Electrification - so Cascade - so congestion easing - delayed.

[whole diary]

[Tim]

It may well be that the yet to be constructed AT300's will have to 'fill the gap' leaving HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s in the South West

A sensible solution and not a bad one from the passenger perspective.  A few more months of HST will not do any harm.

[Adelante_CCT]

It means plans to run more commuter carriages from next spring in the south and Thames Valley routes will now be delayed.

Firstly as mentioned on other topics on this forum, why not build the GW^▸ (Great Western) 800s first alleviating immediate over-crowding, followed by the 800s and 801s for the East Coast, then finally the 801s for GW.

The new (East Coast) trains will be brought into operation over the period August 2018 to February 2020

The above quote is from the Agility trains website and by switching the allocation of units would mean the west would not see 801s until perhaps late 2018 onwards, surely by then the stretch to Bristol will have been completed and these units could then start to be used.

As for the 800s, already sets are starting to be completed (other than a lick of paint) so why not start using them as soon as possible. Yes they can only operate at 100mph on diesel but that would be fine for taking over the Bedwyn route, increasing capacity on these services, able to run at 100 instead of 90 between Pad and RDG^‡(resolve) and freeing up 3x3car turbo diagrams. They could also be used on Oxford/Cotswolds services, again most are diagrammed as 90mph (the odd minute change here or there may be required) and this would again free up a couple of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), the 180s and a couple more turbos.

These displaced HSTs and 180s (doubled to 10-car) could increase capacity on the longer routes, or perhaps introduce an hourly PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) via BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) (or something similar). The turbos could then be used to strengthen LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) services or be moved to the Cardiff-Portsmouth route, with a 165 making its way to the all important Melksham shuttle.

I think I may have read something about the first cascaded EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) being used on a shuttle between Paddington and perhaps Hayes & Harlington in spring

Yes, the plan was, assuming the bay at West Ealing is finished on time (for Greenford services), then a couple of 387s can run shuttles between Paddington and Hayes. Whilst not a major development it would offer more capacity to stations immediately west of Pad in the short term. Perhaps the Reading/Oxford stoppers could then miss out Southall for example allowing more space on the longer distance relief line services.

[Chris from Nailsea]

My bet is that ITV Meridian also get a subscribers copy & thus picked it up early this morning/yesterday

You'd lose that bet, ChrisB. 

ITV interviewed a Coffee Shop forum member about this 'announcement' on the morning of Friday 6 November - and another Coffee Shop member saw them, and wondered why they were standing out in the rain at Swindon Station, doing a piece to camera. 

Obviously, that's been kept quiet until the ITV news story was published today. 

[John R]

It wouldn't be too unreasonable to run the Cardiff - Taunton services with 800s either. That is 5 diagrams and probably 8 or 9 units to allow for peak strengthening.  And as I've mentioned before in another thread, Cheltenham to Swindon will be fully IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) in due course, so the short workings could be replaced too - that's another 2 - even if they don't run through to Paddington for the moment.

So all in all there could be enough units released to enable much of the non HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) strengthening to go ahead, particularly if the units due to be released are kept on for a bit longer. Whether the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has the will to do this remains to be seen, though it would minimise the embarrassment of their shiny new stock lying idle for a couple of years.

Finally, is there any chance that Reading to Stockley is available earlier, as with a bit of rejigging, that could enable some electrics to run in the LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) region before the full service is available?

[grahame]

From the original ITV Meridian piece:

Network Rail and the Government, who own it, will reveal how it plans to proceed in the next few weeks but those inside the project have told ITV News there will be major delays, possibly up to two years.

It is thought they will focus on the key mainline route from Paddington to Bristol and delay sections due to be upgraded from Reading to Newbury and Basingstoke and Didcot to Oxford.

As the delays would appear to be a mixture of engineering, process (i.e. planning), financial and available resource, it's not realistic to label the delays as "unacceptable".  Silly word, as in the end I expect that the people who wish to operate the trains, and those who wish to travel on them, will be left "having to" accept the delay - and indeed continue to travel during the delay period, all be it in "cattle" conditions at times and with stunted growth due to capacity limits and discomfort.   So the discussion / this thread moved on to mitigating options and practical juggling of the pieces caused by the delivery which has been pushed out. There's a separate subject there as to whether anything's been pushed out so far it's fallen off the scheme or could do so with another push, whether there will be further push backs or we'll get the whole story and (more positively) if the pushback allows scheme adjustments such as eventually allowing the biomes to run electric as far as Westbury

Good to see various options in the discussions - I'm not sure whether the turn back siding at Bedwyh can take a 5 car / 26 metres each train (help - anyone know?) nor the effect of a 5 car turning around at Swindon every 2 hours / parked up there for 75 minutes in every 120.  Certainly won't fit in the bay, just as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) won't. But as the plan forward is an hourly London to Cheltenham Spa, perhaps the solution here is to start using the bi modes, pure diesel traction, for hourly London - Cheltenham Spa and hourly London - Westbury. Together with other upcoming stock options already discussed, we do seem to have a bit of a start on possible interim solutions.  And, yes, the HST services on East Coast which are purely under the wire could become SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) operated, with an increase in their capacity and a handful more units available.

Passengers will grudgingly accept new old trains with extra capacity, I suspect - and will use them. Where the real fury, and stunting of growth, would come is if we had to simply carry on a further 2 years with what we have.  Rather tongue in cheek, someone mentioned the TransWilts service earlier.  It's a good microcosm example, if you like.  May 2017 is frankly, already a 18 months too late for extra capacity and we'll have to work hard to maintain growth (plenty of seats available at present on the 06:12 off Swindon anyone - already 2 coaches) ... pushing any capacity increase back to mid 2019 would do very serious damage not only to the service, but also to the users and potential users of the service, and the economics of the area in which they live and work.

[TaplowGreen]

I think it's fair to say it's "unacceptable" to those who have been promised so much, continue to pay so much, tolerate so much and are now being told that they will have to wait even longer and pay even more.

[NickB]

I see now why GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) canned all of their Meet The Manager sessions for the rest of the year, given that all we've been fobbed off with in the Thames Valley for the past 2 years is 'jam tomorrow'. 

[ChrisB]

I suspect GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are as pissed off as their customers frankly - none of this is their fault in any way.

The 800s surely will simply go on the routes already planned for them on arrival, only using the wires to Hayes & diesel the rest of the way. There may need to be re-planning as they'll use more fuel & thus need refuelling more often.

[Adelante_CCT]

Rather tongue in cheek, someone mentioned the TransWilts service earlier.

Yes it was, however whilst obviously wanting improvements between Reading and Paddington, I do fully understand the need for the Transwilts service to be 'upgraded' and hope it can be done asap.

[grahame]

I think it's fair to say it's "unacceptable" to those who have been promised so much, continue to pay so much, tolerate so much and are now being told that they will have to wait even longer and pay even more.

There are those for whom it will be unacceptable, and they will find alternative means of travel, will give up their jobs, work from home more, take fewer leisure trips, not move into the area served by the trains because they cannot accept the standard of travel available.    There are many who will accept the new timescales and prices (in some cases just because they have no choice), and in my view purely in use of english terms the word "unacceptable" can't be applied to them, because they are accepting / forced to accept.

[grahame]

I suspect GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are as pissed off as their customers frankly ...

I suspect you're right, Chris!  ... though they're almost certainly more fully informed than their customers, both in times of what information they have and when they had it. Think on words that were said when both you and I were present last Saturday at the RailFuture meeting, and you'll note they included both a caveat on timings, and even an encouragement to the audience to question so that the caveat could be repeated to help prepare us for news.

[ChrisB]

I think they're in the same sort of loop as the customers. They hear things on a (different) grapevine and are awaiting confirmation from their masters (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) and the customers hear on a (different) grapevine and await confirmation from GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)/DfT.

[IndustryInsider]

I'm not sure whether the turn back siding at Bedwyh can take a 5 car / 26 metres each train (help - anyone know?)

Currently just the room for a 3-car 23m train at the Bedwyn turnback.  It could be expanded if land was bought, and a footpath closed/diverted.

The 800s surely will simply go on the routes already planned for them on arrival, only using the wires to Hayes & diesel the rest of the way. There may need to be re-planning as they'll use more fuel & thus need refuelling more often.

Personally I don't think that will happen, perhaps during testing, but not in service - hardly worth bothering with the wires for such a short distance, and the timetable would need altering for 100mph running on the most intensive section which would be an absolute nightmare. 

We know that Reading to Didcot will be ready in time, and I imagine Hayes to Reading will also be ready looking at the progress already made there, so I reckon the worst case scenario will be diesel operation west of Didcot or Swindon.

[TaplowGreen]

I suspect GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are as pissed off as their customers frankly ...

I suspect you're right, Chris!  ... though they're almost certainly more fully informed than their customers, both in times of what information they have and when they had it. Think on words that were said when both you and I were present last Saturday at the RailFuture meeting, and you'll note they included both a caveat on timings, and even an encouragement to the audience to question so that the caveat could be repeated to help prepare us for news.

I suspect they are regretting all those "Building a Greater West" posters which (somewhat disingenuously) suggested that the investment was their own, rather than Network Rails, and thus gives their customers a stick to beat them with.............

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, BNM recently made that point as well and I agree completely.