North?
VTEC & TFL Rail (a la London Overground) don't possess a 'decrepit' train, even though the average age in ion the top 5. You'd be hard pressed, on average, to find the very few GWR trains that might be described as 'decrepit'. I'd almost suggest that they have no experience of trains whatsoever, and just *think* that old trains = decrepit, using a car analogy as their comparison (wrong). Either that or they haven't checked a definition of 'decrepit' Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on December 28, 2016, 10:38:44 Virtually every rail franchise in the UK has ordered, or is in the process of ordering new trains, just a shame that GWR local trains have not been replaced or added to yet, and the jury is still out whether anything will happen in the next 5 years (please correct me if I am wrong). Well, there's around 180 carriages worth of Class 387 trains for local services currently being delivered. I'd like to see a comparison of the age of British rolling stock compared with the rest of Europe. I don't think an average of 20 years would be uncommon. An easy 'shock' article for the papers to print, as 20 years seems old to a general public who see similar forms of transport that they use, such as cars and buses, generally going to the scrapheap not long after their tenth birthday. Largely meaningless though, and even with the masses of new stock currently on the order book I doubt we'll ever see the average age of stock come down below the 10 year mark. That's just not how it works with trains. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: broadgage on December 28, 2016, 11:20:47 HSTs are among the oldest trains on the network and remain very popular, whilst voyagers are much younger and fairly widely disliked.
Pacers are, IMO horrible but not due to age, they were a backward step when new. I would still rather sit on a pacer than stand on something newer. In many cases new trains are a downgrade if compared to old as regards facilities and comfort. Buffets, facing seats at full sized tables, and guard's vans used to be the norm for long distance services yet are now regarded as unaffordable luxuries. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on December 28, 2016, 11:37:09 The new Class 387s are for Thames Valley only.
The failure of the electrification project means some/all of the cascaded stock from Thames Value to Wessex area will be delayed. For how long? No idea myself! All I know is that the we need more trains and longer trains in the West. The most interesting side effect of this GW electrification debacle will may(!) be seeing HS125 stopping services on long routes within the West of England Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on December 28, 2016, 11:44:54 The new Class 387s are for Thames Valley only. Yes indeed. When you said 'local trains' I assumed you meant local trains and not specifically local trains in the west of the franchise area. Cascade of Turbos starting early next year still, though are likely to be less in number than originally hoped, but still enough to make a significant difference, with the likelihood of short formation HSTs making up the balance - especially from early 2018 when Paddington to Didcot electrification will (hopefully!) be completed. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: stuving on December 29, 2016, 10:59:28 For those who were scratching their heads and wondering where did that come from?, or have I seen it before? - the first post in this thread was an AP piece from October, when the ORR data were released. How and why has it reappeared two months later in so many places? I guess Ed Cox of IPPR have something to do with it, maybe to get them a name check; e.g. "Ed Cox, director of IPPR North, who carried out the study". Though some articles didn't name them at all. Whether the other comments were provided by IPPR, or buy journalists rehashing their words, I can't say as I can't find that implied IPPR release anywhere.
The ORR's figures, by the way, are averages per vehicle and from first build (i.e. ignoring even major rebuilds and reforming). They cover stock on lease by TOCs, presumably from all owners not just the big three RoSCos. As to the comments; try predicting what the age figures ought to do on the basis of known policy and actual rail operations, and there isn't much left to comment on. So the average goes up steadily all the time, and drops when a big order of new trains replace old ones or (though less) when they add to the fleet. Given the number of orders being built, you'd expect a steady fall up to now and a sharp upswing over the next few years. New trains in big numbers come to the places where capacity is needed most, which is (mainly) London commuter services. These also make enough money for replacement to be a commercial decision, where in other cities or regional services there's an element of subsidy which means queueing up for public money. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on December 29, 2016, 11:10:14 I don't have a problem with the average age of trains increasing just so long as the increase is less than 1 year per year because that means that new trains are being ordered. But if there is a decent stream of new train orders, then scrapping the old trains at a slower rate than the new ones arrive at is surely good news because it means capacity is increasing.
What the SW needs isn't new trains to replace the old trains, it is new trains to supplement the old trains Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on December 29, 2016, 11:45:10 The West and SW desperately need more trains and longer trains.
There are way to many two carriage trains that should be running as four carriage units, with occasional splits/joins in parts of their journeys as needed. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Bmblbzzz on December 29, 2016, 13:36:13 HSTs are among the oldest trains on the network and remain very popular, whilst voyagers are much younger and fairly widely disliked. Going off on a tangent here, I think this is at least in part due to a change in the way we use railways, reflecting other changes in society generally. Whereas once trains were about "travel" now even the long distance ones tend to be aimed at "commuting". Commuters don't need much luggage space and are arguably more tolerant of lack of comfort than other travellers. It might be argued also that TOCs cynically (or realistically?) see commuters as a captive market, meaning they require less in the way of comforts like tables, which take away seats and so fares. As for why commuting should have become more important in rail usage, well, more expensive property, greater particularity in the job market and the ubiquity of the dual-income household* all go to mean we're living further from work. Pacers are, IMO horrible but not due to age, they were a backward step when new. I would still rather sit on a pacer than stand on something newer. In many cases new trains are a downgrade if compared to old as regards facilities and comfort. Buffets, facing seats at full sized tables, and guard's vans used to be the norm for long distance services yet are now regarded as unaffordable luxuries. *The Daily Mail would probably spin this along the lines of "Death of the housewife means crowded trains" or "How feminists took away your seat". Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: didcotdean on December 29, 2016, 14:17:24 Also rail travel is less about families and more about singles and couples. Hence the decline in the popularity of the table and the preference (or at the very least acceptance) of airline seating.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on December 29, 2016, 14:35:43 My decision to stop driving to work and using bicycle and train had more to do increased activity, fitness and reading time than a change in job pattern.
As I got older, the pounds appeared and driving became a chore, cycling and reading helped to address these issues. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on December 29, 2016, 14:54:56 My decision to stop driving to work and using bicycle and train had more to do increased activity, fitness and reading time than a change in job pattern. As I got older, the pounds appeared and driving became a chore, cycling and reading helped to address these issues. You lucky thing. I wish I could loose weight by reading. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Surrey 455 on December 29, 2016, 22:17:13 For those who were scratching their heads and wondering where did that come from?, or have I seen it before? - the first post in this thread was an AP piece from October, when the ORR data were released. How and why has it reappeared two months later in so many places? .... Not two months ago. It was 1 year and two months ago. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: stuving on December 29, 2016, 22:59:34 For those who were scratching their heads and wondering where did that come from?, or have I seen it before? - the first post in this thread was an AP piece from October, when the ORR data were released. How and why has it reappeared two months later in so many places? .... Not two months ago. It was 1 year and two months ago. So it was. I'd not noticed, given the similarity of the numbers and the comments. This year's statistics and the summary report (Rail infrastructure, assets and environmental 2015-16 Annual Statistical Release (http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/23045/rail-infrastructure-assets-environmental-2015-16.pdf)) were, however, published on October 27th. So whether or not they were reported on by AP, as last year, the delay is still two months. I was just wrong about what might have been pushed at the press at the time. That report contains almost all of the factual quotes used in published articles. I also has more about the sources and methods for the numbers than the associated statistical quality report, e.g. it does refer to "rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs) and other financiers". It also has a graph by major sector, showing that the main reason the London & SE fleet is a couple of years younger than the national figure is that it had a big share of the last buying binge up to 2006. And part of the reason for that is that in 2000 its fleet was a lot older than the regional sector's (20 vs 15 years). Of course the relative ages were bound to stay the same during the fast that followed the binge, up to the next big orders. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: paul7575 on December 31, 2016, 09:09:31 It also has a graph by major sector, showing that the main reason the London & SE fleet is a couple of years younger than the national figure is that it had a big share of the last buying binge up to 2006. And part of the reason for that is that in 2000 its fleet was a lot older than the regional sector's (20 vs 15 years). Of course the relative ages were bound to stay the same during the fast that followed the binge, up to the next big orders. Another part of the reason was the PPP ("Prescott's political panic" in this case) requirement to completely withdraw 'unsafe slam door stock' after a couple of high profile accidents. But doesn't this present LSE misbalance just mean that, when considered again nationally at some time in the future, the area will again have the oldest average fleet? Paul Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: John R on December 31, 2016, 11:15:44 Indeed, and the irony is that the introduction of TPWS around the same time has all but eliminated collisions between two trains (although Wootton Bassett came perilously close.)
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: devonexpress on January 01, 2017, 13:13:19 In all honesty this is all a load of rubbish being used by the media to moan and groan about the price of rail fares.
In less than 6 months, Bristol & Cardiff/Swansea will have a fleet of brand new trains arriving, with Devon/Cornwall having the same in around a year or so. And as for all this rubbish about a buffet car, you don't need a buffet car, most people prefer at seat catering these days, otherwise wouldn't airlines be copying. Guards will still on the train, its just the won't close the doors anymore(exactly the same as the voyagers, the TM tells the driver via a button who then closes then doors) Its not removing luxuries, its modernisation. The IEP will also remove the issue of ears popping when passing another train in a tunnel, something which HST's have problems with because of the sliding windows. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on January 01, 2017, 14:58:15 Very true, but how many people who use the train daily will experience IEP based improvements?
Local train commuters, the vast majority of train users, will still experience
My main gripes will always be Bristol centric because of the chronic train and bus services it suffers, however I appreciate that many other areas will see little or no improvements in the next 6 months either. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ellendune on January 01, 2017, 15:14:14 Very true, but how many people who use the train daily will experience IEP based improvements? Local train commuters, the vast majority of train users, will still experience
My main gripes will always be Bristol centric because of the chronic train and bus services it suffers, however I appreciate that many other areas will see little or no improvements in the next 6 months either. When the London Suburban services get new electric trains the Turbos will be cascaded to Bristol, which I assume will increase capacity and give longer trains so that should reduce overcrowding. The 15X's will go further west, I assume, increasing capacity there. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on January 01, 2017, 15:58:39 Very true, but how many people who use the train daily will experience IEP based improvements? When the London Suburban services get new electric trains the Turbos will be cascaded to Bristol, which I assume will increase capacity and give longer trains so that should reduce overcrowding.The 15X's will go further west, I assume, increasing capacity there. My understanding of current plans (some of which should probably be in the Rumour Mill!) ... The first 3 car turbos to be cascaded will take over services on the Severn Beach line. The current trains from the Severn Beach line will allow four to six 15x carriages to be released to reform other trains operating out of St. Philip's Marsh. However - there's competition as ever for stock; all 153 units were supposed to go back to their RoSCOs in May for redeployment in places that are neither great nor western, but the timing of part of that move may be varied. The loss of all 153s over - let's say - the next 13 months will force all GWR trains currently running with a single carriage up to 2 carriages; with one or two diagrams, that may lead to overcapacity but in certain cases it will allow the brakes to be taken off promotion and passenger growth which has been stifled by people finding other ways to travel. Hard to say if these are indirect "IEP based" or "387 based" improvements; it depends on the inward flow of new bi-mode and electric units, how far the electrification has got, and political decisions as to whether the more flexible IEP units take over services such as Oxford and the Cotswolds (in which case 16x units are released) or other services (in which case HSTs are released for shortening and cascading across a very much wider area). Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: devonexpress on January 01, 2017, 20:55:20 From what I've heard, GWR are looking at bringing in loco hauled stock on Cardiff to Paignton services, this will allow the 158s to build up Bristol services where Thames turbo's are still up in Thames Valley. IEP's will run as 5 car Oxford to Padd fast services, with a shuttle service between Oxford and Didcot for slower services. And 150/2 going down to the Westcountry. The main issues I have with GWR's plans are that how will some of the Cornish branch lines cope with 2 car 150s when it only just survives with 153s in the winter, and 2nd how will the half hourly Exmouth to Paignton work when it can barely work in the current timetable between St Davids and Paignton.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on January 01, 2017, 22:21:10 The main issues I have with GWR's plans are that how will some of the Cornish branch lines cope with 2 car 150s when it only just survives with 153s in the winter ... But if the 153s aren't compliant from 1.1.2020 to run stand-alone, what choice is there? We're told a disabled loo would eat into the seating capacity in a serious way if the conversion was done; that might leave enough winter capacity on the lightest used of diagrams but would be a serious setback in summer. In theory (can someone confirm this?) if you removed the toilets from 153s that would also make the compliant You identify (as we have done on TransWilts) the enormity of the step up from a 1 coach train to a 2 coach train. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on January 01, 2017, 22:42:28 Minister granted derogations remain an option for non compliant rolling stock.
Not forgetting that some of the legislation is European in origin... Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 02, 2017, 12:25:04 From what I've heard....IEP's will run as 5 car Oxford to Padd fast services, When 8car HSTs do now.....think you've heard wrong! Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on January 02, 2017, 15:38:59 What effect will the new Oxford-Marylebone service have on Oxford-Paddington services?
Perhaps a 5-car train will do. Who knows, it will depend on which destination in London suits passengers best, and the reliability and frequency of services. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 02, 2017, 15:41:31 Possibly, but they won't be planning for any reduction - it would be commercial suicide in a huge tourist town. The 9car bi-modes will fit the bill.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 02, 2017, 15:55:58 5-car trains would be ok for off-peak trains, but not enough for peak or many of the shoulder peak services, especially if they are Cotswold Line trains. Two 5s could run together of course.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 02, 2017, 16:22:27 Not until the Cotswold stations are lengthened in 2018....
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: devonexpress on January 02, 2017, 17:24:33 When 8car HSTs do now.....think you've heard wrong! Yet so do 3 car 165/166s? Maybe not so wrong after all! Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 02, 2017, 17:56:31 Not until the Cotswold stations are lengthened in 2018.... Though between Oxford and London they could. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 02, 2017, 21:44:17 It was tou who referred to trains iff the Cotswolds...might be an idea to stay on topic?
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 03, 2017, 10:40:12 How have I strayed off topic?
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 11:21:56 You introduced discussion of trains off the Cotswolds....
5-car trains would be ok for off-peak trains, but not enough for peak or many of the shoulder peak services, especially if they are Cotswold Line trains. Which I responded to Not until the Cotswold stations are lengthened in 2018.... Which you then altered to Oxford... Not until the Cotswold stations are lengthened in 2018.... Though between Oxford and London they could. Well, yes, but you were referring to Cotswold trains...... Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on January 03, 2017, 11:47:58 All seems perfectly on topic to me. What with this being a very general thread about old rolling stock. Natural thread progression.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 03, 2017, 11:53:58 Thanks BNM. ::)
I didn't alter anything as I was referring to Cotswold Line trains. Cotswold line trains running as 10-car between Paddington and Oxford, splitting and working as 5-car beyond. For the record I only 'introduced' Cotswold Line trains into the discussion as they are a key part of the service provision for Oxford to London services (roughly half of them originate from there), and wanted to make the distinction between loadings on those trains and loadings on the trains that just run Oxford to Paddington services. The latter could quite easily be 5-car trains off-peak, the former might need more between Oxford and London even at off-peak times. To sum up, I disagree with your statement that it would be commercial suicide to consider running anything less than 9-car length on Oxford to Paddington services (even if you just take those currently operated by HSTs as an example), but recognise that some certainly would need to be that length. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 12:02:34 They won't be able to run 2x5cars on the Cotswold Line until the platform extensions have been completed - so limited to 9car sets until 2018. So only 5car or 9car sets for the Cotswold Line. Intended as an hourly service, thus only one other fast service will start from OXF per hour. This was intended to be a 387 set, but obviously that will no longer be the case.
What are the seating capacities of the 5car set? Compared to a 2x3car 165? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 03, 2017, 12:11:50 They won't be able to run 2x5cars on the Cotswold Line until the platform extensions have been completed - so limited to 9car sets until 2018. So only 5car or 9car sets for the Cotswold Line. Intended as an hourly service, thus only one other fast service will start from OXF per hour. This was intended to be a 387 set, but obviously that will no longer be the case. Yes, nobody is disagreeing with that. What are the seating capacities of the 5car set? Compared to a 2x3car 165? Seating is planned to be 290 standard and 36 first on a 5-car IEP set I believe, so a total of 324. I'm not sure what you mean by '2x3car 165' but each 3-car Class 166 Turbo (I'll use those rather than 165s as they are more relevant) have a total of 264 seats after the modifications to install a disabled toilet. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on January 03, 2017, 12:14:03 With the limited number of platforms at Paddington and the nature of the GWR lines splitting, perhaps GWR/NR should look at running some services as
This will allow destinations to be serviced more frequently, and hopefully spread out load better. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 12:20:33 Are they allowing splitting in service for these trains?
Am I right in thinking it's not allowed with the 165s/166s? (ie with pax aboard) Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 03, 2017, 12:24:46 Both the new trains, and old trains (including Turbos), can split and join with passengers on board, providing permissive passenger signalling is available at the station concerned.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 03, 2017, 12:26:12 With the limited number of platforms at Paddington and the nature of the GWR lines splitting, perhaps GWR/NR should look at running some services as
This will allow destinations to be serviced more frequently, and hopefully spread out load better. That might indeed be a possibility off-peak, though you have to be careful about not extending journey times too much. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: chrisr_75 on January 03, 2017, 15:14:28 With the limited number of platforms at Paddington and the nature of the GWR lines splitting, perhaps GWR/NR should look at running some services as
This will allow destinations to be serviced more frequently, and hopefully spread out load better. Not sure about the other 2, but a 5 car is nowhere near enough for traffic into and within South Wales, unless the frequency was doubled - Cardiff already has a half hourly service from the morning peak through to the evening peak and outside that hourly, so I can't see how frequency could really be improved without impacting other services or requiring many more new trains. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: simonw on January 03, 2017, 16:06:24 I used the Swansea/Cardiff train to London Padddington for 5 years, commuting from BPW to RDG.
In the morning, the train was never busy until Swindon and in the evening seats where usually available from Swindon. So, a 10 carriage train with 5 carriages restricted for Wales should be ok. My original idea was never to replace all trains to from Wales, Coltswolds, Bristol and Southwest with split trains but to add flexible capacity to service all the main branches of the GWR network frequently. Regular 10 carriage trains will still be the back bone of the network in most places, but I don't think anyone could justify a 10 carriage train from Swansea to London every 30 minutes, or even an hour. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 16:11:09 It's getting pax in the right 5car unit for their destination that will always be the problem
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: JayMac on January 03, 2017, 16:15:06 Portion working is used in many places on the network. Getting it to work on GWR should be no more problematical than elsewhere.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 16:23:21 So why aren't they choosing to use it now?
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: didcotdean on January 03, 2017, 16:28:59 Of the two trains to South Wales the one only going to Cardiff is off-peak at least quite a bit lower loaded than the Swansea one - maybe this is in part because it seems to get cancelled at the slightest whiff of any main line disruption anywhere on GWR(!). When introduced the 180 coped but I'm sure it wouldn't be enough now though.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 16:34:03 The Cardiffs have additional stop(s) and are slower.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: chrisr_75 on January 03, 2017, 16:37:45 I used the Swansea/Cardiff train to London Padddington for 5 years, commuting from BPW to RDG. In the morning, the train was never busy until Swindon and in the evening seats where usually available from Swindon. So, a 10 carriage train with 5 carriages restricted for Wales should be ok. My original idea was never to replace all trains to from Wales, Coltswolds, Bristol and Southwest with split trains but to add flexible capacity to service all the main branches of the GWR network frequently. Regular 10 carriage trains will still be the back bone of the network in most places, but I don't think anyone could justify a 10 carriage train from Swansea to London every 30 minutes, or even an hour. My most recent use of BGN-PAD (last used frequently in 2014) always had heavy loadings (typically just odd seats here and there unoccupied) from SWA/NTH/PTA/BGN through to CDF/NWP regardless of the time of day and was close to full from BPW-PAD (standees from Didcot/Reading), similar reverse pattern on return journeys up to the 20:15 departure from PAD which tips out at BPY, but oft does a decent pickup in CDF for destinations to SWA. My experience would suggest 5 cars could only ever work in the very early morning or very late evening parts of the timetable and even then would, imho, be a retrograde step. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: chrisr_75 on January 03, 2017, 16:41:29 The Cardiffs have additional stop(s) and are slower. Really? Where else other than Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Bristol Parkway and Newport could they stop?! There is a single service (which I think is an early morning Swansea starter) that goes via Bath, but otherwise it's the same stopping pattern for Cardiffs and Swanseas, with the obvious exception of the stretch from CDF-SWA... Or did you miss the essential 'will' in referring to future IEP services? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: ChrisB on January 03, 2017, 17:05:56 Didcot - Swansea's don't generally stop, so are quicker to CDF
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: didcotdean on January 03, 2017, 17:16:46 Alternate up Swansea trains also stop at Didcot off-peak. Even the Red Dragon does.
Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on January 03, 2017, 17:18:56 The Cardiffs have additional stop(s) and are slower. Really? Where else other than Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Bristol Parkway and Newport could they stop?! There is a single service (which I think is an early morning Swansea starter) that goes via Bath, but otherwise it's the same stopping pattern for Cardiffs and Swanseas, with the obvious exception of the stretch from CDF-SWA... Or did you miss the essential 'will' in referring to future IEP services? The 05:18 Paddington to Swansea and the 23:30 Paddington to Cardiff both serve Chippenham, Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads in place of Bristol Parkway; the 05:18 additionally serves Filton Abbet Wood. Conjecture for the future might be for the "Cardiff electrics" to make an extra stop at one of Slough, Maidenhead or Twyford, and there are aspirations for a Wantage and Grove station where the most desired journey would probably be to Reading and London. Wantage and Grove have a combined population of 18,000 Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: chrisr_75 on January 03, 2017, 17:19:52 Didcot - Swansea's don't generally stop, so are quicker to CDF I've been on plenty of Swansea services that have a planned stop at Didcot. Clicking through todays timetable it appears the Didcot stop is fairly random, sometimes on the xx:45 from Paddington, sometimes on the xx:15 and I think it is dropped completely for a few services through the morning and evening peaks (presumably London bound AM, Wales bound PM). A Didcot stop appears to add 6-7 minutes to the journey time from PAD-CDF. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on January 03, 2017, 17:32:04 Conjecture for the future might be for the "Cardiff electrics" to make an extra stop at one of Slough, Maidenhead or Twyford, and there are aspirations for a Wantage and Grove station where the most desired journey would probably be to Reading and London. Wantage and Grove have a combined population of 18,000 Not sure why it would be sensible to use an intercity service to shuttle people from Slough/Maidenhead/Twyford to London or Reading when Crossrail will be set up precisely to do that? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: grahame on January 03, 2017, 18:20:06 Not sure why it would be sensible to use an intercity service to shuttle people from Slough/Maidenhead/Twyford to London or Reading when Crossrail will be set up precisely to do that? If you're an MP looking to retain your Henley-on-Thames seat, might it make sense for you to show your constituents how much you care by winning them a nonstop service to Twyford that connects with the branch shuttle? I've spotted that many current evening commuters prefer to catch the 17:06 and change rather than wait for the direct 17:12, or catch the 18:05 and change rather than wait for the direct 18:10 (I have not travelled on the 17:12 or 18:10, so no comment on number who prefer the direct train. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Adelante_CCT on January 03, 2017, 19:01:47 Taking an extra 25 minutes, and arriving home 30 minutes later probably has something to do with it.
Of course the non-stop Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough service has been discussed elsewhere before and I'm sure will continue to do so for quite a while yet. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Surrey 455 on January 03, 2017, 21:46:52 Not sure why it would be sensible to use an intercity service to shuttle people from Slough/Maidenhead/Twyford to London or Reading when Crossrail will be set up precisely to do that? If you're an MP looking to retain your Henley-on-Thames seat, might it make sense for you to show your constituents how much you care by winning them a nonstop service to Twyford that connects with the branch shuttle? I've spotted that many current evening commuters prefer to catch the 17:06 and change rather than wait for the direct 17:12, or catch the 18:05 and change rather than wait for the direct 18:10 (I have not travelled on the 17:12 or 18:10, so no comment on number who prefer the direct train. The MP for Henley now is John Howell. I've no idea if he has any post in Govt. Before him it was Boris Johnson who replaced Michael Heseltine. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Tim on January 04, 2017, 09:48:27 Not sure why it would be sensible to use an intercity service to shuttle people from Slough/Maidenhead/Twyford to London or Reading when Crossrail will be set up precisely to do that? If you're an MP looking to retain your Henley-on-Thames seat, might it make sense for you to show your constituents how much you care by winning them a nonstop service to Twyford that connects with the branch shuttle? I've spotted that many current evening commuters prefer to catch the 17:06 and change rather than wait for the direct 17:12, or catch the 18:05 and change rather than wait for the direct 18:10 (I have not travelled on the 17:12 or 18:10, so no comment on number who prefer the direct train. ok. I hadn't appreciated the connection point. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: Oxonhutch on January 17, 2017, 07:58:20 I see that a 180 sat down at Twyford this morning. Following from another recent failure in traffic I would think that GWR might be glad to see the back of them soon.
Nice trains but quite unreliable. Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: TaplowGreen on January 17, 2017, 11:15:02 I see that a 180 sat down at Twyford this morning. Following from another recent failure in traffic I would think that GWR might be glad to see the back of them soon. Nice trains but quite unreliable. Aren't they pretty much the newest trains that GWR operate? Title: Re: Rolling stock now oldest since 2001 ... GWR oldest diesels of the lot! Post by: IndustryInsider on January 17, 2017, 11:24:34 Aside from the new Class 387s, yes.
This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |