Chris Grayling answers Select Committee on electrification decisions

[whole diary]

[chrisr_75]

When a train can go at only 75 mph, as it can in south Wales, it is much less clear that it is beneficial.

Funny that, it's actually 90mph from Coal Pit Heath as far as Bridgend...and quite long distances between stops for the expresses. Same as found on the English side at 20-30 minutes typically.

On that basis, I wonder if anyone has asked him to explain why they're electrifying the Gospel Oak-Barking, I very much doubt any of those trains will often exceed 75mph...or enquired why the outer tube and suburban networks in London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham, Paris, New York, The Hague, Berlin etc etc etc are all electrified...Misinformed ***t!

I really ought to email him, my MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) or the committee chair to pull them up on that, it's not really acceptable to provide factually incorrect evidence at a parliamentary committee as justification for canning a project that would've brought significant benefits to the region.

[Rhydgaled]

That isn't high-intensity I suppose (I would only envisage 1tph all-stops west of Bridgend), but you could also have a Swansea-Bristol calling at all (or most) stations between Cardiff and Bristol, replacing the current Cardiff-Taunton services over that section.

Err . bi-modes on Swansea - Bristol or are you assuming electrification from the Parkway area into Temple Meads?

Yes, I'm assuming Filton Bank wires there, since Grayling's announcement did not axe that project I'm assuming its status is still 'defered (to CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024)?)'. I think electrification in the GW^▸ (Great Western) area should continue as follows:

CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) - GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Cardiff/Chippenham
CP6 - Chippenham-Bristol-Patchway, Didcot-Oxford, ValleyLines (including to Maesteg)
CP7 (or whenever the above is complete) - Bridgend-Swansea

When a train can go at only 75 mph, as it can in south Wales, it is much less clear that it is beneficial.

Funny that, it's actually 90mph from Coal Pit Heath as far as Bridgend...and quite long distances between stops for the expresses.

There is even a short section with a 100mph differential linespeed for HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) through Pyle station I believe.

I remain opposed to the uncoupling of class 800s (and similar trains) in service.

Why?  The It works fine on the Thalys Paris to Amsterdam/Koln services which divide and join at Brussels.

I'm opposed to it primarily because a high speed train does not have corridor connections between the units. Therefore, if passengers are cutting it fine and jump on at the nearest door to avoid missing the train and then discover they are in the wrong unit they cannot correct their mistake without having to alight at a station other than their destination. That is no different to having to change trains, and I think Grahame can probably tell us how many passengers you lose by asking them to do that. In fact, in my opinion portion working with a non-gangwayed unit is worse than having to change trains, because with portion working the journey is advertised as a through journey and the 'having to change trains' is an unexpected supprise. It would be better, in my opinion, to advertise a portion-worked high-speed service* as one terminating and two others beginning so that passengers expect to change at the split point and those that happen to be in the correct unit for their destination get a nice supprise.

* This also applies to low-speed units that do not have corridor connections between them, but not to something like class 158s where passengers can freely move between units.

[John R]

I'm opposed to it primarily because a high speed train does not have corridor connections between the units. Therefore, if passengers are cutting it fine and jump on at the nearest door to avoid missing the train and then discover they are in the wrong unit they cannot correct their mistake without having to alight at a station other than their destination.

Portion working is a very efficient way of tailoring stock provision to the typical passenger flows, particularly at the extremities of journeys.  In doing so it enables those extremities to enjoy through services (or more frequent through services) to London which might otherwise not be cost-justifiable. To suggest that it isn't employed because a few late arrivals may find themselves in the wrong portion of the train and suffer the inconvenience of having to move later on is, frankly, ludicrous.

Take one example, and I will keep the numbers simple, to illustrate the point.  London to Plymouth is 3 hours, and 5 hours to Penzance.  Ignoring lay-over times and everything else, you could provide an hourly full length service with 2x10 5 car sets = 20 sets.   Or you could one run one unit only beyond Plymouth and that reduces to 16 sets (1x 10 + 1x6).  Put another way your rolling stock cost increases by 25% for the customer benefit of not inconveniencing those few late arrivals that you talk about.   (By the way, I am well aware there may be times when one set will be inadequate, but the example illustrates the general point, and is equally applicable on other routes, both on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and elsewhere.)   

[ellendune]

What is the investment proposed around Bristol that isn't already happening? I can only think of Bristol East but that is hardly "around" Bristol.

[i]Chris Grayling: In due course. On the trans-Pennine route, we will have to wait and see what the Network Rail proposal is. We are doing the work on Ely junction at the moment. The other area that will get investment is around Bristol. Those are probably the three decisions that we have taken. They are not the only decisions that we have, but they are the three things I have set out very clearly that we will do.[/i]

What about the extra platform at Parkway or the requadrification between Filton Jn and Dr Days Junction?  Is that not "around" Bristol?  There is more to bristol than Temple Meads. 

[grahame]

I'm opposed to it primarily because a high speed train does not have corridor connections between the units.

"The train at platform 3 is for Caterham and Tattenham Corner. Join any part of he train for ... Purley Oaks and Purley, where the train will divide.   Front four carriages for ... Whyteleafe, Whyltleafe South ... and Caterham.  Rear 2 coaches for Reedham, Smitham, Wooemansterne, Tadworth and Tattenham Corner"

Amazing how the memory doesn't fade from childhood if you've heard something every day for years.  Train was typically a 4 EPB and a 2 EPB unit, which were none-corridor and it seemed to work perfectly well.

"The train at platform 3 is for Worcester Foregate Street and Weymouth. Join any part of the train for Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading, Didcot and Swindon where the train will divide.   Front 5 carriages for Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse, Gloucester, Cheltenham Spa, Ashchurch, Worcester Shrub Hill and Worcester Foregate Street. Rear five carriages for Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge, Westbury, Frome, Bruton, Castle Cary, Yeovil Pen Mill, Maiden Newton, Dorchester South and Weymouth."

Far fetched?   Every 2 hours, to comb in alterntately with local services on the Swindon - Westbury - Salisbury - Southampton run an local service on the Heart of Wessex, affording Westbury an hourly London service alternating via Swindon and via Newbury.

I have no objections to splitting none-gangwayed trains; seems a tiny price for making up a service that's got an appropriate length train for each sector, so becomes viable to run.

That is no different to having to change trains, I think Grahame can probably tell us how many passengers you lose by asking them to do that.

The figures I recall (not got data at hand) are 40% and 46% - one for leisure and one for commuter and business traffic.  I forget which way round though!

[John R]

What is the investment proposed around Bristol that isn't already happening? I can only think of Bristol East but that is hardly "around" Bristol.

[i]Chris Grayling: In due course. On the trans-Pennine route, we will have to wait and see what the Network Rail proposal is. We are doing the work on Ely junction at the moment. The other area that will get investment is around Bristol. Those are probably the three decisions that we have taken. They are not the only decisions that we have, but they are the three things I have set out very clearly that we will do.[/i]

What about the extra platform at Parkway or the requadrification between Filton Jn and Dr Days Junction?  Is that not "around" Bristol?  There is more to bristol than Temple Meads. 

Those are already happening. Grayling was talking about future investment.

[paul7575]

I have no objections to splitting none-gangwayed trains; seems a tiny price for making up a service that's got an appropriate length train for each sector, so becomes viable to run.

It's also quite naive to think that gangways make a significant difference. 

Stand at Southampton in the evening peak, and watch a splitting service formed of two 5 car 444s arrive from Waterloo, and watch the many people (mostly regular commuters at that time of day) that have had an hour or more to get into the right half of the train.  Many are still running up and down the platform, probably because they have tuned out all the announcements so far.

Rhydgaled is still making a mountain out of a molehill, as he has for a few years now.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I'm opposed to it (Note by ReadingAbbey: dividing trains en-route) primarily because a high speed train does not have corridor connections between the units. Therefore, if passengers are cutting it fine and jump on at the nearest door to avoid missing the train and then discover they are in the wrong unit they cannot correct their mistake without having to alight at a station other than their destination. That is no different to having to change trains, and I think Grahame can probably tell us how many passengers you lose by asking them to do that. In fact, in my opinion portion working with a non-gangwayed unit is worse than having to change trains, because with portion working the journey is advertised as a through journey and the 'having to change trains' is an unexpected supprise. It would be better, in my opinion, to advertise a portion-worked high-speed service* as one terminating and two others beginning so that passengers expect to change at the split point and those that happen to be in the correct unit for their destination get a nice supprise.

* This also applies to low-speed units that do not have corridor connections between them, but not to something like class 158s where passengers can freely move between units.

The German Deutsche Bahn runs many such trains which operate as one over the core section of the route and then split during the journey to serve two destinations. Both long distance and short distance services do it, for example the Line S1 on the Munich S-Bahn has trains which split at Neufahrn, one part going on to Freising and the other to the Airport. This happens every 20 minutes. ICE trains from Berlin to the Ruhr run as one and then split to serve destinations which cannot support a full length train.

They call it "Flügelbetrieb" ('Flügel' means 'wing' as on a bird) and are operated by self-contained units which do not have corridor connections. I must admit I find it difficult to think of any German multiple unit in widespread use which does have corridor connections between units.

It does not cause any significant problems. The train is advertised as a through service to the splitting point  and then that Coaches 1 to 8 will continue to X and Coaches 9 to 16 to Y. Each section of the train is well signed with its destination and calling points and the platform displays also show which part goes where. In any event the seat reservations will put you in the correct section - and for long distance services in Germany most people reserve a seat.

In spite of everything people do sometimes get on the wrong section - sometimes because they are late - but the on-board announcements and displays state that your bit of the train goes to X and the other bit to Y. In addition the split is announced well in advance and walking a couple of coach lengths along the same platform cannot remotely be described as being as much of a hassle as changing trains. If one wishes to one can also change sections at a previous stop.

Your concerns are really not a problem.

[IndustryInsider]

I am all for portion working as well, so long as the information systems on the station and trains are properly specified and configured so the potential confusion is minimised. 

They’ve not done that with Turbos for example despite replacing the old PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System) with a much better system, and that continues to cause confusion and spoil the journey experience for passengers on a daily basis.