Call for faster, non-stop expresses from Wales to London

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

However, to make the best of the mess we have been landed with, I propose something like:


The GW^▸ (Great Western) and HST^▸ (High Speed Train) replacement on EC contracts have been signed so it doesn't matter what you, I or anyone propose, it won't happen.

You are right now the contracts are signed it would cost another small fortune to change them.

[Rhydgaled]

now the contracts are signed it would cost another small fortune to change them.

Would it though? Canceling the would be costly, but I'm often told by a certain poster on another forum that interior layouts and train formations are subject to change based on comments from the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company). Think I also read somewhere that the contracts allow for cascading IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to routes other than the ones currently planned. I'm working on the assumption that, as long as the same (or VERY close) number of vehicles are ordered the costs will be the same.

I've asked on this forum before who I should write to in FirstGW about comments the TOC can make on the IEP order, but was met with a bunch of comments from folk who didn't agree and got nowhere.

[Electric train]

now the contracts are signed it would cost another small fortune to change them.

Would it though? Canceling the would be costly, but I'm often told by a certain poster on another forum that interior layouts and train formations are subject to change based on comments from the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company). Think I also read somewhere that the contracts allow for cascading IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to routes other than the ones currently planned. I'm working on the assumption that, as long as the same (or VERY close) number of vehicles are ordered the costs will be the same.

I've asked on this forum before who I should write to in FirstGW about comments the TOC can make on the IEP order, but was met with a bunch of comments from folk who didn't agree and got nowhere.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are unlikely to alter the contract for a couple of reasons, they have just had a bad experience with the Thameslink rolling stock contract, the recent franchise debacle both of which has thrown a spotlight on the department also it far to close to the next General Election therefore Ministers will be reluctant to alter such contract this side of May 2015

[John R]

now the contracts are signed it would cost another small fortune to change them.

Would it though? Canceling the would be costly, but I'm often told by a certain poster on another forum that interior layouts and train formations are subject to change based on comments from the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company).

But the type of change you were suggesting was to the basic specification of the train (electric or bi mode, length of sets, etc) and not tinkering with the internal layout. Hitachi will already have entered into contracts with suppliers on the basis of the agreed contract, so as an example, they are not going to want to go around reducing the number of diesel engines ordered at this stage. Train procurement these days is very complex, and once the myriad of contracts and subcontracts are in place, it will be eye wateringly expensive to change.

[XPT]

Well it's not going to happen before 2016(or 2017, whenever electrification is complete and the new services commence). 

I am all in favour of faster limited stop working between London, Bristol, and South Wales.  But there has to be a balance of these faster services and the "slower" services we have now maintaining the frequent direct services between South Wales, Bristol(both Parkway and Temple Meads) and Swindon, Didcot Parkway, and Reading.

The proposal is for two additional trains per hour between Bristol Temple Meads and London Paddington via Bristol Parkway.  Like others have mentioned, I don't really see the demand for four trains per hour between Bristol Temple Meads and London.  A better idea would be to have three trains per hour between London and Cardiff/South Wales, and three trains per hour between London and Bristol Temple Meads.

I'd propose something like this come 2016 when electrification is completed....

1. Bristol Temple Meads-London Paddington.  Calling Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Didcot Parkway, Reading, Slough, London Paddington.

2. Bristol Temple Meads*-London Paddington.  Calling Bath Spa, Chippenham, Swindon, Reading, London Paddington.  *some services  extended from/to destinations such as Weston-Super-Mare, Taunton, Exeter, etc as they are now.

3. Bristol Temple Meads-London Paddington.  Calling Bristol Parkway, Reading, London Paddington.  This service being the fastest express service between Bristol and London.


and for the South Wales services....

1. Swansea-London Paddington.  Calling Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Bristol Parkway, Reading, London Paddington.

2. Cardiff-London Paddington.  Calling Newport, Bristol Parkway, Swindon, Didcot Parkway, Reading, London Paddington.

3. Cardiff-London Paddington.  Calling Newport, Bristol Parkway, Swindon, London Paddington.


And also a new hourly local service from Bristol Temple Meads-Bedford.  Like someone else here mentioned, calling at the new stations such as Saltford, Wooton Basset, etc.

[Btline]

Is it better for there to be one super express and two slower services per hour, or is it better to do my suggestion and spread the stops evenly to the 3 trains so all journey times are similar?

The different combinations for each of the 6 trains would retain all connections between stations, with the advantage of faster journey times for all.

[Rhydgaled]

But the type of change you were suggesting was to the basic specification of the train (electric or bi mode, length of sets, etc) and not tinkering with the internal layout. Hitachi will already have entered into contracts with suppliers on the basis of the agreed contract, so as an example, they are not going to want to go around reducing the number of diesel engines ordered at this stage.

Poster in question claimed FirstGW negotiations included train formation, including getting suitable length bi-mode sets rather than all 5-car. If Hitachi have indeed already ordered the engines from MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) then maybe it's too late to reduce the number of bi-modes, so we can expect to see further ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) IC^▸ (Inter City)-electrification kicked into the long grass. However, altering train lengths might still be possible, the components from suppliers would be similar assuming they aren't getting anyone else to build the body-structure. Getting the kitchen/buffet moved out of the depths of first class also be possible. So, any contact in FirstGW somebody can supply me with may be helpful.

I suppose if the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Plymouth/Penzance services are to become IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) worked as well just fixing the formations may save the day, as the bi-modes from Cheltenham,Weston,Hull and Harrogate could then be cascaded to the Devon/Cornwall services with the inadvised IC225 replacment fleet taking over the newly wired IEP-routes. But 5-car IEP must be stopped.

[ellendune]

The one rule of changing contracts after they have been let is that you pay through the nose. Government has found this a very hard lesson to learn that is why so many of their contracts have gone massively over budget.

Network Rail, when it first took over was criticised by the regulator for delays in renewals and other works. Their reply was because it wanted to save money by defining the scope of the works before letting the contract. 

I think the internal layout of seats is about as far as it goes without incurring huge costs.

[Southern Stag]

Is it better for there to be one super express and two slower services per hour, or is it better to do my suggestion and spread the stops evenly to the 3 trains so all journey times are similar?

The different combinations for each of the 6 trains would retain all connections between stations, with the advantage of faster journey times for all.

In terms of capacity it certainly is a lot better. If all the trains take roughly the same time you can run more of them. Having a mix of super express train and semi-fast trains is detrimental to overall capacity. But you do lose out on connectivity. For example, try planning a journey between Dorking West and Gomshall, it isn't very easy.

[XPT]

Well it is a tricky one really.  Putting on proper limited stop express services, but at the same time not annoying certain passengers in having a reduced frequency of service between their travelling points.

Services on the East Coast mainline and West Coast mainline have got the balance about right really.  For example some of the Kings Cross-Scotland services, the first stop from London is 188 miles away in York!  Whilst from Euston services to Manchester first stop from London on some services are places like Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, or Crewe!   Services to Glasgow first stop from London are Warrington Bank Quay or even Preston!  Whilst at the same time all the other stations heading up from either Kings Cross or Euston are well served by a number of different local, regional, and intercity style services.   It is a shame that (currently anyway) the situation can't be similar along the Great Western Mainline from London to Bristol and South Wales. 

I assume IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) stands for Intercity Express Programme( ).  Won't really be Intercity Express'es if they're all faffing about stopping at stations every 10 minutes or so!

Good way to keep everyone happy is keep the 2 trains per hour from South Wales and Bristol Temple Meads as they are now.  But have one additional limited stop express per hour from/to South Wales and another one from Bristol Temple Meads.   

It'll be very interesting to see what happens in just 2 years or so time now anyway. 

[XPT]

Is it better for there to be one super express and two slower services per hour, or is it better to do my suggestion and spread the stops evenly to the 3 trains so all journey times are similar?

The different combinations for each of the 6 trains would retain all connections between stations, with the advantage of faster journey times for all.

Maybe yes.  Could you elaborate more on the calling points for the 3 services from/to South Wales and the 3 services from/to Bristol Temple Meads.

[Btline]

Is it better for there to be one super express and two slower services per hour, or is it better to do my suggestion and spread the stops evenly to the 3 trains so all journey times are similar?

The different combinations for each of the 6 trains would retain all connections between stations, with the advantage of faster journey times for all.

Maybe yes.  Could you elaborate more on the calling points for the 3 services from/to South Wales and the 3 services from/to Bristol Temple Meads.

See previous post.

All station combinations were retained in my example.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From Wales Online:

First Great Western boss says there is potential for South Wales trains to London only having to stop at Reading

Operations director of First Great Western Ben Rule said that the idea of trains from South Wales to London only stopping at Reading is being explored


The Swansea to Paddington First Great Western service

The prospect of hourly train services from South Wales only stopping at Reading before arriving at London Paddington has been raised by operations director for First Great Western Ben Rule.

Addressing a meeting of Cardiff Breakfast Club he said that the company, which is part of transport group First Group and operates the Great Western Mainline London to South Wales franchise, was exploring it as an idea in on-going timetable discussions for the next franchise from 2015 onwards with the Department for Transport.

The new franchise will run until 2020 ^ although there is break option after three-and-a-half years.

Introducing Mr Rule to the audience chairman of the Cardiff Business Council, Nigel Roberts, confirmed that the business led organisation is in discussions with Secretary of State for Wales Stephen Crabb over the potential of introducing a direct service from Cardiff to London ^ following the example of Manchester which was two morning services direct to London.

However, while discussions are continuing the main thrust of the specification requirements for the franchise ^ which the Welsh Government has no direct say on ^ have already been set out and currently there isn^t provision for any direct trains from South Wales to Paddington.

However, this is not to say that a service could not be included ^ even after the franchise is signed off next year. But a direct service could require a subsidy, potentially supported by the Welsh Government.

Mr Roberts said: ^Our strap line is that Cardiff is the closest capital to London and First Great Western play an important part in making sure that is the case. We have been having discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales exploring options of there being a dedicated train that would actually go from Cardiff straight through to London. If we were able to achieve that before electrification that would cut significant time off the journey. If we are able to create a Welsh express with Welsh produce it really could do wonders for us here."

Mr Rule said that the timetable for the next franchise would be confirmed next year and that discussions were continuing with the Department for Transport. However, he confirmed that while at an ^idea stage^ there was potential for an hourly service from South Wales to London, with only one stop in England before Paddington at Reading Station.

This is because investment in the rail network in the south-west of England will provide for an additional train an hour to go through Bristol Parkway.

Mr Rule said: ^We have done a lot of work on the franchise and there is lots more to do, but it really is an exciting time for railways in this part of world with faster trains and more capacity on the way on the back of a huge investment [electrification]. And while it is the biggest investment since Brunel we are conscious that we have some very big shoes to fill.^

The arrival of new electrified high speed trains from 2018 will shave around 20 minutes of current journey times to London from South Wales.

Mr Rule said that speed could be improved further by addressing congestion issues in the Thames Valley area.

First Great Western has been exclusively offered the next franchise.

Mr Rule said: ^The rationale behind that is there is a lot of work going on in this part of the world and having continuity and an experienced operator is probably the right thing to do while the railway is being rebuilt (electrification).^

First Great Western provides 9,500 services per week, which is up by 1,000 since 2007. Despite their high profile only 14% are intercity trains.

Mr Rule said: ^In the 1970s the Great Western Mainline was the second fastest in the world and only behind the bullet train in Japan, which was a tremendous achievement for a Victorian railway. We are running more high-speed trains than at anytime since the network was built, and quite considerably so. We have also made timetable improvements and spend considerable time listening to stakeholder and customers. But we have to balance a number of different factors in terms of what people want on service frequency and stopping patterns with capacity and our ability to make the business pay by filling the trains up as much as we can.^

The train company accommodated 97 million passengers in 2012, up from 86 million in 2006.

Mr Rule said: ^This causes us problems as we have overcrowding. It is a nice problem that so many people are wanting to travel with us. Like for the rest of the rail industry in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) there has also been a relentless growth in passengers since privatisation and even during the economic downturn it only flatten that growth for a year or so, before starting to increase again. This has meant having to introduce new rolling stock during the franchise with 100 additional trains since 2008.^

Cardiff Breakfast Club is sponsored by Blake Morgan, Cardiff Business Council, Lloyds Banking Group and the Western Mail.

[JayMac]

I'm getting a little tired of 'biggest investment since Brunel' being trotted out by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) management. Hardly any of the money is coming from First Group's coffers.

[Red Squirrel]

I'm getting a little tired of 'biggest investment since Brunel' being trotted out by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) management. Hardly any of the money is coming from First Group's coffers.

Somehow 'the biggest investment since the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) Modernisation Plan which eventually failed and led to the Beeching Report and the closure of thousands of miles of track' just doesn't have the same ring, does it?