Some people apply common sense, and some panic and reach for the emergency alarm.  It’s very difficult to change human nature.

I think there would be far too much risk operating a regular battery operated service on a key trunk route such as Didcot to Oxford.  Branch lines, yes, and then when the technology matures and proves itself then you can start to think about wider application.  The fact the 379 trial hasn’t come to anything so far perhaps indicates cost and/or reliability weren’t what they hoped for.

Regarding B&H services, the 769s with poor acceleration and ‘only’ 100mph top speed would impact on paths available for the fast Bedwyn’s.  Much better to be using the higher quality and 125mph capable 800/802s IMHO. 

I think those following trains running late probably swayed the decision somewhat.

100mph yes, but very slow accelerating compared with modern electric units (though probably slightly better than a Turbo).  Maximum speed on diesel is expected to be in the 90+mph area I believe, but how long it takes to get to that value remains to be seen - along with how it'll cope with accelerating on the gradients of the North Downs.

It is, obviously, good news to get more capacity.  Just the extra strain on crew training, and the reliability and power of the units themselves that cast a bit of a shadow in my opinion.

‘Reading to Oxford’ presumably means the peak Reading-Oxford services that are Turbo operated as well as possibly some of the Oxford to Didcot shuttles?

Due to dragging brakes.

Yes, no difference to the delays at the same time of day yesterday when it only got to Oxford.  Good that it ran for those on board, not so good for those caught up in additional reactionary delays as a result of running it. Consistency in decision making would be nice.

Normal working resumed at 13:46 so after reactionary delays are recovered all should be fine shortly - certainly well in time for the afternoon peak.

Rather ironic that this paperless revolution is being advertised on the seats of the trains on a printed leaflet.  Some might say that paper and ink would have been better spent on a letter from the MD explaining and apologising for the recent hopeless service offered up by GWR.

ARS is of benefit sometimes, but equally as S&TEngineer says, it’s far from optimal especially at dealing with delays.  I suggested developing a 1-10 importance level for trains based not just on whether it’s a class 1 or class 2 train but also other factors such as that train and its crews next workings.  That sort of thing could ‘easily’ be programmed into the ARS software and might help further optimise whatever algorithms it currently uses.

Yes, the same has been the case for the Oxford to Didcot shuttles as debated in another thread.  A shame the two 150s couldn’t have been kept for a little while longer until 800s release more 3-car Turbos.

I guess those survey figures are what you’d expect.  Very few local businesses are going to vote ‘no’ to a local airport staying open.  Who let the London slots go?  Is it a case of the airports operator having a hidden agenda?

Presumably not successful enough to be financially viable for any carriers though?

Always a shame when transport links are cut of course.  An often overlooked benefit of the rail franchise model is that routes and services (including marginal and loss making but socially beneficial ones) HAVE to be provided at a specified level by the operator with very few exceptions.  So there’s an element of security that you increasingly don’t get with many air and rural bus routes.

It’s quite often the case with infrastructure enhancements that you don’t necessarily notice the positive impact they are having, but you sure would if they weren’t there.