Great Western Coffee Shop

From ITV Meridian (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2015-11-11/plans-to-ease-rail-congestion-delayed-by-2-years/?)


I suspect from the format of the report that this may be a teaser at the moment, with full video to be added once it's been shown on the breakfast time show ... as with bus cut in Oxfordshire (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-11-10/funding-for-more-than-100-bus-services-to-be-cut-in-oxfordshire/) report.

And more from ITV Meridian (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-11-11/carry-on-overcrowding-two-year-delay-for-major-rail-improvements/?)

Press Release from TravelWatch Southwest at http://travelwatchsouthwest.org/media/

Two years behind schedule, oh dear. I was hoping it was only one year behind (Bristol by Dec 2017 instead of by Dec 2016 in the original plan) as that ought to mean the class 801 units wouldn't have to be parked in sidings for very long, if at all, as they could work the electrified Bristol services while the class 800s could run to Wales (doubled up, I would hope, with some IC125s to allow the 800s to double-up).

Hang on a minute, was there ever an annoucement claiming to have anything wired-up by spring 2016? I thought it was Oxford, Newbury and Bristol by Dec 2016, Cardiff Dec 2017 and Swansea Dec 2018. I think I may have read something about the first cascaded EMUs being used on a shuttle between Paddington and perhaps Hayes & Harlington in spring, but I'm not sure if that was just for testing the OHLE and perhaps driver training.

New trains? Wouldn't they take 2 years to procure, design and build anyway? And which routes would you build them for and what do you then do with the stock that was part of the cascade plan?

That's what can happen when you ride on the coat tails of others. Serves them right.

Yes, very na^ve from TravelWatch methinks, agree with Rhydgaled....

The 800s are being delivered first. The DfT won't allow the 800s top languish in sidings when there's an election (by the time they are delivered) in the offing, so conversion to 800s may be on the cards.

This report will appear in the next two weeks (towards the end of that period, probably). It's pretty pointless speculating.

Well ... if "new" means 1976 vintage / refurbished ... there might be something around in the quite short term; perhaps several dozen carriages released on lines which aren't high speed and may be themselves full by putting in longer refurbished trains.

Growth planned for = 3% ... happening = 5.7% ... you may still fill the stock that was part of the cascade plan anyway  ;D

---

But as ChrisB says, we're looking at the effects of the delay in this thread - which is where the news first broke at 5 a.m; the big picture is in the second release.  But now is a good time to ask "what about" ...

Is there anything in either report that couldn't have been written the day the Hendy review was announced?

Well yes, but the phrase 'purchase of new trains' does suggest new new, not 'new' to national rail services (I'm guessing you're talking classs 230 there, given that existing diesel units, even Pacers, are fully utilised (unless you mean loco-hauled mark 2s)).

Left to their own devices, FGW/Agility Trains would probably have the HST2 running by now. Whether or not that would have been a good thing long term is a different matter.

The word 'purchase' appears in the headline, but neither it nor any synonym appears in he main text. That looks like traditional sloppy sub-editing - I wonder who wrote that heading? Could it be TWSW suffering a nasty case of journalism?

I am not so sure we should give ITV credence for getting this item of news out first. I subscribe to 'RAIL', therefore getting the magazine early, and this item is in their current magazine.

Living in the far west of the territory I dread to think if all the improvements needed for our services will be delayed further.

It may well be that the yet to be constructed AT300's will have to 'fill the gap' leaving HST's in the South West

My bet is that ITV Meridian also get a subscribers copy & thus picked it up early this morning/yesterday

If a week is a long time in politics, then a decade is the blink of an eye in infrastructure development.

True. The Borders Railway was a decade or so, but it just seems so badly needed now! Probably because we, in Devon and Cornwall,  have been so under funded here for years!

A sensible solution and not a bad one from the passenger perspective.  A few more months of HST will not do any harm.

Firstly as mentioned on other topics on this forum, why not build the GW 800s first alleviating immediate over-crowding, followed by the 800s and 801s for the East Coast, then finally the 801s for GW.


The above quote is from the Agility trains website and by switching the allocation of units would mean the west would not see 801s until perhaps late 2018 onwards, surely by then the stretch to Bristol will have been completed and these units could then start to be used.

As for the 800s, already sets are starting to be completed (other than a lick of paint) so why not start using them as soon as possible. Yes they can only operate at 100mph on diesel but that would be fine for taking over the Bedwyn route, increasing capacity on these services, able to run at 100 instead of 90 between Pad and RDG and freeing up 3x3car turbo diagrams. They could also be used on Oxford/Cotswolds services, again most are diagrammed as 90mph (the odd minute change here or there may be required) and this would again free up a couple of HSTs, the 180s and a couple more turbos.

These displaced HSTs and 180s (doubled to 10-car) could increase capacity on the longer routes, or perhaps introduce an hourly PAD to BRI via BPW (or something similar). The turbos could then be used to strengthen LTV services or be moved to the Cardiff-Portsmouth route, with a 165 making its way to the all important Melksham shuttle.


Yes, the plan was, assuming the bay at West Ealing is finished on time (for Greenford services), then a couple of 387s can run shuttles between Paddington and Hayes. Whilst not a major development it would offer more capacity to stations immediately west of Pad in the short term. Perhaps the Reading/Oxford stoppers could then miss out Southall for example allowing more space on the longer distance relief line services.

You'd lose that bet, ChrisB.  ;)

ITV interviewed a Coffee Shop forum member about this 'announcement' on the morning of Friday 6 November - and another Coffee Shop member saw them, and wondered why they were standing out in the rain at Swindon Station, doing a piece to camera.  ;D

Obviously, that's been kept quiet until the ITV news story was published today.  :-X

It wouldn't be too unreasonable to run the Cardiff - Taunton services with 800s either. That is 5 diagrams and probably 8 or 9 units to allow for peak strengthening.  And as I've mentioned before in another thread, Cheltenham to Swindon will be fully IEP in due course, so the short workings could be replaced too - that's another 2 - even if they don't run through to Paddington for the moment.

So all in all there could be enough units released to enable much of the non HSS strengthening to go ahead, particularly if the units due to be released are kept on for a bit longer. Whether the DfT has the will to do this remains to be seen, though it would minimise the embarrassment of their shiny new stock lying idle for a couple of years.

Finally, is there any chance that Reading to Stockley is available earlier, as with a bit of rejigging, that could enable some electrics to run in the LTV region before the full service is available?

From the original ITV Meridian piece:


As the delays would appear to be a mixture of engineering, process (i.e. planning), financial and available resource, it's not realistic to label the delays as "unacceptable".  Silly word, as in the end I expect that the people who wish to operate the trains, and those who wish to travel on them, will be left "having to" accept the delay - and indeed continue to travel during the delay period, all be it in "cattle" conditions at times and with stunted growth due to capacity limits and discomfort.   So the discussion / this thread moved on to mitigating options and practical juggling of the pieces caused by the delivery which has been pushed out. There's a separate subject there as to whether anything's been pushed out so far it's fallen off the scheme or could do so with another push, whether there will be further push backs or we'll get the whole story and (more positively) if the pushback allows scheme adjustments such as eventually allowing the biomes to run electric as far as Westbury

Good to see various options in the discussions - I'm not sure whether the turn back siding at Bedwyh can take a 5 car / 26 metres each train (help - anyone know?) nor the effect of a 5 car turning around at Swindon every 2 hours / parked up there for 75 minutes in every 120.  Certainly won't fit in the bay, just as an HST won't. But as the plan forward is an hourly London to Cheltenham Spa, perhaps the solution here is to start using the bi modes, pure diesel traction, for hourly London - Cheltenham Spa and hourly London - Westbury. Together with other upcoming stock options already discussed, we do seem to have a bit of a start on possible interim solutions.  And, yes, the HST services on East Coast which are purely under the wire could become SET operated, with an increase in their capacity and a handful more units available.

Passengers will grudgingly accept new old trains with extra capacity, I suspect - and will use them. Where the real fury, and stunting of growth, would come is if we had to simply carry on a further 2 years with what we have.  Rather tongue in cheek, someone mentioned the TransWilts service earlier.  It's a good microcosm example, if you like.  May 2017 is frankly, already a 18 months too late for extra capacity and we'll have to work hard to maintain growth (plenty of seats available at present on the 06:12 off Swindon anyone - already 2 coaches) ... pushing any capacity increase back to mid 2019 would do very serious damage not only to the service, but also to the users and potential users of the service, and the economics of the area in which they live and work.

I think it's fair to say it's "unacceptable" to those who have been promised so much, continue to pay so much, tolerate so much and are now being told that they will have to wait even longer and pay even more.

I see now why GWR canned all of their Meet The Manager sessions for the rest of the year, given that all we've been fobbed off with in the Thames Valley for the past 2 years is 'jam tomorrow'. 

I suspect GWR are as pissed off as their customers frankly - none of this is their fault in any way.

The 800s surely will simply go on the routes already planned for them on arrival, only using the wires to Hayes & diesel the rest of the way. There may need to be re-planning as they'll use more fuel & thus need refuelling more often.

Yes it was, however whilst obviously wanting improvements between Reading and Paddington, I do fully understand the need for the Transwilts service to be 'upgraded' and hope it can be done asap.

There are those for whom it will be unacceptable, and they will find alternative means of travel, will give up their jobs, work from home more, take fewer leisure trips, not move into the area served by the trains because they cannot accept the standard of travel available.    There are many who will accept the new timescales and prices (in some cases just because they have no choice), and in my view purely in use of english terms the word "unacceptable" can't be applied to them, because they are accepting / forced to accept.

I suspect you're right, Chris!  ... though they're almost certainly more fully informed than their customers, both in times of what information they have and when they had it. Think on words that were said when both you and I were present last Saturday at the RailFuture meeting, and you'll note they included both a caveat on timings, and even an encouragement to the audience to question so that the caveat could be repeated to help prepare us for news.

I think they're in the same sort of loop as the customers. They hear things on a (different) grapevine and are awaiting confirmation from their masters (DfT) and the customers hear on a (different) grapevine and await confirmation from GWR/DfT.

Currently just the room for a 3-car 23m train at the Bedwyn turnback.  It could be expanded if land was bought, and a footpath closed/diverted.


Personally I don't think that will happen, perhaps during testing, but not in service - hardly worth bothering with the wires for such a short distance, and the timetable would need altering for 100mph running on the most intensive section which would be an absolute nightmare. 

We know that Reading to Didcot will be ready in time, and I imagine Hayes to Reading will also be ready looking at the progress already made there, so I reckon the worst case scenario will be diesel operation west of Didcot or Swindon.

I suspect they are regretting all those "Building a Greater West" posters which (somewhat disingenuously) suggested that the investment was their own, rather than Network Rails, and thus gives their customers a stick to beat them with.............

Yes, BNM recently made that point as well and I agree completely.

As a daily user of the motorised sheds class 150's that schlepp between Reading and Basingstoke I find this somewhat disappointing.

If you have to force somebody to 'accept' something are they really accepting it? 'Accept' sounds like they are happy, 'force' sounds like they aren't, a grey area?

Other than that GW Electrification is running late, no-one know anything yet.  We're all waiting for Sir Peter Hendy's report and I would think a GWR position paper (agreed with the DfT and about the cascade etc) will be ready for its publication.

Everything before that is just speculation.

"Unacceptable" is not a very constructive word.  It certainly should not be used where something is not possible.  It certainly should not be used by anyone whose actions might have precipitated the situation.  So that excludes the politicians who suddenly decided that they wanted the scheme in a timescale that left no time for proper planning. 

Was it acceptable for First Group to advertise 'Building a Greater West' so heavily, including those timescales?

I can only think they like the rest of us actually believed Network Rail knew what they were doing.

Follow up story ...

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2015-11-11/is-this-the-most-overcrowded-train-in-the-south/

It had nothing to do with their perception of NR. The advertising campaign was a disingenuous attempt by FGW to claim credit for infrastructure works which are largely being financed by the taxpayer. With the subsequent massive overspend and delay it has turned around and bitten them in the arse and they are now seen as part of the problem. Serves them right.

People are not stupid, changing the name, sticking up posters with melodramatic statements/aspirations and painting a few trains green will fool no-one, apart from some of those on the payroll and a few enthusiasts.

For how many more years will we be told "manana, manana"?

GWR (cf First group) continue to suggest its their ^7.5bn being invested. While they continue to do so, it's only right they continue to take the blame for delays.

Website screengrab:

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/gwr_zps204li3ks.jpg)

In fairness, it doesn't say they are spending their own money. Like the unelected unaccountable self-appointed oligarchy that is the West of England's Local Enterprise Partnership, if anything, they are signing someone else's cheque.

......er....its on their website and the quote is "We're spending" etc etc.....I don't spot too much ambiguity there?

But they are not spending most of it in any sense, NR is. Even the trains, they will have to pay, but have not "paid for them"  even as in a usual purchase and sale and leaseback arrangement with a ROSCO.

Hmmm ... As I understand it,
1. once every 4 years we elect our councillors.
2. The majority group of them get together and choose a leader.
3. The leader chooses a cabinet
4. The cabinet chooses who represents them on the LEP
5. The other councils in the LEP area do the same thing
6. The LEP members choose their leader
... so the LEP is accountable back - just that it's through six levels of separation, and answer en bloc with all other issues just once every 4 years.

Blimey! Sounds like the District Soviet!

Would that life were so simple. Bristol, with a population of 500,000 or so, has one member - the red-trousered Mayor himself George Ferguson. It used to be Mark Bradshaw, with whom George seems to have had a falling out over transport or other matters, and I guess he now sees it as too vital a role to delegate. Representing the road-building councils of North Somerset and South Gloucestershire are Cllrs Nigel Ashton and Matthew Riddle respectively, with Cllr Tim Warren shouting on behalf of Bath and North East Somerset.

The other members are Chairman Colin Skellett OBE, Executive Chairman of Malaysian-owned Wessex water, Robert Sinclair, CEO of Canadian-owned Bristol Airport, Kalpna Woolf, former head of the BBC's Natural History unit, James Durie of Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Business West, Nick Horne, Chief Executive of Knightstone, the housing body, Esther McMorris, Chief Executive of Nine Feet Tall, a management consultancy outfit, John Pritchard, of thoroughly British GKN, Neil Way, MD of family run electrical contractors Jeff Way, and Professor Steve West, one-time podiatric surgeon and now Vice Chancellor of MetroBust cheerleader UWE.

I can vote for only one of these 13 people. Only four are appointed by democratically elected representative bodies. The other nine were appointed by an unknown process - I don't recall any job adverts or terms of employment being advertised. In the highly unlikely event of the four local authorities agreeing on something, they can still be outvoted 9-4.

Bristol has a single vote in 13, yet contributes the greatest amount to the coffers. In MetroBust, for example, North Somerset and South Glos contribute 10% each to the steadily increasing costs not met by central government funds; Bristol ponies up the other 80%.

Tony Benn, bless him, said on such matters "In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: ^What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?^ If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."  The LEP has the power to spend a lot of our money, be it raised from local or central taxation. It was given this power by a previous government. It exercises it in the interests of business first and foremost, with the residents of the area covered included in flawed and biased consultation exercises as an inconvenient chore, needed to tick a box before the money appears. It is accountable to central government for the money it spends. As I didn't have any say in who is appointed to the oligarchy, I assume there is no way of me getting rid of any member other than assassination, which seems a bit extreme, even with MetroBust as a cassus belli.

Bashar al-Assad may view it as a paradigm of democracy in action. I do not.

Well said dear fellow. Well said.

And it's this same self serving group who have decided that a spur is best for Henbury.  ::)

Not in my name.

If you need an accomplice FT,N! (or alibi) for your extreme measures...  ;D

Probably not necessary, with 500,000 possible suspects.

Back (somewhat) on topic - the select committee report has been published at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmpubacc/473/473.pdf and that takes very much a look at what's gone wrong rather than looking at what and how the program - needed to relieve overcrowding, allow continuing growth, and renew worn out systems - can be delivered, whether it can be delivered fully, and with what changes and effects.    That's promised for the Hendy report which is expected very soon.

OK ... I've just been on Radio Wiltshire to speak to this for TravelWatch SouthWest.    Following ... not exactly what I said, but my preparatory write-up ... which was in front of me to keep me on topic  ;)

---

My own summary - A combination of Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the Office of Road and Rail are criticised by a select committee of MPs for getting the rail infrastructure program to upgrade the Great Western Mainline very wrong indeed.   It's way over budget, underresourced in terms of available expertise, and going to be delievered late at the least bad.

"It is alarming that, in planning work intended to support these plans, its judgment should be so flawed. Our inquiry has found that the agreed work could never have been delivered within the agreed budget and timeframe. Yet Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the regulator ^ the Office of Rail and Road ^ signed up to the plans anyway." says Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

So ... what's going to be done about it?  Three reviews are underway, the first - Sir Peter Hendy's assessment of how much work can realistically now be conducted by 2019 for the budget provided, is expected to be published next week.

It's a fair bet that electrification won't go as far / fast on the Great Western lines as has been planned - which was London to Windsor / Marlow / Henley, to Newbury, to Basingstoke, to Oxford, to Bristol via Hullavington and via Chippenham, and to Swansea.  In turn that will delay the release of rolling stock to replace and supplement others across the south west for use on lines and services which were not due to be electrified.  This need to supplement is a serious matter, as passenger growth on the rail network across the South West has been at a far higher rate than has been provided for, resulting in seriously overcrowded trains that are no longer able to carry all the passengers who wish to travel.

For some services, planned strengthening was already scheduled too late to prevent a significant loss of business, and the economic and environmental impacts of that loss, and actions are required to find alternative ways of providing more capacity across the South West, and in the shorter rather than the longer term.

For passengers in SWINDON AND WILTSHIRE and travelling to / from those areas, immediate issues include:
* Overcrowding on London trains between Reading and London
* Overcrowding into Bath and Bristol from Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster and Frome
* Overcrowding from Swindon on regional services via Stroud and via Chippenham and Trowbridge to Westbury.
(Note - this is part of a larger picture; there is also gross overcrowding all the way from the Thames Valley via Bristol and South Wales to Exeter and the far South West.  My picture is looking specifically at the Swindon and Wiltshire economic area)

Great Western Railway - operators of the majority of these services - will no doubt be looking for solutions (operational and financial) in association with the government and other rail industry organisations already.  It is very much in everyone's interest at this time not only to learn from what has happened but also and more importantly to fill the void that could be left with services in the short medium and longer term that are fit for current and future passenger purpose.
[/quote]

Can't remember whether it was Friday's 20/15 Telegraph or Saturday's Times that had an article on rail overcrowding quoting problems particularly with Northern rail and overall shortage of DMUs. it mentioned the Viva Rail and the 230s and bimodes but had a paragraph towards the end saying 120 plus diesel carriges are on order!

Where have these sprung form?

Also as anside had a talk from Chiltern last Thursday. He was unapologetic about grabbing the the poterbrook 170s and turnng them into 168/3. Said they took a commercila decision to bid for them when they came off lease.

They were a specific requirement of the Northern ITT.  A part of the relatively high profile political debate earlier in the year that resulted in DfT and the SofS being at loggerheads about Pacer withdrawal from Northern.

Paul

It was in Saturday's Times.

Thnaks Timmer it was my Climbing Club's Away Dinner.

Paul Have they been ordered yet or is it being quitely dropped?

Has the franchise been awarded yet? If not, I doubt the 120 DMU vehicles will have been ordered yet except perhaps if all bidders selected the same DMU design, or DfT is handling procurement of the DMUs and not given bidders any choice.

Table Mountain?

I'll get my cagoule...

I think (as Rhydgaled suggested) the franchise award will include the details, as each bidder will have had to do their own deal.  But I really doubt the requirement would be 'quietly dropped', noting all the political statements about the franchise being reported elsewhere...

Paul

This is what the ITT (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407802/northern-invitation-to-tender.pdf) says:


As you can see, the main thing it rules out is any locomotive, even a new one, hauling existing carriages.

Thanks Stuving.

Interesting that it says 120 carriages but doesn't specify number of units. Is that 60 2 car, 40 3 car or 30 4 car or a mixture of each. I suppose that's what makes bidding for a rail franchise such fun having to guess what the Dft actually require

As well as ruling out 68s on old coaches it also rules out Viva Rails 230. Although I wonder if a 68 and 3 new coaches would be cheaper than an a 3 car Dmu

Will we see some Stadler GW2/6, those with the short power car in the middle of the train, probably too inovative for the DfT even if they've been running successfully in Europe since 1995?

Otherwise how about Siemans 186s,  Bombardier 173s, or Alstrom 176s?



.

Would the Stadler GTW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW) fit the British loading gauge though?

Four 2-car units operating every 15 minutes will potentially carry the same number of pax as 2 four-car units running half-hourly. DfT is concerned with capacity before it is concerned with frequency, leaving the latter for NR and the TOC to decide.

Personally, I'm not sure I care who builds what, as long as some orders keep the Derby plant running, and they have CrossRail EMUs to build at the moment. So, for this off-wire stock order I just hope it is something regional expressy like a 158 or 175 with end doors and seats with plenty of legroom and good window alignment. Possibly one for the rumour mill, but I think I read somewhere that Stadler were one of the firms in the running (presumably with a different design to fit our loading gauge). Also don't forget CAF are going to build the new ScotRail sleeper stock, do they make DMUs?

Not sure about that. I think Four 2-car units operating every 15 minutes will carry MORE passengers than 2 four-car units running half-hourly. Same capacity yes, in theroy*, but more passengers attracted because of the higher frequency and thus potentially overcrowding (although it depends how busy the service is to start with).

If you have infrequent almost empty 4-car trains, then running 2-car trains more frequently will help use the available capacity. If you have infrequent long trains which are full, running half-length trains at double the frequency would be a big mistake.

* in practice any of kitchens/buffets/toilets/crumple-zones, will need to be duplicated in which case shorter, more frequent trains would be less capacity

It comes in Narrow (metre) gauge which might be small enough.

Agree with Rhydgaled. If you have infrequent long trains which are full, running half-length trains at double the frequency would be a big mistake.

 Operation Princess!

I think the ride might turn out to be a bit bumpy in the UK...  ;)

There's more than one way ;D ...


... From The Great Western Railway - a brief history (http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/RailSteam/GWRBroadG/BGHist.html)

Of course there's little or no correlation between track gauge and vehicle or structure gauge.  Bigger vehicles than ours can still run on smaller (eg metre) gauge track, and AIUI most Irish stock is interchangeable with ours, their bogies don't make the vehicles any bigger.

Paul

Trains on the Trans Mongolian route actually switch gauge in transit from Russian 5ft to Chinese standard gauge (and vice versa) by lifting the coach bodies whilst the occupants [try to] sleep

I was in Japan earlier this year where the 'regular' network is 3ft 6in gauge (high-speed is standard gauge) and the train interiors to me seemed to be very similar to continental European size.

Indeed, having ridden those huge Manchester-built Beyer-Garretts in Southern Africa I can tell you that they would not fit under a British single-track bridge. All on the Cape gauge of 3' 6", same as Japan.  Their 2' cousins - now translated to the Welsh Highland Railway - aren't that small either.

I've just remembered about the Class 158 units exported to Thailand which have standard bodyshells mounted on metre-gauge bogies. I managed to get a photo of one while on a visit to Bangkok in April 2011:

This one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW#HO_scale_.281:87.29) should be small enough.  :D

They (used to and probably still) do the same on the Western border too.

................I hope this wasn't the highlight of your trip to Bangkok?  :)

What goes in Thailand stays in Thailand.

Suffice to say that if your newly met lady friend manages to reverse-park the car first time, you should consider your next move with extreme caution...

From Rail Magazine - on sale today - see more [here] (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/12/08/hopwood-upbeat-as-gwr-revises-rolling-stock-plans)

I maintain that it serves FGW/GWR right for riding on the coat tails of Network Rail. The average customer will just see broken promises from FGW/GWR. Deflecting blame onto Network Rail is unlikely to wash with those customers.

Here's a new tag line for GWR: 'The Greatest Balls Up Since Brunel'

Another worry I have is that HMG will give First Group another extension with generous terms beyond 2017, by way of recompense for these delays. So no competition to innovate and GWR can carry on complacent.

It looks to me that the embarrassment factor of having trains doing nothing has distorted the planning for the delayed "new GW", especially if it is seen as specific to the way the IEP order was financed. The issue - trains due and paid for as capital, repayments have to be made even if they are not used - is the same if the money came from a ROSCO, a TOC, or HMG. The rest is accounting. Switching the order so that GWR is left permanently with only low-bridge trains is an undesirable change to the real world.

The most pressing need is for the DMU cascade, so that should be the priority. It is not as if replacing HSTs with bimodes running on diesel will deliver the new timetable anyway.

HSTs are also needed for cascading to Scotrail, but a start at least can be made once bimodes are running. OK, so you might need to keep using some power cars you would rather put in the bin. And can the East Coast 800s be pulled forward and GW 801s delayed? Some cash adjustment for their higher lease costs would at least give someone a new train to sit in. Of course there are also the '802s', which might also come sooner if the extra design work is as slight as sounds. Surely the paperwork can't be that fixed a delay?

The most sensible thing as I see it would be for some of the HSTs to run on the GWML for a few years longer, with derogations from the accessibility regulations as required.  Would that really be the end of the world?

If that causes problems to Hitachi and those who are paying for the new IEP trains, then isn't the answer for the IEPs to be built more slowly, but for the Newton Aycliffe factory to get extra work in compensation for that in the form of the 801 for Scotland (which were going to have to be made abroad because of capacity constraints at Aycliffe) and maybe some further orders of A trains for the likes of TPE. 

Hitachi can be kept happy by having their factory kept busy making more trains over a longer period.

Scotland can be kept happy by having perhaps a few more 801s and perhaps getting them earlier in compensation for getting fewer HSTs than promised.

And the taxpayer compensates Hitachi by buying more trains from them rather than by paying out cash for trains to sit unused.

GWR have been distancing themselves from Network Rail for months in published information about engineering works etc in preparation for these kind of crunch points. So much for a collegiate approach in a contractorised railway but inevitable where one part can't keep up.

GWR are still promising us the jam tomorrow on their website and station posters. Network Rail had the recipe for this preserve, but ingredients and a competent confiturier were sadly lacking.

And on that basis, shouldn't the electrification sequence out from Paddington have been modified to Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Basingstoke, Newbury, Henley, Windsor, only then Swindon and beyond?

In principle yes. Though it may come down to details like planning, delays in bridge-lifting, etc. To run wires and then trains you need the whole route from end to end, and it only takes a problem at one point, whether a legal or an engineering one, to make you look very silly again. The short routes may be easier to deliver on that basis.

The route that the first of those EMUs will be used on is already wired.  So unlike Rail, I think there is a high possibility that they will run exactly as planned between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington.   I'll agree that there will be significantly more than needed after the first year...

But haven't other rail magazines already reported that the decision to fit all the SETS as bi-mode has been taken?

Paul

I'm not aware of anything other than speculation - and Rail says that decision is still in Mark Hopwood's hands....

One date that can't be changed is the loss of Old Oak Common to Crossrail though.

This is what Mark Hopwood is quoted as saying:
Doesn't that still sound like May? Always providing that the parking spaces at H&H and West Ealing are ready.

Maybe, but I don't suppose this forum is really going to affect the decision, so we may as well go on opining.

Apparently, the slew of HSTs heading to Scotrail need to arrive as follows -

ScotRail are required to have at least 24 HST sets in service for the start of the December 2018 timetable, in accordance with the following schedule.
 
Sets 1-2: June 2018
 Sets 3-8: July 2018
 Sets 9-13: October 2018
 Sets 14-18: November 2018
 Sets 19-24: December 2018
 
 They will need to be modified before they go into service with ScotRail, to incorporate such features as power operated doors and other requirements (RVAR, PRM-TSI) to allow them to operate into 2020 and beyond.

If all class 800 and 801 trains were to be bimode and with sufficient diesel engine range and speed to operate services no matter how far the electrification has got, and dangerously assuming that route clearance for 26m carriages is completed on time even if electrification is a few years late, this HST cascade could be uncoupled from the actual electrification work and be based purely on Hitachi delivering the new trains on time.

The issue that is much more concerning is the cascading of class 165 and 166 trains, as my understanding is that the new units which replace them remain pure electric and will not be able to operate beyond where the wires have reached ...

Edit to correct grammar

That's still a *very* big IF. As I understand it, rumour.

That's correct, though as long as Paddington to Didcot is available for electric trains - and it should be, by the end of next year at the latest AIUI -  then I would hazard a guess that around two-thirds of the planned Turbo cascade could take still place which would be more than enough to set the ball rolling, if not ideal.

I can't see GWR being at all keen in supporting two depots both maintaining these 165/166s, so don't expect full utilisation until they're all cascaded, IMHO

But not all the 165/166s are being cascaded? Even after all the electrification is done and Hitachi trains have been built, Reading depot will still be home to around 15 units

As many as that? Gatwick & Greenfords, yes....

Gatwicks will require at least 9 when the new half-hourly Reading to Gatwick starts plus the Shalford/Redhill stoppers, possibly requiring 10 during peaks.
Greenfords x 2
If Henley and Windsor are not electrified then another 2 possibles? (At least temporarily)
Last I heard Marlow hadn't been decided on with regards to electrification in which case another possible 2.
Newbury to Bedwyn requires 1 (though whether this is based at Reading or Westbury/Bristol I do not know.
The Basingstoke branch requires 2 or 3 until electrification is carried out, possibly not until the early 2020s.

When compared with the dates of departure from GWR, they have at least a year in hand to modify them.   The numbers are all replaced by bi-mode SETS, and there is no suggestions that they won't arrive in time to release HSTs.

Paul

Even if the wires are late & they're needed to cover the electric IEPs (assuming they don't get the diesel engines rumoured)

Agreed.  It looks like Scotland's plans are unlikely to gang aft agley.

There is also the possibly of derogations from the technical requirements (power doors etc).  HMG has to date not indicated any inclination to grant any, but a few months hear or there for a small number of vehicles might not be impossible. 




Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

It was reported on BBC Spotlight last night that GWR are looking into running shorter HSTs to cover local services in Devon and Cornwall because of the expected delays in the rolling stock cascade. A test run, which I think is reported elsewhere on this forum, took place late last year using a five coach HST.

I understand experiments were run with 2+4 and 2+5 and the braking on the latter configuration was found more acceptable.

I didn't think 165 or 166s ran on the Basingstoke branch any more.

You're correct, but I would expect they would revert to Turbo stock though once enough units were available.

I have no clue about what is supposed to run on the Basingstoke branch but anecdotally it has been a mixture of Turbos and 150's for quite some time.

Weekdays, it's supposed to be the two Class 150s from start of service until around 9pm when Turbos finish the day off.  Weekends exclusively Turbos.  However, with a fleet of two and a daily allocation of two it's certainly not uncommon to find one of the two daily diagrams covered by a Class 166 - toady is an example of that.

I thought one of the 150s had gone back west - or was that only for the summer?

Pretty sure they're both at Reading at the moment, just that 150001 is stopped.

It was 2 turbos on Thursday, I couldn't see any of them at the depot. I've heard rumours that 150001 is getting repainted green.

Yes it could well be away at the paint shop - think that both units are based at Reading still though.  Certainly the drivers diagrams have both units allocated to 150s still.