IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent performance issues

[whole diary]

[ray951]

Wow that is a swing of over £300Million, no wonder GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are primarily focusing on services to/from London.

Of course this was predicated as IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) and its PFI type financing were seen as being expensive.
Although of course a brand new train should cost more to lease than a 40 year old one and especially one (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) that was bought at a low cost by the lessors.

I assume that subsidy figure was before the movement of the Reading - Paddington services to tfl? So can only get worse.

[broadgage]

What an expensive downgrade.
Shorter trains.
No buffet.
Hard seats.
Unreliable reservations and toilets.
Reduced luggage space, surfboards prohibited, cycles restricted.
And have these downgrades saved money ? not likely ! hugely expensive in fact.

[Celestial]

What an expensive downgrade.
Shorter trains.
No buffet.
Hard seats.
Unreliable reservations and toilets.
Reduced luggage space, surfboards prohibited, cycles restricted.
And have these downgrades saved money ? not likely ! hugely expensive in fact.

606 coaches in the IC^▸ (Inter City) fleet against 464 previously, a 30% increase.
Total length of coaches in fleet increased by 48% due to the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) coaches being longer - admittedly this does need to allow for the driving cabs, so maybe just stick with the 30% increase.

A downgrade you always conveniently forget to mention, and which is quite important when considering the cost of the fleet.

Though having said that, I think most people in the industry outside the government agree the initial IET contracts are eye-wateringly expensive, but there are better arguments to support that than bleating about hard seats for the millionth time.

[broadgage]

A 30% increase in the number of coaches sounds impressive, yet we are still seeing significant numbers of short formed trains, with fewer seats than we had before.

[SandTEngineer]

606 coaches in the IC^▸ (Inter City) fleet against 464 previously, a 30% increase.
Total length of coaches in fleet increased by 48% due to the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) coaches being longer - admittedly this does need to allow for the driving cabs, so maybe just stick with the 30% increase.

I don't think that comparing coaches is the correct way to measure the uplift.  It should be on seat numbers.  Where's STUVING when you need him, he is very good at calculating these things?.....

[broadgage]

If comparing seat numbers rather than numbers of vehicles, I suspect that a broadly similar result would be obtained, of very roughly 30% more seats.
(IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) coaches are longer, but also have a lot of wasted space in the end vehicles)

Nevertheless, no matter how many impressive sounding figures are produced, we are still seeing many overcrowded 5 car units on services previously worked by an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), and for which full length IETS were promised.
Most of these short formations are reported as being due to "more trains than usual needing repairs" A minority are due to lack of staff.

And this well over two years after introduction.

[Clan Line]

606 coaches in the IC^▸ (Inter City) fleet against 464 previously, a 30% increase.
Total length of coaches in fleet increased by 48% due to the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) coaches being longer - admittedly this does need to allow for the driving cabs, so maybe just stick with the 30% increase.

I'm not quite sure how the would-be passenger would relate to this statement when a 5 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) turns up instead of a 9 or 10 car DMU or even an 8 car "proper" train !  Or perhaps that accounts for how they can now fit 520 pax into 5 cars 

[IndustryInsider]

Comparing coach numbers isn't the best way, that I would certainly agree, but it's a lot easier than trying to compare seats and still a very good guide!

As Broadgage claimed since the 'downgrade' there are 'shorter trains', I thought I'd do a bit of a fact check and compare this evenings peak departures from Paddington with the situation I recorded in both 2011 and 2012, and I personally found the results quite surprising.  All three were typical days with a near normal, but not quite perfect service operating with all departures between 16:30 and 20:30 being taken into account apart from Heathrow Express.

This evening, there were two IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) short forms, the 17:34 to Hereford and 18:18 to Cardiff.  Nonetheless (excluding Heathrow Express) a total of 741 carriages left Paddington in those four hours of high-peak and shoulder peak.  So the plan would be around 750.  If you disregard the two short forms, the plan is for no IET operated services to be 5-car operated after the 16:58 to Great Malvern and the 19:07 to Bedwyn.  We were always told the plan would be no peak IET service leaving Paddington would be any less than a 9 car, and this confirms that is indeed the case (if you consider 'peak' to be between 5-7pm).

How do those carriage numbers compare with 2011 and 2012 before the 'downgrade'?  Well in 2012 it was 446.  It 2011 it was just 413.  There are now 19 more trains departing.  Now, if you also bear in mind that when TfL^» (Transport for London - about) Rail get their act together and run their 345s at 9-car length - later in the year I think - that will increase to a planned 820 carriages between those times.  That's practically a doubling of carriages in under nine years, and even with modern layouts having less seats, no doubt a substantial seating increase too at this the busiest time of day on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)'s busiest section [I'll echo the 'where is Stuving' comment!] 

It's a good job, too, given the number of travellers choosing to use the train now!

And, I fully take the point that there are short forms and that on some of the occasions that happens it reflects very badly on the journey experience, but it is still just a small percentage of the overall capacity and extra seating now being provided.  I think we need to get that into a sharper perspective, and perhaps this post goes some way to demonstrating that? 

It can also be argued that some trains should be longer than they are, and some are too long for what's needed, and that some routes on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have suffered since 2011 (Didcot to Oxford being one that springs to mind), but my goodness the majority of routes have seen an increase in both capacity and frequency, some by a big degree! 

I've attached the breakdown of the 2011/12 figures and the breakdown for tonight for anyone who wishes to see the detail:

[broadgage]

It all sounds very impressive, and yet I and many others report standing on a 5 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) when we would have got a seat on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

There seems to be a general view that we are stuck with hard seats, limited luggage space, and no buffet for the next 25 years, in the name of progress. Perhaps we will soon be told that the "odd" short formation is also part of the deal, and that really things are so much better in general, that the odd short form does not really matter.

[IndustryInsider]

It all sounds very impressive...

Yes, it is very impressive.  A doubling of capacity out of a terminus that now has one less platform than it used to.  More to come of course - when the Elizabeth Line starts proper - and two new platforms.

The number of short forms needs to be reduced further, and I note you declined to comment on the management/director level quotes that I gave you after you asked what was being done about that a couple of days ago.  I would agree that they are only words, but at least it proves the issues are trying to be addressed, and gives some detail about what the specific issues are.

[SandTEngineer]

Don't forget that Paddington has technically gained an additional platform for IC^▸ (Inter City) services. Platform No.6 previously used by Heathrow Express is now utilised for IC services up to post PM peak when it then reverts to use by HE.  The downside of that is that the HE service has to work into/out of Platform No.7 'like clockwork'.  I have never known the layout at Paddington to work like said 'clockwork'.  I did predict that trying to achieve 2-minute headways on a layout designed for 3-minute headways wouldn't work consistently, and it doesn't, especially when the signalling is operating in Automatic Route Setting mode

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, the elastic band is at full stretch!  It’s generally working better than I thought it would, mind you - helped a little last night by some very quick turnarounds of late arrivals that wouldn’t have been possible with HST^▸ (High Speed Train)’s.

[SandTEngineer]

Yes, the elastic band is at full stretch!  It’s generally working better than I thought it would, mind you - helped a little last night by some very quick turnarounds of late arrivals that wouldn’t have been possible with HST^▸ (High Speed Train)’s.

Agreed.  But if you watch the evening peak on Open Train Times maps for example (https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/d3_1), its amazing how many conflicts are set up by ARS^▸ (Automatic Route Setting) when manual signalling would avoid them, thus allowing better movement of arrivals and departures.  Paddington to Ladbroke Grove has a very flexible signalling layout, but most of it is rarely used to avoid conflicts in the station throat that would allow greater arrival and departure punctuality.  Oh well, so much for the 'Digital Railway'

I know this is really all not the fault of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) itself.  However, the fact that there is now a new requirement to couple up short sets, and increased short set platform sharing, that has destroyed the station throat capacity design.  This is because of an GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) imposed rule (not part of the signalling design) that incoming trains routed to an occupied platform are restricted to 20mph from the incoming platform signal to the platform end, and then to 10mph from there to the unit already occupying the platform.  That takes an incredible amount of time!

[Celestial]

606 coaches in the IC^▸ (Inter City) fleet against 464 previously, a 30% increase.
Total length of coaches in fleet increased by 48% due to the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) coaches being longer - admittedly this does need to allow for the driving cabs, so maybe just stick with the 30% increase.

I don't think that comparing coaches is the correct way to measure the uplift.  It should be on seat numbers.  Where's STUVING when you need him, he is very good at calculating these things?.....

So I may not be Stuving, but here's my estimate:-

Old High Speed fleet was 58 HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s, with an average of 550 seats (some slightly more, some slightly less due to buffet configuration), being 479 standard and 71 first.  Total 27782 standard, 4,118 first = 31,900

New fleet is 58 x 5 car (290, 36) and 35 x 9 car (580, 70), which gives a total of 39,120 standard and 4,538 first seats. 

Total increase is 41% standard and 10% first, +37% in total.

Admittedly some are used on the Bedwyn run, but these services still provide additional capacity as far as Reading and Newbury. And some of this is at the expense of the buffet car. But in contrast, the seat pitch is notably greater on the IET, and there are more tables, both of which are an improvement but are at the cost of additional seat capacity.

Truly a downgrade for passengers...

[charles_uk]

Without also wishing to fall into stuck record mode, you can't trust JourneyCheck.

Indeed. There seem to be a number of five car short-formations doing the rounds which are not mentioned on JourneyCheck. Assuming http://iris2.rail.co.uk/tiger/ is a more accurate source of information, the 17:34 Paddington to Hereford, 17:58 Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street, and (later edit) 18:58 Paddington to Hereford services are all five car sets this evening