Great Western Coffee Shop

I was speaking to one of the nine train managers that are based st Gloucester about GWR and their current status of performance. He spoke to me about the fact that it should start to get better in the next two to three months.

It got me thinking about the care to passenger that the current service provides and the fact that it is normal for me to avoid Sunday working due to cancellations? That should never need to happen.

Out the popular places GW serve being served well? One thing I have noticed is that these improvements are based on there popular locations not as much the other areas.

How can we correctly and efficiently space services between fast and slow, and how can GW provide a clockface service for key destinations.

What does Network Rail need to do? Six track Melksham  ;) To promote rail travel in more destinations, is investment required where figures are lower in cities/towns?

Living in and traveling from Gloucester, I would like to see a better clockface service, links to the cross country network improved and a half hourly service to Bristol, and a possible increase to Swindon (and beyond) and also hourly to Worcester. Out of Swindon, a hourly TransWilts service, an additional 3tph all day frequency to and from Cardiff and more extensions towards Weston etc.

As rail enthusiasts say, the investment brings passengers, and passengers don’t grow off trees (I hope  ;D)

What are the key changes needed to promote and improve passenger service?

Capacity and reliability are IMHO the main problems.
Little point in tinkering with timetables and calling patterns until enough staff are available to operate a reliable service every day of the week, including a modest number of spare staff to cover for last minute illness etc.

And enough trains to reliably run every train as full length, together with a modest number of spares for last minute breakdowns or other out  of course events.

In the longer term, better trains ! it is not just me who considers that the IEPs are a backward for long distance use.
It would be unrealistic to scrap such new and costly units, so efforts need to be directed towards making them into proper inter-city trains rather than short regional DMUs.

Make all the 9 car units and some of the 5 car units into 10 car fixed formation trains.
Add a buffet car, it is not just me who thinks that this should be a feature of inter city trains. A proper full sized hot buffet, Not a micro buffet or a static trolley.
Put this in the middle of standard class, so that no one has to walk too far.
Remove 4 seats from most standard class vehicles to give more tables.
Fit padded seats.
Make the reservation system work.
Make first class a bit better, it does not "feel first class" at present.

Once they have got enough the fundamentals of staffing and the trains right, THEN new destinations and calling patterns can be considered.

Sounds like a plan that at this rate wouldn’t happen too far off from now judging from passenger feedback.

Yes - I would broadly agree with that. But unfortunately, it can't be that cut and dried.

We are being driven into a tinkering with the timetable (at a minimum) with the loss of most facilities at Old Oak a while back, and the remaining stabling tracks going in January - even if timetable changes are delayed.  High Speed trains MUST go to Scotland (or to Ely for temporary storage but under contract to Scotland) to be replaced by IETs and the empty workings of those at the least - to different depots than HSTs were serviced at - also effects timetables to some extent.

Have you ever travelled on the 18:07 Paddington to Frome?  It takes 108 minutes to reach Westbury, versus 80 minutes on trains like the 21:03.   And that's because the 18:07 makes extra stops and HST schedules for such runs, allowing for extended platform duties as the Train Manager walks his slam door train at unstaffed intermediate stations followed by slower acceleration towards a high speed that's not achievable before the brakes go on for the next station.  The 18:07 feels slow - and some 15 to 20 minutes can be gained when it becomes an IET.  It would seem crazy not to make a very real difference to passengers - no extra staff needed an d real time savings - because we're not going to make changes "until we have [the old service] reliable".

There are then knock-ons.    The draft 2019 timetable - covered elsewhere on the forum from a Wiltshire perspective - has scheduled the IETs first and foremost, then added back in "connecting" services to meet GWR's Service Level Commitment (SLC).   Sadly, the SLC does not include anything much about the maintaining connections to connecting services - it treats each service as a separate entity - and to my eye the new timetables are a backward step in this respect in Wiltshire and, I understand, in terms of some of the connections at Exeter St David's too.   I understand that the Network Rail timetabling move to Milton Keynes has resulted in a significant loss of skilled / experience timetable planners at the very time that more timetable planning than ever is needed - with new trains and services not limited to our region, and engineering works temporary timetable needs having soared too.  I also understand that GWR have increased their timetabling team significantly, and they have some really good people, but I question whether the resource they have is enough to cope too.

The draft timetables - from a TransWilts perspective - seem destined to loose certain traffic.  We may have a perverse timetable at present - the gaps mean that some flows are simply not catered for - so our growth has been in those areas where the timetable allows and the other traffics remain latent.  Change that around (make it more clock face, have the Swindon train leave Westbury just before the train from Portsmouth arrives as it's operationally more robust) and you will find our through traffic decimated. Move the peak train in the afternoon even 10 minutes earlier, and around 40% of the customers will no longer make it.  Continue to run the 11:11 Westbury to Southampton even though the West of England express connection has now made the earlier 11:05 and you're going to be carrying fresh air around at great expense.

From a TransWilts perspective, I would like to see timetables - which have to be modified - modified sensibly and not with a "minimum interference until they are reliable".  Changes can help make them reliable and efficient, and it's not beyond the wit of people - if only there were enough informed people to do the job - to do that.   Same number of trains, same number of staff too.   The 17:11 Westbury to Warminster starts back at Swindon (at 16:30) and carries on to Salisbury and beyond - replacing a train with three people on it (the driver, the conductor, the passenger) with one providing for 100 passenger journeys. The returning 17:28 up from Warminster starts back from further south - still runs (it's a better used train than the 17:11) and the whole thing fits a new pattern.   SWR and GWR have the details and indeed a lot of work has been done - by ourselves and SWR as well as GWR on these things.   It's not huge changes on the TransWilts - it plugs 3 gaps and maintains current traffic.   But it sorts out inefficiencies and idiocies - now or proposed in return for real connectional and network opportunities.


I cannot totally agree that ... new patterns (at least with empties) are being forced on GWR and it seems crazy to replicate known problems through those forced changes, only to suggest (perhaps) chaining them again to sort out those problems in a couple more years when you've lost the traffic and opportunity.   I will agree that an aggressive program of new destinations should probably wait until the current staffing and stock shortage are sorted out ... which, however, we are assured can now be measured in months rather that years.

Agreed - a wider 'business' (looking at the whole rail industry and not pointing fingers within the fragments) should not advertise a product and then withdraw it on a regular basis.


To a great extent the railway has become a victim of its own success - I can quote you several locations where in the latter half of the last century, you were looking at x trains in a 2 hour period, and now you are looking at 5x trains in two hours.  I suspect that two dynamic loops - Staverton Avon Bridge to Broughton Gifford Road, and Dunch Lane to Notton, with bidirectional signalling will sort out the TransWilts capacity issues.  But importantly, infrastructure needs to be robust.  Sections of track and points that were branch line status and brought out of their slumbers for the odd use at certain times of the day or week are now routinely operated every hour.

Someone needs to step up to the task of providing an infrastructure fit for reliable operation in current traffic levels and with current and future climate.  That's point work that will work in the freezing weather.   Track that trains can run on normally even when it's a warm day.  Trackside vegetation cut back so that it doesn't scrape trains or fall onto the tracks.   Work done in such a way that it doesn't meet one need and create another problem (I'm thinking of lowering tracks to let electric wire clearance be provided, just to add a flooding problem).

I have also noticed how GWR rely on services to cancel (ie Swindon-Westbury/Swindon/London-Cheltenham) when things go wrong. Something never mentioned on last weeks paddington 24/7 was the cancellations of Cheltenham’s, instead just telling the viewer of the Bristol and Cardiff cancellation.

I see no harm in minor or incremental changes to make best use of existing stock etc.

Taking the example of the 18-07 to Frome, if IETs would give a significant improvement in journey times, then it seems to me that this service should have been one of the first to be changed to IET operation, keeping the original timings INITIALY until there is confidence that the claimed improvements could actually be achieved.
The downgraded facilities would be less significant on this shorter journey, though even on this service I suspect that a buffet is preferred over not having one, padded seats are probably preferred also.
It would IMHO be unwise to accelerate the 18-07 or other similar services until IETs have been used for some time and not until full length IETs are reliably available for the services in question.

Anecdotal reports suggest that half length IETs are struggling to keep to HST times.
The power per vehicle is of course virtually the same, the performance penalty of a half length DMU comes from the extended dwell times as a full trains worth of passengers attempt to use the limited number of narrow entrances.
Therefore full length DMUs need to be provided reliably before timings can be improved.

The majority of dwell times are reduced, significantly at unstaffed stations like several of the ones where the 18:07 to Frome calls.  Granted, there will be an odd occasion where a very BMU running short formed might have extended times over a typical HST stop due to the circumstances you describe, but that is certainly not common, especially now the 5 vice 10 car situation has greatley improved.

The 18:07 is booked a 9-car IET this week, as I think it has been for a little while now?  Last Thursday, 27th, it left Reading 4 minutes late and had got back on time by Bedwyn.  Earlier in the week it recovered 6 minutes from departing Newbury to departing Westbury.  Certainly quite a bit of slack that could be removed based on those two runs, and remember that its performance will improve even more when it can use the overheads as far as Newbury.  It's not just a simple case of speeding it up in December when other trains are not changing their schedules though as will there be a path available all the way?

Another IET journey time improvement is the 17:42 London to Cheltenham. At the moment is arriving at least 5 minutes before departure time into Didcot (after the nonstop run to Didcot). At Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse the unstaffed performance is as good as staffed on a HST, we were in and out in a minute the other night, 3 early into Gloucester.

And that's under diesel power, right?  It's leave Reading, Theale and Thatcham even more sharpish come the new year.

Don't forget the inaugural (unplanned) run of one back in June (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40285/2018/06/28/advanced)

12 Late off Reading, 2 late arriving Westbury

Back to the original question-

1 - Electrification -
      (a)-complete the "stalled" projects to reach Oxford, Bath, Windsor & Henley branches and Swansea.
      (b)-Undertake and publish report on what went wrong with GWML project so far. Do not delay 1 (a) while doing this, and make sure those involved with electrification of ECML and Norwich and Caambridge/King's Lynn take a leading role (not the usual management consultants/accountants/economists!) who can bring their experience to bear on the exercise. Use it to provide a template for future projects.
       (c)-start planning a 10 (?) year programme of completing electrification of all remaining main lines in GW network in stages (suggest start with Newbury-Exeter, Bristol-Exeter and Westbury-Bath and Swindon).
       (d) -third rail for Wokingham - Ash Junction, Shalford Junction- Reigate, and fit the pick-ups to the bars on the bogies of the Electrostars so they can run as bi-mode electrics on the North Downs line - and connect (say) Oxford to Gatwick if 1 (a) implemented 

2 - Rolling Stock-
       (a) - refurbish Turbos for their new duties - new interiors with 4 across seating throughout, based on Electrostar fittings. We are probably stuck with them for the rest of their lives. If this is not economic, please let us passengers know asap and plan alternatives!
       (b) - I'll leave others to battle for and against Hitachis
       (c) - XC to procure 5 coach bi-mode Hitachis to replace 4 car Voyagers, which are cascaded to long distance cross country routes of GWR such as Cardiff - Portsmouth

3 - Franchise

      (a) - Customer satisfaction to become an important factor in awarding franchises
      (b) - Look at the whole franchising model - perhaps remove rolling stock procurement and managing stations, and simply have them doing the customer facing end, so that DfT/ORR come out from behind the screens, and are directly responsible (and answerable) for properly planned national rolling stock procurement and allocation.

4 - Timetables

A project to take a fundamental look at the whole basis of timetable setting - giving priority to connections at the main interconnecting nodes in the country - Reading, Oxford, Guildford, Swindon, Bristol TM and Parkway, Cardiff Central, Exeter St Davids in GW territory.

A strategic overview of transport use, demands and needs to be undertaken, to establish current unmet need or potential demand, and this to be a criteria in timetable setting

5 - Network

Real progress in implementation of East-West link - unlikely to be anywhere near complete!

If HS2 proceeds (I hope it does!), secondary infrastructure planning to be implemented so that those of us in the SW third of the country can link into it conveniently.

That's enough "blue sky thinking" for one evening!

Expanding on the points that I have made about timetabling and also suggestions  with rolling stock and stations.

• Introduce Delay Repay scheme.
• Work in connecting Swindon/Bristol/Wales/Cheltenham better with Oxford.
• See where journey time improvements are needed and work on ways to do this.
• Introduce new or heavily refurbished rolling stock in the West region allowing for better journeys. Introduce catering on more services.
• Improve the First Class offering. When I travel first class I want a quieter environment and eased traveling (lounge, quick walk up the platform from the rear, good customer service and a more complimentary feel.) I would love to see hot food, more sandwiches, bacon, paninis, alcohol etc. added to the menu.
• Make sure the information provided between Control, Staff and Customer is improved. Inform Train Managers on more by increasing Ticket Examiners to preform the checking duties. Improve PIS to give more precise information, however not repeated every few minutes.
• See where more electrification could be useful and needed, check pollution levels and journey time improvements.
• Standard Class offering improved, 2 trolleys on the nine cars in Standard. To offer hot food deploy 4 customer hosts on the nine cars, 2 on trolleys, 1 on First and 1 on Kitchen/Organisation.
• At Peak, split journeys between fast and semi-fast appropriately. Run 2tph to Cheltenham during peak times and 1tph to Westbury from Swindon.
• Out of Bristol, run most services every half an hour. Run stopping services and semi-fasts to help the major locations as well as the smaller locations. Include everyone when looking at connections.
• Have small groups of staff based in locations currently without train crew depots to help the running of services and make more appealing working hours. An example for this is at Gloucester where there are nine train managers alongside the conductors to work into London, then out to Bristol and Cardiff. They are also sent down to Bristol or Cardiff at the start of shift.

Any points that could cause issue please let me know, other than that I am happy with what I have suggested.

And something of piffling importance. The Underground can manage to tell you which side the doors are opening (when the train stops), this would be a blessing to irregular travellers to Reading (and similar).

Easier for the underground though as 95% of stations only have 1 platform to choose from so this can easily be pre-programmed in. Different from mainline stations whereby the train itself may not no until a few seconds before arrival.

If you literally mean a few seconds before arrival, that is appalling. While I can understand platforms do need to be changed due to late trains etc, surely this must be known minutes rather than seconds in advance, and information can then be given to passengers. Knowing which side of a train to exit in advance would help speed up the flow of passengers off some services.

The driver will only know at the signal (or two) before the station, this information is unlikely to be passed on to the guard (if one). I would rather the driver concentrate on stopping the train safely and accurately rather than making an announcement to passengers.

The tube announcements are pre-programmed. You can't pre-programme a mainline service, if you could it would probably be based on GPS* and again, it wouldn't know what platform it was on until entering the station.




*I'm sure in the distant future the pre-programmed announcements could tie in with signalling and track circuits etc

I very largely agree.
The only point with which I disagree is the suggestion to order more 5 car Hitachi units, whether for cross country or indeed for anyone else.
With capacity a growing problem, it seems to me that ALL new trains should be full length, 9 or 10 car.

I fully appreciate that many routes and services can only justify shorter trains, but in my view such needs can be met for many years by cascading EXISTING short trains to where shorter trains will suffice.

Voyagers will be around for many years yet, and 5 car IETs are still nearly new, and other short trains exist.
One example would be to build more 9 or 10 car Hitachi bimodes for use on long distance GWR or XC routes, cascading the existing short units to secondary routes or services.