Thanks for posting that link, Will. Certainly there's plenty of interesting reading in there!

I am assuming by the above turn-back quote that they are proposing a 'proper' turn-back facility, i.e. either a proper starting signal at the South end of the down platform, or a cross-over from the down main line into the up platform. That would allow a train to arrive, unload, load and depart with no additional shunt moves. At the moment, a train terminating from the Oxford direction, that wants to go back towards Oxford, either has to collect a token for the Evesham section and go onto the single line before changing ends and returning back to the opposite platform (that's what happens to the first London train of the day you mention), or it has to shunt in the London direction onto the up main and then return to the up platform - that involves no less than three changing of ends for the driver, which given the mobilisation time for a HST is not practicable.

No it doesn't, Will. But that's one of the disadvantages of having such a small fleet - availablility of spares etc, which has been plagued by reliability issues since they arrived, especially in the summer. Even a small fleet size of 14 caused problems in that respect.

Good stuff - where are they gonna get the stock from though?

Don't get me started on stupid names for railway jobs! 

On Driver Only operated routes (DOO), there are no train managers - you may have a conductor or senior conductor on-board, but their only responsibilities concern 'customer service' - i.e. Ticket checks and providing information. The Driver is responsible for despatch of his train, whether using mirrors, CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision), or with the help of station staff.

On non-DOO routes then the train manager/conductor/senior conductor (depending what part of the organisation is involved!) they are responsible for train despatch using buzzer codes to the driver.

No, don't get me wrong, Go-Ahead manage to do the basics right most of the time - something which FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should learn lessons from.

Though, I am of the opinion, that they lacked imagination and the urge to take a few risks with their Thames Trains franchise.

It's a balancing act - perhaps Go-Ahead were too negative and FirstGroup too revolutionary?

Anybody else notice the number of signs at our FGW^▸ (First Great Western) stations seems to be growing at a daily rate? Most of them seem to be either inappropriate, confusing, or inaccurate, (or all three!) and I invite others to add others that they have noticed.

I continue my campaign to highlight stupid station signs with this view of the new, improved, cycle storage facilities at Hanborough.



Just in case you miss stupid meaningless sign no. 1 concerning the risk of your cycle being 'searched' at any time, a duplicate sign has been put up about 4 feet away. Not that you're able to use these facilities anyway however as the other sign clearly states that you are not allowed to pass that point and access the cycle racks anyway. I give up!

And coming eastwards, the worst pathed train of the day, the 19:27 from Worcester Foregate Street to Oxford, spent its booked 30 minutes sat at Evesham waiting for zero trains to come the other way. Then it got delayed at Ascott for 15 minutes, and arrived Oxford over two hours later at 21:30. The following train being cancelled meant the last up service would have mopped up any stragglers.

In some respects it's good that the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) chose FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to take over the short-term extention to Thames Trains (to eventually be called First Great Western Link) until the main FGW franchise terminated. At least FGW offered two proposals - one to operate the existing service on the existing non-subsity basis, the other to introduce 180's on the Oxford's and Cotswolds (where they would still be perfectly adequate on many services), for a subsidy payment of just over ^100m I believe? Thankfully the latter was chosen.

I really doubt that Go-Ahead would have done much at all. Certainly not provided the quality of train the line now enjoys. Such a shame the various other naive decisions from FGW have spoiled all the positive publicity this could have generated.

That's correct. When viewed from the platform if the diamond doesn't line up then the door isn't shut properly.

This was a suggestion from a member of staff apparently, and after finally gaining permission by the various safety bodies for a trial (meaning the idea was probably first mooted in 1946!) - expect to see all sets with them on shortly.

I agree with you, Will. Though I wonder if Thames Trains (which under the stewardship of Go-Ahead rarely showed any innovation) had retained the franchise, whether the service in question, and many others, would still be operated by a 165/6 like it was up until the end of 2005?

The rumour mill is working overtime - I overheard a conversation today between two FGW^▸ (First Great Western) staff saying about a FGW drivers depot being established at Worcester within the next year or two. According to them it will have an establishment of around 30 drivers and will take over (either partially or completely) the current depot work at Gloucester. Apparently it has already been discussed by the unions. Well, time will tell... 

That was the exact service in question, Lee. And guess who witnessed it first hand! 

Well, you heard it from me first then. Mind you of course, at least 75% of rumours within the industry turn out to be complete bobbins! I think it is Redhill based drivers you speak of. And, yes, that may be changing, but local decisions are dictated by local circumstances. It MIGHT make more business sense to hire, say three Worcester based London Midland drivers a day from a passed out link of sixteen, than operate your own very small depot at that location (you'd want about eight to cover three daily diagrams with allowances for days off/sickness etc.) It might not. I'm not saying it will (that was not part of the rumour), but as it has been done before at this very location until fairly recently it would certainly not be unfeasable.

Of course they won't - that would be far too sensible. There's probably three or four surplus turbos kicking around at Oxford all day, but I saw at least three of the up Paddington's off the Cotswold Line arrive today and two of them were chock-full, the third had people standing.

This always happens on a Sunday at it's not helped by the fact that the trains also stop at Didcot Parkway. Indeed, a couple of months ago the local press got involved when a 2-car was used a a substitute on one of the Hereford-Paddingtons in the afternoon. About 30 people had to be turned away at Oxford and nobody at all could board at Didcot. The appalling fact is that there IS plenty of spare Turbo capacity on a Sunday.

Even when the trains are formed by HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s they are full as Oxford only has an hourly fast service on a Sunday, which almost always originates from Hereford/Malvern/Worcester.