Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 12:55 29 Mar 2024
* Delays at Dover as millions begin Easter getaway
- Attempted murder charge after man stabbed on train
- KFC Nigeria sorry after disabled diner refused service
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
13:21 Newbury to Bedwyn
13:48 Bedwyn to Newbury
14:12 Newbury to Bedwyn
14:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
14:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
15:28 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
15:50 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:15 Newbury to Bedwyn
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
12:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
13:55 Paignton to London Paddington
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:10 Penzance to London Paddington
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:20 Penzance to London Paddington
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
14:03 London Paddington to Penzance
etc
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 13:05:34 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[153] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
[97] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[53] Travel for free on the m2 metrobus - Bristol - 4,5,6 April 202...
[41] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[38] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[37] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 78
  Print  
Author Topic: Intercity Express Programme (IEP) - ongoing discussion  (Read 743847 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40692



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #480 on: October 16, 2014, 22:44:24 »


If I knew how to work social media (which I don't), I might try to launch an online petition. As things stand though, I wouldn't get enough pepole to see it for the government to take any notice, so I'm stuck with trying to figure out how to write DfT» (Department for Transport - about) a letter that is (a.) short enough to actually get read and (b.) effective enough to actually spur them into action to sort this out.

Have you tried writing to your MP (Member of Parliament)? I have now written to mine twice on this topic asking for his assistance in getting the project modified to reduce costs, once a couple of years ago and once more recently. I both cases he forwarded it to the DfT. In the first instance I received an asinine answer from Villiers (for it was she); I am still waiting for a response to the second letter.

Do try it, even little drops of water can wear away the stone...!

But do keep the letter short, factual and to the point. The more that the MPs realise that there is unrest something might be done.

I do suspect that the answer may be "look, we've taken a lot of looks at this and decided.   It may not be an ideal solution as there is no ideal solution, but please let us get on at least doing something which we have thought about rather a lot".  There gets to be a time when consultation is over, something needs to be done, and we have to make the best of a job even if we consider it a bad job.

You'll find that I'm personally on record as being on the "objecting" side to the guided busway in Cambridge, for example (taking intentionally an out-of-area example) but now that it's there I'll use it, encourage its use,etc.   Oh - and I objected to the changes in 2006 that brought a TransWilts service of just trains at 06:12 and 18:44 from Swindon. I still think that was a silly service, but I support it now with extras intermeshed with other services  Grin

Reading in this thread the thoughts of balance on the south Cotswold with 8 passenger carriages one hour and 2 the next, switching to 5 each hour.  In my very limited knowledge, the 2 car is pretty darned busy a lot of the time, but the 8 usually isn't ... and I suspect that a 5 at all times may work rather well to balance it out.   To the east of Swindon, these services will form part of a capacity pattern with a five car rather busy on the Stroud Valley dropping off passengers and the picking up more as it gets towards London, making for an overall far more balanced loading pattern.   The pattern may be right, the overall capacity may be planned against a rather conservative growth predicition though, leading to a more consistent overcrowding.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #481 on: October 17, 2014, 09:44:14 »

For some years I have expressed very negative thoughts about the new trains, in particular that most of them will be much shorter than HSTs (High Speed Train), that over half the seats are bus style without tables, and that no buffet* is to be provided.

Those who hold more positive views have been known to criticise my posts "don't knock them until you've seen them"
"these are only provisional layouts and may be altered"
"short trains are fine as they can run in multiple"

As time passes it appears that my negative thoughts  were justified, indeed a recent post suggests that now or very soon that "the time for consultation has passed"
A study of proposed diagrams and time tables by respected members suggests a lot of single unit operation on routes at present served by full length trains.
Does anyone REALLY believe that a buffet will be provided*
Does anyone really believe that the order will be altered to provide more full length trains.

*And yes I know that a kitchen is planned for first class but steerage wont be allowed access and first wont need it if table service is provided. So far all practical purposes the new trains "wont have buffets"
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #482 on: October 17, 2014, 11:15:59 »

For some years I have expressed very negative thoughts about the new trains, in particular that most of them will be much shorter than HSTs (High Speed Train), that over half the seats are bus style without tables, and that no buffet* is to be provided.

Those who hold more positive views have been known to criticise my posts "don't knock them until you've seen them"
"these are only provisional layouts and may be altered"
"short trains are fine as they can run in multiple"

As time passes it appears that my negative thoughts  were justified, indeed a recent post suggests that now or very soon that "the time for consultation has passed"
A study of proposed diagrams and time tables by respected members suggests a lot of single unit operation on routes at present served by full length trains.
Does anyone REALLY believe that a buffet will be provided*
Does anyone really believe that the order will be altered to provide more full length trains.

*And yes I know that a kitchen is planned for first class but steerage wont be allowed access and first wont need it if table service is provided. So far all practical purposes the new trains "wont have buffets"

See the front page of the file Rhydgaled kindly reposted:

"The timetables in this file have been developed solely for the purposes of establishing diagrams and rolling stock requirements,                                    
to enable the Train Service Provider to develop a stabling and maintenance strategy and to estimate Set Availability Payments.                                    
They do not necessarily match the most recent timetables used in the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) Business Case.                                    
The train frequencies, journey times and calling patterns in this file should therefore not be regarded as a aspirations or proposals.                                    
                                    
In addition, the fleet deployment shown in this file is only one option, and Franchise bidders will be free to propose alternatives."


So, in other words, you have not seen proposed diagrams and timetables.  I strongly suspect those will not be the final timetables and diagrams - are we really expecting there to be an hourly service from Weston-Super-Mare to Paddington between 10:36 and 17:36 for example?  That's eight trains when there are currently none?  Or the Cotswold Line where there would be a collision every hour between Pershore and Evesham on the single line if that was the final timetable?  Other services, such as the Westbury stoppers, could potentially quite easily be in the hands of other traction with minor alterations to the electrification strategy, or Paignton/Exeter services could remain in the hands of HSTs.  Many, many tweaks are quite possible.

I also note, from those example diagrams, that several of the units are not required in passenger service until around 8am or much beyond 6pm in the evening, so that would suggest to me that there could be a lot more squeezed out of some of the diagrams when they are looked at properly, for example, get more doubled up 5-Car trains.

I should imagine that the 5-Car trains would indeed, as Graham suggests, work pretty well most of the time on the South and North Cotswold routes (the latter with an improved frequency), though I have concerns about the provision on some routes and I'm sure those with a negative mindset will be able to find fault as I'm sure everything won't work perfectly and it will take a while for the new schedules and trains to bed in.  Perhaps we might see a re-marshalling of some of the 5-Car Bi-modes into something longer in a similar vein to what happened to the Class 222 Meridian's?  I would be surprised if some or all of the 9-Car IEPs don't get extended to 10-Car trains in a similar way the Pendolino's have been extended.

Either way, can't see how any of your many negative thoughts have yet to be justified?  I do also have concerns and if they do end up being justified I will be right behind you in being very critical.  As it is, I think I'll bide my time and wait...
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 455


View Profile
« Reply #483 on: October 17, 2014, 12:42:08 »

Not very practical at this stage to reduce costs.  Even ordering more reduces the unit costs.  Cancelling the order would be prohibitively expensive at this stage.

The direct costs of building and operating the trains will be similar to the cost of any similarly specified train built by someone else. The high costs arise because of the 'Train Service Provision' contract the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) has signed with Agility Trains. This has pushed all the risks (design, manufacture, operation, maintenance and, crucially, finance) onto the manufacturer and that for 27.5 years.

If one outsources risk, it will be expensive. If one outsources all risk, it will be eye-wateringly expensive. It's the financing of the risk which costs the money.

Paying for IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is a really significant issue. Based on the figures published by the National Audit Office in the summer, the annual charge for the SET (Super Express Train (now IET)) fleet on the Western will amount to some ^300 million. In comparison fGW's leasing costs for its entire fleet was ^68 million in 2012-13[1]. Even allowing for day-to-day maintenance expenses, the total costs for fGW will be around ^80 million to ^90 million per year.

In other words the annual charges for the SET on the Western will be more than 3 times higher than for the entire current fleet of trains.


I hope you don't mind paying higher fares...

If the DfT could see its way to take on some of the risk, e.g., to make progress payments during the construction to ease the capital requirements (at the moment Agility Trains will receive no payments at all until the first train enters service so all its up-front costs[2] have to be funded with either equity or borrowed money (or a combination of the two) or find some other method to reduce Agility Train's potential exposure then the leasing costs could be reduced.

What is needed is a flexible approach from the DfT and for it get away from the rigidities of its (actually the Treasury's) previous policies. Buying out the finance aspects of Agility Train's contract might be cheaper for everyone in the long run.

[1] ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s figures
[2] Not quite true. Hitachi has received a subsidy of some ^5 million from the DTI towards the construction of its new factory.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #484 on: October 17, 2014, 21:37:44 »

I agree the forms of contract has increased costs and that could be changed, but IIUC Rhydgaled was suggesting cancelling the order.  That would merely mean paying Hitachi large sums of money for producing absolutely nothing and all that electrification standing idle for years while alternative stock is ordered. We have passed the point of no return and must make the best of the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.).   
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #485 on: October 18, 2014, 00:01:54 »

I agree the forms of contract has increased costs and that could be changed, but IIUC Rhydgaled was suggesting cancelling the order.  That would merely mean paying Hitachi large sums of money for producing absolutely nothing and all that electrification standing idle for years while alternative stock is ordered. We have passed the point of no return and must make the best of the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.).  
I'm not suggesting the order be canceled anymore. Yonks ago, before the contracts were signed, I was, but now I'm resigned to the idea that we're getting IEP. I just think that we'd better damn well get at least the seating capacity of the current trains for the Inordinately Expensive sum that will be payed out for the IEP. That's something the planned all-5-car bi-mode fleet isn't going to deliver, we need some 9-car ones, around 16 of them I reckon, with a smaller number of 5-car units for the services that really do load to less than 315 passengers. In other words, LESS DRIVING VEHICLES and MORE INTERMEDIATE CARS are required for the GW (Great Western) IEP bi-mode fleet.

So, in other words, you have not seen proposed diagrams and timetables.  I strongly suspect those will not be the final timetables and diagrams
Sure, we haven't seen the final diagrams timetables, but we have seen the ones the train formations ordered are based on. While a future TOC (Train Operating Company) might address some of my concerns by running more paired units, that's less paired units elsewhere so somebody somewhere is going to suffer. The sparks effect should increase patronage, and at the moment we are getting shorter trains. It makes no sense which is why I want to make a decisive stand against the current plans. I also think it would be a dreadful waste to scrap the class 91s before 2030 at the earliest, but at the moment I fear they will be needlessly executed in 2020 when IEP arrives.

Perhaps we might see a re-marshalling of some of the 5-Car Bi-modes into something longer in a similar vein to what happened to the Class 222 Meridian's?  I would be surprised if some or all of the 9-Car IEPs don't get extended to 10-Car trains in a similar way the Pendolino's have been extended.
While some 390s have been lengthened, the class 220s and class 221 units haven't despite an apparent need for it (except for VT (Virgin Trains - former franchises) lengthening their 4-car 221s to 5-car at the cost of parking the two driving vehicles). The class 222s were remarshalled into shorter formations, with IEP on the GWML (Great Western Main Line) it is longer formations we need and I can't see how that can easily happen without telling Hitachi we want fewer driving vehicles and more intermediates before they start on series production.

Either way, can't see how any of your many negative thoughts have yet to be justified?  I do also have concerns and if they do end up being justified I will be right behind you in being very critical.
Well, at least one prototype set has been completed. Assumming the interior layout on that unit is the same as the draft plan, does that make it too late to provide a buffet in standard for either the EC or GW fleet, or is a kitchen/buffet on IEPs moved as easily as seats?


If I knew how to work social media (which I don't), I might try to launch an online petition. As things stand though, I wouldn't get enough pepole to see it for the government to take any notice, so I'm stuck with trying to figure out how to write DfT» (Department for Transport - about) a letter that is (a.) short enough to actually get read and (b.) effective enough to actually spur them into action to sort this out.

Have you tried writing to your MP (Member of Parliament)? I have now written to mine twice on this topic asking for his assistance in getting the project modified to reduce costs, once a couple of years ago and once more recently. I both cases he forwarded it to the DfT. In the first instance I received an asinine answer from Villiers (for it was she); I am still waiting for a response to the second letter.

Do try it, even little drops of water can wear away the stone...!

But do keep the letter short, factual and to the point. The more that the MPs realise that there is unrest something might be done.
I have actually already started a draft to him, although the last time I commuinicated with him on this issue (been too busy) was a year ago I think. I actually went to one of his surgeries yonks ago too, but I think I still had wider objectives than just the two I have now (save us from these 5-car trains and save the 91s, I doubt anything else is acheivable now the contracts have been signed).
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #486 on: October 18, 2014, 11:56:39 »

Perhaps we might see a re-marshalling of some of the 5-Car Bi-modes into something longer in a similar vein to what happened to the Class 222 Meridian's?  I would be surprised if some or all of the 9-Car IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project.) don't get extended to 10-Car trains in a similar way the Pendolino's have been extended.

While some 390s have been lengthened, the class 220s and class 221 units haven't despite an apparent need for it (except for VT (Virgin Trains - former franchises) lengthening their 4-car 221s to 5-car at the cost of parking the two driving vehicles). The class 222s were remarshalled into shorter formations, with IEP on the GWML (Great Western Main Line) it is longer formations we need and I can't see how that can easily happen without telling Hitachi we want fewer driving vehicles and more intermediates before they start on series production.

The Class 222s were remarshalled into different length units which gives more flexibility, for example something like the 7-car formations in use now might be a perfect length to have on some of the Cotswold Line trains as they become busier over the years.  That could potentially be achieved through reducing some of the 5-car trains to 4-car and lengthening others, or or course by building additional intermediate vehicles.  All of this is allowed for in the specification, and I guess my point is that we're not necessarily stuck with 5-car and 9-car trains forever, just because that is what's being initially built.


Either way, can't see how any of your many negative thoughts have yet to be justified?  I do also have concerns and if they do end up being justified I will be right behind you in being very critical.
Well, at least one prototype set has been completed. Assumming the interior layout on that unit is the same as the draft plan, does that make it too late to provide a buffet in standard for either the EC or GW (Great Western) fleet, or is a kitchen/buffet on IEPs moved as easily as seats?

I don't know what the interior layout it, so I wouldn't want to assume anything.  I wouldn't be surprised if interior fittings are minimal (perhaps even little seating yet) and banks of computers are installed in some areas to help with the testing programme, though that sort of thing is being done more and more by remote monitoring these days.  The layout of the train is very modular meaning that items can be fairly easily slotted into place.  I don't mean that you could just lift out a kitchen unit from one end and plonk it in the middle of the train ready for use the next day, but if that's what is specified for the GWML trains then that would be easily done when the trains are being manufactured and might differ from any layout in one of the prototype trains.  I do admit though that I'm getting less and less hopeful about there being a buffet facility available to all passengers in the form we currently enjoy on HSTs (High Speed Train).  The wording in the spec is:

TS1634
Catering facilities must minimise the use of Furnishable Space, without compromising safety or functionality, and will be compatible with the building block principle for the selection of interior layouts appropriate to each franchise operation.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


View Profile Email
« Reply #487 on: October 18, 2014, 13:47:56 »

I've not done any searching, but I think the file you are reffering to was an .xslx, which I have saved on my laptop.
That was indeed it. Thank you.

I tend to agree that the proposals as currently stated are worrying compared to the current service. Here on the Cotswold Line, currently we have (from Charlbury) HSTs (High Speed Train) to Paddington at 06.06, 06.28, 07.12, and 07.30. The model timetable has 10-coach IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project.), with roughly the same seating capacity, at 06.11 and 07.11 - and that's it. Half what we have now.

I take II's point that "these will not be the final timetables and diagrams"; there's obviously a lot of flexibility to make changes according to passenger flows, such as the off-peak Weston example. But availability will be much more constrained in the peak, and an extra two 10-coach bi-modes for the Cotswolds to retain our current service would have to be conjured up from somewhere else. Extending a Class 387 from Oxford won't be an option; the Adelantes are going to Grand Central. What odds for retaining peak-time HSTs on the Cotswold Line?

(On the other hand, 1hr08 to Paddington will be lovely thank you very much. Cheesy )
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #488 on: October 18, 2014, 14:02:43 »

What odds for retaining peak-time HSTs (High Speed Train) on the Cotswold Line?

There's going to be a transitional period between as SET (Super Express Train (now IET))'s come on-stream and gradually replacing HST's and I wouldn't be at all surprised that if there are any obvious capacity problems with the timetable and diagrams that eventually transpire (and I share concerns over the Cotswold Line peak workings) during that transition, the idea keeping a couple of sets for use on the Hereford trains (as well as those already being kept for Cornwall) might well be considered the best option.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
bobm
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9810



View Profile
« Reply #489 on: October 23, 2014, 22:22:01 »

I understand FGW (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Be interesting to see the RMT's reaction to that.
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #490 on: October 23, 2014, 22:43:05 »

I understand FGW (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.
Does this mean the 'draft' layouts are still in play? Because I've just noticed they don't show any wheelchair spaces in standard on the 5-car sets.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #491 on: October 23, 2014, 23:04:30 »

I understand FGW (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.
Does this mean the 'draft' layouts are still in play? Because I've just noticed they don't show any wheelchair spaces in standard on the 5-car sets.

I think you just answered your own question. My underlining.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #492 on: October 24, 2014, 11:27:57 »

I understand FGW (First Great Western) have told the catering grades in the RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) that there will be no buffets on the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a trolley will be provided in standard class.

Be interesting to see the RMT's reaction to that.

Interesting to see this backward step confirmed, for at least 5 years I have been forecasting, and then stating as a fact, that the new trains wont have buffets.
Apologists for the new trains countered my views by stating that it was early days yet "don't knock it until you've seen it"
or muddied the waters by stating that a buffet Would be available, but only for first class, when what in fact was proposed was a KITCHEN for first class only.
Internal layout drawings were then published with no buffet. When I pointed this out it was countered with "the layout can be customised according to the wishes of the TOC (Train Operating Company), a buffet could be added"
Prototype trains have been built, with no buffet "oh don't worry these are only prototypes, the production units could have a buffet"

It is now confirmed that the new trains wont have a buffet. Well what a surprise !
Catering downgraded to a trolley for steerage. Since most of the new trains are much shorter than HSTs (High Speed Train), I predict that  it will be a static trolley due to the crowds of standees and their luggage.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #493 on: October 24, 2014, 18:47:05 »

Apologists for the new trains...

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.  Wink
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« Reply #494 on: October 24, 2014, 19:59:09 »

Well the majority of the new trains ARE 5 car and therefore much shorter than those that they are to replace.

The draft or proposed interior layout DOES have mainly unidirectional seating with only about a third of seats being at tables, this is no worse than an HST (High Speed Train) that has been downgraded to high density commuter layout. But is a significant backward step from proper inter city trains that had ALL or almost all seats at tables.
I though that the new trains were intended to be purpose designed INTER CITY trains and not commuter or outer suburban.

Luggage space remains to be seen, but experience of other new trains suggests it will be insufficient. A proper inter city layout with seats at tables gives luggage spaces between the seat backs, this is of course lost with largely unidirectional seating.

Legroom remains to be seen but I cant imagine it being as good as on old inter city trains. Legroom has been described IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly) as "comparable to existing trains" In this context "comparable" means a bit worse. (whilst a pedant would note that comparable could mean "slighter better than" in reality it means worse. After all if the leg room was in fact better, they simply say so)

Reliability will probably decline due to the sheer complexity of the new trains and related infrastructure. I for see a lot of litigation over the breakdowns, with the train builders alleging breakdowns are not their fault but are caused by exceptional external influences.

Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 78
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page