Great Western Coffee Shop

Having recently been taken to task for referring to a service which is in the timetable as an HST/IET but has been run as a Turbo for the last few weeks as a "short-formation", can anyone tell me what a short-formation is as far as GWR is concerned?

In this particular case, it seems that because it is a planned change, it's not classified as a formation change so does not get shown on JourneyCheck even though it's in the published timetable as offering the full range of services (first class, catering, power points etc) and even though you can make a seat reservation through GWR's booking engine.

And also, where on the GWR website can passengers find out about such planned changes?

First, check the pdf  of the timetable on their website to ensure you are looking at the (supposedly) up to date version.

If it still shows that way, and you are getting otherwise different stock, challenge whoever is telling you it's a planned change - as I understand any planned change should be updated in those pdfs.

Thank you. Having just downloaded timetable T6 from GWR's website, the service I was referring to, and two others which immediately spring to mind, all have a black square at the top of the column - "Bike reservations are compulsory. First Class accommodation, seat reservations, Wi-Fi and power points are available"

Ahhh....Cotswold Line.

A number of changes have been planned owing to shortage of drivers for the IETs. Therefore a change (no IEP was the planned change), but they could put on an HST or a 3car turbo....could be either & hence the reason they haven't changed that pdf - the trains concerned are likely to be substituted from an IEP, to either of those mentioned, or they may find an IET driver as training progresses. It's a fluid situation on that line, until at least the end of March, the CLPG have been told.

It's a mess on that line, and I predict it'll be much longer than the end of March before it's sorted, though it is at least slightly better than it has been over the last couple of weeks.

The vast majority of drivers should have passed out by then, so here's hoping.

I appreciate it's a mess and that GWR is "managing" the situation as best it can, and there is a thread in the London to the Cotswolds sub-forum which is covering a lot of these issues.

I also recognise I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this. (And actually, as I only travel one stop I much prefer a Turbo to an IET as there's more standing space.) But the main reason for raising this query was that it seems to be known that some services are planned to be Turbos for the short/medium-term rather than the HST/IET promised in the timetable - do GWR actually make this information available to passengers or is it simply a case of "being in the know"?

I know what you mean - but love the vision outside a rail context!

In this particular case, I doubt more than a very few actually know - and then it's subject to change. They' intend to put on the 'best' stock they can. So even if it's booked on a particular day as a turbo, if an HST becomes available, they may send that.

I wonder why it is that someone has to come to this forum to get answers like this (useful and informative though they are), rather than GWR proactively issuing a communication in order that its customers (especially on the Cotswold line) can understand why the situation is how it is, rather than being kept in the dark?

Communication is a colossal "fail" within GWR.

Because 90% of the customers only want 10% of the answers?   We here are the 10% who seek the 90% - other put their hands over there ears at too much information!

I'd up that to at least 95%, Graham....

Graham I'd love to know how you reach that conclusion.

Notwithstanding your loyalty to GWR, it's not only people in this forum who want information - paying customers are entitled to know (for example on the Cotswold Line) why their services are cancelled/shortformed/terminated short day after day and the onus sits firmly with the service provider to inform them.

GWR weren't shy about spouting off about the thousands of extra seats and spending a fortune on twee advertising campaigns making promises that they haven't been able to keep - having raised those expectations, it's now incumbent upon them to explain why they haven't matched them.

The best companies front up when things go wrong, explain why, what they have learned and what they are doing by way of resolution/mitigation, and in that way they gain respect.

I don't see a lot of that from GWR, and think I know who it is that has their hands over their ears.

GHenerally I may agree, but which type of train turns up on which day?

Nah, at least 95% won't want to know in advance as long as it's on time & they get a seat, which along the Cotswold Line, they probably would.

and yet


My guestimate comes from talking to people - lots and lots of people over the years - and seeing how far their interest goes when explaining changes, reasons, etc.   If a train is cancelled they want to know what's the alternative (or what's being done for them).  Whether it's a faulty point, lack of crew or an exploding pidgeon is of no consequence to 9 out of 10 - there is a little more engagement if it's 'person hit by train' and more willingness to accept consequential delays.

The engagement with bus users is even more extreme at times.

---

I agree with you.   Doesn't mean that everyone wants to know it all, but that should not stop the information being freely, openly, timoeously and honestly provided where it's easy to find.  Which is rarely the case at present. 


Perhaps that's why we get such a large number of search engine arrivals at the forum ... it may just be the 5% or 10% who want to know ... but much of it ain't available elsewhere.   As a CRP we hope (often forlornly) to be alerted and informed - but even for us the jungle telegraph of the forum and other sources tells us ... filled when we question things with an email that starts " and firstly my apologies for not informing you ..."; I haven't had one of those since yesterday.

Not all bleak - on that front, even as I write, an incoming email "I just thought I ought to contact you both, regarding our ongoing problems "  ... THANK YOU - you know who you are. 

Here’s hoping indeed, and hopefully Worcester depot will be fully staffed and fully trained by then.  However, for my money they also need a healthy number of Oxford drivers trained on IET’s, for which there is still no agreement, as there is little scope to expand IET operation without far more drivers being trained and available. 

Either that or you chuck another load of drivers at Worcester depot which has already swallowed a lot of cash and resources for very little reward.  Of course, IET operation must expand during this year as more HST’s are sent elsewhere, hence my concerns that it will be a very painful summer with regular cancellations.

I travel to London most days from Charlbury. I now refuse to get the 0731 which is a turbo at the moment as I simply can’t work on it. I catch the earlier 0712 (or 0633) HST - still get a seat but it’s fairly busy.

Same goes for the 1622 back - it’s so variable that i just stay later at work to avoid a turbo

In general terms, I'd agree with this.  However, this particular problem is one that I've repeatedly heard people ask the Cotswold Line train managers questions about, since the beginning of January.  When people have grown used to HSTs and 180s, having to spend 90+ mins on 3+2 seating with inadequate heating instead is something that they don't tend to accept silently the first time it happens.  You can imagine the state some have got themselves into after being stuck with Turbos for over a month now - those who can, have changed their commute time, but that's just not an option for everyone.

Indeed - Cotswold line was my main context - numerous pressure groups also involved in seeking information on the Cotswold meltdown and now the Press are involved - you will note the final line "GWR did not respond to a request for comment. "

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/16038585.GWR_under_fire_after_day_of_chaos_on_services_to_and_from_Worcester/?ref=twtrec

And certainly not before time!

When I started this thread, I didn't mention the Cotswold Line even though it was the 07:10 Moreton-in-Marsh to Paddington service that was the catalyst. But it does seem clear that some do want to know whether a particular service is going to be an HST/IET or a Turbo - Turbos are not units you want to travel on if you're planning to be doing a bit of work, for example.

For the ordinary passenger, the printed timetable is the place to go to see what unit you are likely to get. You then look at JourneyCheck to see if there are any changes to this. Even allowing for the "fluid" situation on the Cotswold Line, there appear to be a number of Turbo-isations that are planned and established. The two that immediately spring to mind at the 07:10 MIM:PAD (the service I was picked up for referring to as being a short-formation when, apparently, it wasn't) and 17:52 Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill (and more recently the 15:22 Paddington to Great Malvern). These are services which the timetable suggests will be an HST/IET and for which the GWR website offers seat reservations. However, these journeys are operated by Turbos - the only time JourneyCheck warns of a formation change is when there's a reduction from the booked Turbo. Seemingly, these medium-term changes are ones that GWR does not think it necessary to advise paying customers about.

People keep complaining about a shortage of drivers for IET's etc, however the first IET drivers only passed out in the summer of 2017, and whilst numbers are growing, it takes time to get through all the GWR drivers, numbers are clearly short as it seems they have no standby's ready.

I'm guessing its must be to do with acceptance testing by Network Rail, as in aviation for example, British Airways began training crew 4 years before they got their first A380, whilst this might not have been possible for GWR, really they should have begun training for the IET a lot sooner, especially since they are relying even more on them now due to the cancellation of the Oxford electrification etc.

More to do with Hitachi being over protective of their new trains I believe.  They are also being very protective in terms of overnight stabling, which is causing GWR a few headaches as currently use of Worcester is in doubt.

This is why it was stupid of the government to have a contract for new trains where the train company has limited control over them, I bet GWR aren't too happy about it either.

An example of why it matters has just come up on Twitter:

@GWRHelp 3.22pm Paddington to G Malvern we have  First Class reserved seats and carriage is full...only 16 seats on whole train ??

The 15:22 PAD:GMV has been operating as a Turbo for several weeks now. There's nothing anywhere to say it's not an IET/HST and it's naughty of GWR to offer reservations when they know they can't be honoured.

But you need a seat reservation for an Advance. Are you suggesting they stop selling these cheap tickets

Having done a sample reservation on this service for tomorrow, the booking system clearly thinks it should be an IET as it is offering a First Class Seat reservation in coach D. Unless it is stuck right in the past and thinks it could still be a 180.

It was operated as an IET for a few weeks in the latter part of January/early February but has now reverted back to a Turbo since half-term week.

Is that really how advance bookings work on Turbo operated trains? You get given a real seat reference and you don't discover it's not a real reservation until you get on the train and try to find your seat? Wow.

SWR do advances without seat reservations, and they definitely aren’t the only TOC who do this...

I think the suggestion is quite clearly more about not issuing/offering seat reservations for trains that do not have the facility (ie Turbos)

 Q "When is a short formation not a short formation"
 A "When it has been re-branded as five (hundred) have a great adventure"

And also about not offering the advertised timetabled stock (and facilities) without advising passengers of the formation change.

Is there really any need for silly comments like these? I think not.

Each to our own view ... I have considerable kinship with Broadgage in that I look back at some of my posts and feel that in hindsight they weren't exactly the sort of thing everyone might appreciate.  I will admit to having a chuckle at the original post!

I have seen reservations for Coach * seat ** (and no coach labelled "*" on the train).  It was explained that it means "any carriage, any seat" and that you are guaranteed a seat.  Not sure how widespread or current this is.

This is the system used on SWR.  It means that you must travel on the specified service but I suspect that you are not guaranteed a seat.  Many people are of the opinion that Crosscountry should do this on their late 'advance' fares to avoid existing passengers being evicted from the seats they occupied when they were showing as not reserved.

But the original post suggested removing reservations, so pax didn't feel they had a guaranteed seat. My post stands, suggesting that reservations (of any sort) *are* needed for Advance fares, at least.

My fundamental issue was that this (and other services) are being operated by inferior units to the ones the GWR timetable says passengers should expect without publicising these changes. This is then compounded by GWR offering seat reservations. I get the point that you need some sort of reservation with an advance fare, but if you have a reservation for coach L, seats 43 and 44 then I don't think it is unreasonable to expect - in the normal course of events - there to be a coach L with seats 43 and 44 reserved.

Lots of short formations recently. Is this the aftermath of more GWR trains being placed elsewhere on the NR network. Surely not all out for maintenance?

How to do short formations get reported on a performance metric? Not like cancellations I assume?

That's another of the regular $64,000 dollar questions - if you can get a straight answer (or any answer beyond a cut/paste) from GWR then you're a better man than most of us on here (Gunga Din!)

Need to get them sorted before the Summer when extra units are needed in the South West.

The answer I got was that there's a shortage of skilled staff working for GWR as many have moved to Hitachi - especially where their current work is running out (e.g. depot closures).  Add to that new types on the depot (e.g. 166 at Bristol) and you get a backlog of units stopped because maintenance is overdue.   So not more actually being maintained, but a queue of units that can't be used because they have run out of hours.

Today's 2R60 1759 London Paddington to Reading was formed of a 5-car 165 (units '127 and '113) instead of the usual 8-car 387 that it has been for a few weeks. There was nothing showing on JourneyCheck about it. On investigation using RealTimeTrains it appears that for today and all weekdays next week (at least) the service is using DMU timings, and will have to be formed of DMUs as the previous working was the 1K27 1648 Newbury to London Paddington and then the following working for the front unit is the 2L64 1919 Reading to Oxford (rear unit goes into Reading Depot).

Then for Monday 23 April to Thursday 26 April inclusive, it becomes the turn of 1R06 1757 London Paddington to Reading to use DMU timings instead of the usual EMU timings.

The 0641 Didcot to Paddington has been timetabled as an EMU since the new timetable start.

The first two weeks it ran as an EMU. Since then, it's since either been 4/5 car 165 or cancelled.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be able to keep to the EMU timings from Maidenhead so when it does run, it runs late into Paddington.

A little postscript to this.

My main gripes were that there seems to be no way of finding out about planned stock substitutions (which are not, apparently, short-formations even if the published timetable says the service will be an IET/HST whereas it will actually be a Turbo), and that GWR offers and allocates seat reservations on these services even though they won't be honoured.

As a point of principle, since both my morning and evening trains were affected by such stock changes, I decided to make seat reservations and subsequently put in a claim for compensation for the days when seats weren't available. I was pleasantly surprised that this claim was accepted without quibble and, on Saturday, I received a very generous cheque.

Given I did this to make a point and that I choose to stand anyway, I will be giving this money to charity.

Donation made - GWR are working with Action for Children "to support the mental health of the UK’s most disadvantaged children" so that seemed the appropriate charity to receive my compensation money.

https://www.gwr.com/about-us/supporting-our-community/charity-support (https://www.gwr.com/about-us/supporting-our-community/charity-support)

https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/ (https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/)

looks like there are a lot of formation changes today. 63 currently showing on journey checker.

75 now...……….….minus this one!  ???


17:12 London Paddington to Reading due 18:08


Facilities on the 17:12 London Paddington to Reading due 18:08.
This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time.
This train will now be formed of the usual number of coaches.

Mostly 'West' local fleet trains in need of some TLC. Lets hope they can get more out tomorrow as I have a feeling the 'Weymouths' and local services in Devon and Cornwall will be rather busy.

If they don't need as many HSTs as on Mondays to Fridays, perhaps they could send one to Weymouth  ;D  ;D and relieve pressure elsewhere?

With 7 of GWR's 12 153s all disappearing elsewhere this weekend, life could get very interesting!

I understand that there will be 2 diagrams for 2 car 165s from Bristol as from Monday, so there is incoming 'new' stock.  If those 2 car 165s displace 3 car 166s of diagrams that don't need 3 cars ...

Of course, you can't drop 1 carriage off the back of a 3 car 166 like you can off a 150 + 153 combo, so there's another constraint added to the puzzle.

6 disappearing, 2 to Northern and 4 to EMT.    3 have already gone from an original allocation of 14 leaving 5 still with GWR for now

Isn’t it amazing or more like sad that in 2018 TOCs are playing musical trains, part of which involves handful of 30 year old single carriage trains just to give a bit of extra capacity rather than build enough new trains to replace all 30+ year old local train rolling stock. It won’t go on forever.

Well, nationwide at least, there are a huge number of new trains being built, and a large number of trains that are far from the end of their lives being faced with the threat of the cutters torch in a couple of years time.  The nature of the industry means it’ll never be perfect.

6 disappearing this weekend, 2 to Northern and 4 to EMT.   Up until and since the 3 went to Northern a few weeks ago, there were 11 remaining.   5 still remaining until next year when they go Wales and Borders, 1 each for the GWR Group going on a journey

Does anyone have a programme for the cascade and a list showing the fleet availability?

I must admit I have a soft spot for the 153s - as I did for the class 121 Bubble cars.   I have travelled on all 14 153s allocated to GWR (153305, 153318, 153325, 153329, 153333, 153361, 153368-153370, 153372-153373, 153377, 153380, 153382) largely because of their appearance on the TransWilts line but also when used to strengthen services in the South West.  Even went to Portbury Dock on one (153380)!