New trains for the South West - announcement.

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

Blast, that's the death warant for the Pembroke Coast Express signed then.

7) What bearing does the A300 order have on services in Pembrokeshire?

The Pembroke Coast Express is a through service between London Paddington and Pembroke Dock, which obviously requires a 125mph train. The class 800, 801 and presumably AT300 have 26m vehicles instead of 23m ones and the lines west of Carmarthen are not included in the plan for clearing routes for the longer vehicles. Thus, when it was intended to retain IC125s for the Plymouth/Penzance route, there was some hope that the FirstGW/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would continue to provide the Pembroke Coast Express. The AT300 order means no IC125s will now be retained by the GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise, meaning FirstGW/GWR will have no rolling stock capable of operating the service.

[IndustryInsider]

Thus, when it was intended to retain IC125s for the Plymouth/Penzance route, there was some hope that the FirstGW/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would continue to provide the Pembroke Coast Express.

I'm very doubtful that would have made any difference.  It would have meant retaining knowledge of the traction for the Swansea drivers who work the Pembroke service, and would have meant Train Managers from Swansea retaining their train dispatch knowledge.  Also, it would have meant providing two HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s for two diagrams that take up twelve hours for a round trip, so that's pretty much all they'd be useful for on a day when the remaining HST fleet should have been fully stretched dealing with holiday traffic on the Devon/Cornwall services. 

Whilst it is undoubtedly unfortunate for the residents and tourist trade within Pembrokeshire, I really can't have seen any franchisee going to all that bother for a train that runs twice to London and once from London per week during the summer months only.

[Kernowman]

Thus, when it was intended to retain IC125s for the Plymouth/Penzance route, there was some hope that the FirstGW/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) would continue to provide the Pembroke Coast Express. The AT300 order means no IC125s will now be retained by the GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise, meaning FirstGW/GWR will have no rolling stock capable of operating the service.

Whilst Pembroke Dock may well sadly join the list of resorts such as Great Yarmouth that no longer have a through summer service to London. I can still see FirstGW/GWR retaining at least a handful of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to help out the bimodes on London to West Country services, particularly in the summer months, in a similar fashion to the way HSTs are employed with Cross Country.
In particular, London services through Cornwall can get pretty full of people, luggage and surfboards etc, especially in the summer months and having some HSTs would arguably be a sensible addition.

In terms of the improved timings that the bimodes can bring, I wonder if we'll see any of the timings that we had in the early 1990's when some services were booked to do Paddington to Penzance in around 4 hours 40 minutes.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I can still see FirstGW/GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) retaining at least a handful of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to help out the bimodes on London to West Country services, particularly in the summer months, in a similar fashion to the way HSTs are employed with Cross Country.

In particular, London services through Cornwall can get pretty full of people, luggage and surfboards etc, especially in the summer months and having some HSTs would arguably be a sensible addition.

Arguably be a sensible addition perhaps, but if they decided power doors and retention toilets were too expensive for year-round service I can't see them doing it just for summer-only services.

[ChrisB]

Don't First own 5 of their HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)?

[paul7575]

It's no use worrying about stock for a direct service to Pembroke Dock, as it has already been explicitly stated there won't be such a service.

Paul

[broadgage]

It would indeed be sensible to retain a few HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) for far west services or indeed for out of course events, remembering that we will soon have OHLE failures as well as signalling failures.

I cant see it happening though.

When Waterloo to Exeter services were downgraded to 3 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) it would have been sensible to retain a couple of full length loco hauled trains to reduce standing. Never happened though. All complaints of overcrowding on the new shorter trains were answered with "you should have booked a seat" and the timetable was amended to show "booking recommended" for most services.

When 8 car slam door DC^▸ (Direct Current) EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) were downgraded to a mix of 4 car and 6 car networkers, severe overcrowding resulted on many rush hour services. It would have been sensible to retain the best of the slam door units, perhaps restricting them to one route, so as to permit of full length trains in the rush hour. Never happened though, all complaints of overcrowding on the new shorter trains were answered with standard letters that stated "we operate a turn up and go railway, and therefore have no control over the numbers who choose to use a particular service. Some passengers may therefore have to stand on some journeys"

New trains are often a backward step in both train length and passenger comfort and facilities. My cynical suspicion is that the railway industry therefore try not to mix old and new trains to avoid unfavourable comparisons.
Cant have people saying "I get a seat on the old trains but have to stand on the new ones"  or the "old trains have tables, new ones don't"

If any HSTs ARE to be retained, then they would need downgrading so as to be as bad as the new ones.
Reduce first class to 36 seats or less.
Remove buffet.
Reduce luggage space.
Reduce numbers of toilets.
Not much need be done to the seating in cattle class as this has recently been downgraded to "new train style"

Care would also have to be taken only to use an HST in place of one of the rare 9 car new DMUs, so as to provide LESS seats and never in place of a 5 car.

As someone said on these forums "the west country has had it far too good for far too long, time for short cramped voyager style units"

[grahame]

If any HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) ARE to be retained, then they would need downgrading so as to be as bad as the new ones.

I haven't travelled on the new trains yet and wouldn't like to definitely comment on how they're working out. Did you get to see one inside / ride on it on the test track, or are you posting speculatively?

[ChrisB]

I'm looking forward to the hat eating with loads of humble pie when there are no complaints about travel quality & seats for all west of Exeter....

[broadgage]

I post speculatively, but consider my remarks to be informed speculation regarding the AT300s for the far west.
Without seeing one I feel able to state that they have under floor engines, that they have no gangways between units if run in multiple and that the great majority of the fleet will be much shorter than existing trains.

The number of first class seats is yet to be decided but I feel it to be a reasonable speculation that it will be no more than the 36 to be provided on the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)).
Catering provision on the AT300s has yet to be decided, but it seems unlikely to include a proper hot buffet, based on the SET experience.

I seem to remember very similar conversations in the early days of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)/SET project. I was widely denounced for the views that I expressed in forecasting shorter trains, no buffet, under floor engines, and so on.
"how can you say that without seeing one"  "FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are having input into the design and have expressed a preference for a buffet" I even pointed out the absence of a buffet on the drawings, and then the absence of a buffet on the prototype and was answered "you do realise that the layout is only provisional, it is an essential requirement that a buffet can be fitted" and as regards the prototype "it is probably not fitted out as the production units will be, probably full of test equipment"
And then AFTER the decision not to provide buffets had been taken, a survey showed that they are not wanted anymore, what a surprise!

The SET saga does not fill me with optimism regarding the AT300 DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) that are after all closely based on the SETs.

[Timmer]

I can't see the provision of First Class on the AT300s being any different to the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)). 36 and 71 respectively.

[Kernowman]

I'm assuming the AT300s are going to be salt water resistant?

[ellendune]

I'm assuming the AT300s are going to be salt water resistant?

Depends what you mean.

If you mean that they will work when totally immersed in Salt Water (IP x8) - I doubt it
Protection against high pressure water jets from any direction (IP x6) would give some reassurance if they are to work through Dawlish in bad weather. 
Protection against low pressure water jets from any direction (IP x5) would be the minimum I would expect. 
However I fear that what is specified is protection against water spray from any direction (IP x4) - sounds like what XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) units are achieving. 

[broadgage]

I can't see the provision of First Class on the AT300s being any different to the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)). 36 and 71 respectively.

Now confirmed that that the few full length AT300s are only expected to have 72 first class seats, so it seems a reasonable assumption that the half length ones will have about 36 first class seats.

[IndustryInsider]

Which is about right.