There is a unit taken off at Westbury, and after shunting to the sidings it forms part of the 20:38 back to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains).  At least, that's what happened tonight!

Other parts of the train are the 19:39 arrival from GMV and 18:21 arrival from SWI^» (Swindon - next trains).

Usually, if there's a move that is signalled by subsidiary or position light signals rather than 'main aspects' then passengers should be de-trained, but if there's no sensible way of doing that then the moves can be done with permission of the signalling supervisor.  Sometimes that might involve clipping and scotching points. 

For those interested in the project, there's also a selection of timelapse videos that have been uploaded in the last couple of weeks and can be viewed at:

http://vimeo.com/album/3076666

On the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) I think it's from Foxhall Junction (west of Didcot) to Bedminster and Wootton Bassett Junction to Chipping Sodbury.  Lots of other smaller sections around stations as well of course.  Didcot to Aynho Junction is planned over the next few years as part of the Oxford Corridor Enhancements programme.

The longer sections aren't used too often and are more for engineering works and failed train scenarios than overtaking moves due to the quite long signal sections and the likelihood of a train wanting to come the other way.

I can also understand why Stoke is miffed, but I can see how Crewe is a far better location for a HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) hub station, ideal in fact, given its location and the massive envelope of railway land that still exists there.  Surely it is going to provide excellent connectivity with the existing network given the number of radial lines (six directions) which currently feed it?  Far more than Stoke for example.

The finer details will no doubt come when an official announcement is made tomorrow, but surely given the space available any of the current feeder routes will still be able to access the new station, be it via a tunnel or viaduct, and that's if they need altering much at all.

I took a trip over to Bicester yesterday to get some snaps of progress with the track upgrade and new chord up to the Chiltern main line.  I thought some of you might like to see them.

Here is the view at London Road Crossing looking west to where the old Bicester Town station was located (pending its replacement being built):




And east towards Bletchley:




Here is the rather intrusive new footbridge which has replaced Tubbs Lane crossing:




Here are two views from that footbridge, a good new location for photographs, of the new Gavray Junction and the start of the chord that leads up to the new Bicester South Junction (the Chiltern line can be seen in the distance where it crosses over the Bicester to Bletchley line:

I don't think we've managed particularly well.  Just look at the complete and utter chaos when the wires are (frequently) down, or the power supply is switched off on the East Coast or West Coast routes.  I'm reminded of a situation at Crewe I found myself in a a few months ago when an empty engine derailed south of the station, but my train (and another Pendolino) in the station were unable to move northwards due to that section of current being isolated.  

As more and more of the network is electrified, more and more trains are likely to be affected by these things (countered by the general better reliability of electric trains over their diesel counterparts), so to me it makes sense to provide an alternative means of getting round a power outage, such as the one described above, and if that's not possible then at least the train can generate suitable conditions on the train until the line is cleared.  Perhaps longer term those engines can be removed and replaced with batteries when the technology is mature and cost effective enough?

An interesting last paragraph of this article regarding the East Coast IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s.  Is this the DfT passing the buck, or is it really still possible that a buffet could be provided?   

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11558976._/

I'd certainly concede it might not indeed take up much less space, though of course having it at the end of the train means there might be space saved if it's a crew only area with no through route for passengers taking up space and/or it encroaches on part of the crumple zone where passengers cannot be conveyed.  It's a little difficult to tell what is what from looking at the plans.

Indeed it does, Rhydgaled.  Hence BMN dispatching himself to measure the spec against a current FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train).  As usual I recommend we'll just wait and see until we see them in the flesh before assuming anything, though I wanted to take the opportunity to challenge Broadgage on his recollection of how legroom has been officially described.

Hmmm, looking at the online seating layouts for standard class I make there a total of around 24 seats at tables in the current high-density layout and 60 in the low-density layouts.  Bearing in mind that in the current conversion work, we are promised (welcome news), another 8 tables on those coaches that are having an extra standard class carriage being added, and that bumps the total up to a maximum of 92 seats on the current layouts being at tables.  Looking at the proposed IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 9-car layouts (not set in stone as I've said before, but the most accurate source we currently have) and I count the number of seats at tables working out at 192.  So, as you say no worse than a HST downgraded to a high density layout - in fact you could say over three times better!

By the way, even the 5-car Bi-mode's have more standard class seats at tables than the best-case low density 8-carriage HST set.   


I'm not sure you do remember correctly, though feel free to provide a link to an official source (DfT, Hitachi or FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) that uses the phrase 'comparable to existing trains'.  I remember the phrase 'no compromise on leg room' being used on all the press releases.  The phrase 'no compromise' certainly isn't the same as 'comparable' is it?  It would suggest (as backed up with BMN's tape measure if I remember correctly) that the leg room will be at least as much as on the current stock - acceptable in my opinion.

Assuming you're referring to me as one of the apologists for the new trains, I would suggest that a label of 'pragmatic realist' is actually more appropriate, as all the comments I've made have been factual, non-judgemental, and hopefully balanced and not led by rumour or a rose-tinted negative agenda.  However, it does indeed now look very likely that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have decided (and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were unable to change their minds to the contrary), to go with the catering levels as provided in the proof designs we saw a couple of years ago, so 'Broadgage' has indeed been proven right.  Congratulations.

Now that it has been proven to be the case, I completely agree with him that it is a real shame and a downgrade on that aspect of the trains appeal.  I can see why it's happened as, compared with the era he often refers to in his posts, peoples eating habits have changed substantially, and there are now far more retail outlets at the stations offering a wide choice of modern style meals, whereas until the 90s you might get a Travellers Fare and John Menzies if you were lucky.  That and the desperate need for more seating accommodation due to the popularity of the railways currently looks like it has won the day.

Trolley services aren't all bad of course, in fact there are several types of passengers (with luggage, children etc.) who indeed prefer them over a long walk down several carriages to a buffet counter, but I feel that an important part of the train's prestige will be lost - not to mention the variety of products available (and their quality) reducing as a result.  Time will tell how that decision will go down with the passengers, but I feel the general feeling will be more negative than positive.

Hopefully your other well-trodden list of negative aspects of the train will not come to pass.  Let's remind ourselves that you predict:

• The majority of 8-carriage trains to be replaced by 5-carriage ones
• A reduction in the number of seats at tables
• Reduced legroom
• Insuffient luggage space
• Over complicated trains leading to reliability issues

Should that list come true then I will be completely behind you with vehement criticism.  Somehow I doubt much of it will though.

I shall now look optimistically for the day when the 9-car trains are extended to 10-car trains (and more of them ordered) and the extra carriage provides 70 or so extra standard class seats and a buffet counter. 

I think that's right.  So, 21 mins quicker from Worcester Foregate Street, but not so dramatic an  improvement from Shrub Hill.

Another nice, local, independent offering then.   

Not forgetting the ability to self-propel over short distances which will be incredibly useful if the juice has been switched off or damaged for some reason, or the train itself has pantograph issues.  I'm sure the air-con will be reliable, certainly I can't remember many air-con problems with recently built traction, especially the Javelin trains on which the IEP trains are fairly closely related to.

The installed emergency engine(s) will prove a fantastic asset in my opinion.