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

[whole diary]

[phile]

Couldn't see any shortforms yesterday.

Today the following are looking likely (not currently on JourneyCheck):

1C09, 15:03 Paddington to Taunton
1A33, 18:38 Taunton to Paddington

Add:-

1L82 1458 Carmarthen to Paddington (ex Swansea)

[IndustryInsider]

Couldn't see any shortforms yesterday.

Today the following are looking likely (not currently on JourneyCheck):

1C09, 15:03 Paddington to Taunton
1A33, 18:38 Taunton to Paddington

Add:-

1L82 1458 Carmarthen to Paddington (ex Swansea)

The two I listed were actually correctly formed in the end, so just 1L82 today so far.

[IndustryInsider]

Just that one train today then I think.  One long form as well which I'm sure was very welcome on the Cotswold Line as a 9-car covered 1W02, 10:37 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-HFD^» (Hereford - next trains), 1P63, 14:32 HFD-PAD (a VERY busy train as a 5-car), 1W59, 18:36 PAD-WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) and 1P88, 21:31 WOS-PAD.

So for the week:
MONDAY - 1
TUESDAY - 6
WEDNESDAY - 3
THURSDAY - 12 (approx)
FRIDAY - 2
SATURDAY - 0
SUNDAY - 2

Total of 26 for the week, so that's 13, 15, and 26 for the three weeks I've surveyed, equivalent to around 1.8% of trains.

I'll give it a little rest for a few months and see if the situation improves or deteriorates.

[grahame]

I'll give it a little rest for a few months and see if the situation improves or deteriorates.

Big "thank you" for the regular log ... it's been useful as the services switch over.   Would / will be very interesting to see what happens and how as some services change in May - perhaps a systemic further look in 3 months time? Im sure there will be odd days in between that generate comment!!

[mjones]

5 coaches on the 0747 from Didcot to Pad, from Swansea. So packed a lot of us couldn't board.    So that's probably a missed connection at Reading for me.

[phile]

Several today 5 vice 9/10

    1129 Swansea to Paddington
    1130 Bristol TM^‡(resolve) to Paddington
    1330 Paddington to Bristol TM
    1600 Bristol TM to Paddington
    1814 Paddington to Swansea
    1622 Paddington to Great Malvern
    1942 Great Malvern to Paddington

   
There were several others earlier in the day, but as I was in a hurry, I didn't record them

[charles_uk]

Yesterday at Oxford station, two cyclists attempted to put their bicycles into the bike/large luggage items storage area on a five car IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train). I don't know if they had bookings as the reservation lights weren't working.

The trouble was there was already a pushchair in the storage area. The first cyclist managed to get their bike onto the hook, blocking in the pushchair, whilst the second cyclist just balanced their bike against the first bike leaving it sticking out half blocking the door!

Both cyclists then disappear to find a seat. As the train approaches the next stop, the owner of the pushchair appears, holding a baby, as they are wanting to get off there...

I appreciate compromises had to be made at the design stage when trying to maximise the number of passengers a train can seat and providing suitable space for bikes and large luggage but this does seem far from perfect.

I have seen similar struggles when a cyclist wants to get off at a stop and there's another bike which has been put on at a later station blocking access to theirs.

[Richard Fairhurst]

The bike and luggage facilities do seem to be the one real failure of the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) design.

Just as Arriva's winning bid for CrossCountry saw the shop taken out and more luggage space installed, I could well see a similar alteration to the IETs being proposed by a future franchise bidder - if the Hitachi contract permits it, which it may well not.

[broadgage]

I doubt that much extra luggage space could be provided by removing the shop or buffet on an IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train).
Moving the seats closer together more likely, or further reducing first class.

[IndustryInsider]

Easiest way (and cheapest by far) to increase luggage space would be to remove two or four seats in the centre standard class carriages as they all have the ‘seats with no view’ that could potentially double large luggage space within the carriage.  That and a couple more litter bins in each carriage and I think you have the ideal internal layout as the overhead luggage racks are already extremely generous.

We know an obsession with maximising number of seats whilst maintaining the excellent legroom is the reason for the extra windowless seats.  Removal of at least two of them per carriage would make a big positive difference luggage wise.

I would suggest sticking a standard luggage rack in one of the spaces created and leave the other open so it could be used for buggies as well as luggage as buggy provision is poor.  I would also modify standard class in the 5-car units so they have a disabled space - it is bizarre that they don’t!

[Richard Fairhurst]

That would be an excellent improvement. Fully agree on buggies - Fairhurst Junior is now at the age where the buggy doesn't come out much, but when we regularly travelled with one, we and many others made a beeline for carriage C on the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

Personally I'd remove the kitchen from the 5-car units but I know I'll be howled down on this board for suggesting such a thing. 

[1st fan]

That would be an excellent improvement. Fully agree on buggies - Fairhurst Junior is now at the age where the buggy doesn't come out much, but when we regularly travelled with one, we and many others made a beeline for carriage C on the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

Personally I'd remove the kitchen from the 5-car units but I know I'll be howled down on this board for suggesting such a thing. 

That would play havoc with the Pullman's would it not?

[broadgage]

That would be an excellent improvement. Fully agree on buggies - Fairhurst Junior is now at the age where the buggy doesn't come out much, but when we regularly travelled with one, we and many others made a beeline for carriage C on the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

Personally I'd remove the kitchen from the 5-car units but I know I'll be howled down on this board for suggesting such a thing. 

The please consider yourself to be howled down !
With the 5 car sets being the majority of the fleet, that would in effect end Pullman services. Years ago I pointed out the practical problems in trying to provide a restaurant on a train formed of a pair of 5 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit), that have no access from one to the other.
Advocates of the new DMUs felt that I was being unduly negative and pointed out that full length IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) could be used on Pullman services.
Current thinking is to down grade the Cornish services to 5+5 operation with a single unit west of Plymouth.

Most of the Pullmans, including the most popular ones, are still worked by proper trains, not for much longer though as the great downgrade will soon be completed. It remains to be seen how well received will be the downgrade on say the 18-03 or 19-03. Restaurant restricted to only about 12 seats, and only available to half the train.

Removal of the kitchen would also worsen the already totally inadequate trolley service, since spare supplies are kept there.

[IndustryInsider]

Longer term, 9-cars on the would be a better way of providing the Pullman service.  There are 14 9-car units on order for the WoE services let’s not forget (along with the 21 5-car ones), so there is plenty of flexibility, if GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) choose to use it, not to have everything west of Plymouth as a 5-car.

[Richard Fairhurst]

II beat me to it! A 9-car has pretty much the same capacity as a 5+5, so diagramming 9-cars with kitchens onto the Pullmans would seem most sensible.

Failing that, two fleets of 5-cars - one with kitchen, one without - would be possible. Yes, I know there's a small loss of operational flexibility, but IMO^▸ (in my opinion) gaining an extra quarter of a carriage outweighs it. Given that the Cotswold Line managed a microfleet of five trains (180s) without them getting lost and unexpectedly going on holiday to Penzance, I'm sure GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)'s planners would be able to keep a larger fleet of kitchen-equipped trains on the Pullman services. But the 9-coach option is clearly better.

(I do suspect, though, that the Hitachi/Agility Trains contract might make modifying the trains difficult or impossible.)