Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
GWR advice during Coronavirus
Coffee Shop during Coronavirus
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 22/07/2020 - Melksham Rail User Group CANX
12/08/2020 - Comm. Rail & Recovery ONLINE
24/08/2020 - Challenge of Decarb. - ONLINE
16/09/2020 - Melksham Rail User Group
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
July 16, 2020, 02:06:43 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[181] DfT sifts 60 new rail plans
[107] TV shows that weren't quite what I expected [DotD 21.04.20]
[63] First trip by train in four months
[56] Heritage Railway Association
[51] HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general dis...
[41] Isle of Wight futures.
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: GWR Paddington to Birmingham via Oxford?  (Read 1318 times)
southwest
Full Member
***
Posts: 51


View Profile Email
« on: May 28, 2020, 06:35:06 pm »

Hi

I'm new here, if this is the wrong place to put the topic please feel free to move it.  Wink

Back in 2012 the DFT published plans for the Greater Western franchise to run a service from Paddington to Birmingham New Street. However, I don't see why Chiltern Mainlines MK3 sets could be replaced with GWR IET's going to Paddington instead of Marylebone, Chiltern could either then use the mainline sets on other services, allowing the 168s to free up 165, which could then go to GWR to replace 150s.   

Just a little idea of time, it probably won't work and someone will be able to tell me why.
Logged
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 601


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2020, 06:53:02 pm »

If I read it correctly, you're suggesting using IET's to enable a cascade to release some Class 150s. That seems a very expensive way to release some rolling stock, and I think with changes planned (although not yet announced), there will be enough capacity.

Also, there's no fast route into Paddington from the Chiltern route anymore - it was closed recently to enable HST construction, and the remaining route via Ealing would be somewhat slower.  And Paddington is pretty full already.

I'm not really sure what passengers would gain from such a move. It seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29959



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2020, 07:29:26 pm »

Hi .. post headed "via Oxford" - so you're looking at Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington Spa - and then either via Solihull or Coventy into Birmingham?   Looks to me like it's duplicating the Reading to Birmingham section of Cross Country that's running twice an hour at normal times; that does get very busy, but best bet for extra capacity would be longer Cross Country services rather than more trains, I suspect.

Until March, I would have suggested there were no IETs available to run the extra service if you extended an Oxford service to Birmingham. However, I find myself really wondering if we're going to see a modified timetable.   It's hard to judge this - on one hand, with many people working from home, meeting online rather in London, and an economy not so bouyant, I wonder if or even when the superfasts will return, but on the other hand with social distancing there will, perhaps, be a need for more carriages to run the capacity that's still needed.

Personal choice (not that it's up to me in the slightest) would be to extend a Paddington to Bedwyn train to Exeter every couple of hours, giving  an hourly semi fast over the Berks and Hants.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
southwest
Full Member
***
Posts: 51


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2020, 09:22:33 pm »

Hi .. post headed "via Oxford" - so you're looking at Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington Spa - and then either via Solihull or Coventy into Birmingham?   Looks to me like it's duplicating the Reading to Birmingham section of Cross Country that's running twice an hour at normal times; that does get very busy, but best bet for extra capacity would be longer Cross Country services rather than more trains, I suspect.

Until March, I would have suggested there were no IETs available to run the extra service if you extended an Oxford service to Birmingham. However, I find myself really wondering if we're going to see a modified timetable.   It's hard to judge this - on one hand, with many people working from home, meeting online rather in London, and an economy not so bouyant, I wonder if or even when the superfasts will return, but on the other hand with social distancing there will, perhaps, be a need for more carriages to run the capacity that's still needed.

Personally I think everyone is over worrying about the situation. By September most things will be back to normal with limited social distancing, railway/bus services will be back to normal but I suspect with similar or better hygiene standards. The superfast services will return probably limited for this year, but by near year the economy should bounce back as we should be back to something similar to 2019 life. The main industry that will take a hit is aviation as we've already seen.

Personal choice (not that it's up to me in the slightest) would be to extend a Paddington to Bedwyn train to Exeter every couple of hours, giving  an hourly semi fast over the Berks and Hants.
Logged
southwest
Full Member
***
Posts: 51


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2020, 09:28:38 pm »

If I read it correctly, you're suggesting using IET's to enable a cascade to release some Class 150s. That seems a very expensive way to release some rolling stock, and I think with changes planned (although not yet announced), there will be enough capacity.

Also, there's no fast route into Paddington from the Chiltern route anymore - it was closed recently to enable HST construction, and the remaining route via Ealing would be somewhat slower.  And Paddington is pretty full already.

I'm not really sure what passengers would gain from such a move. It seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist.

To answer all of your questions.
Firstly, Nope, the idea being to give passengers more choice with Chiltern Mainline services replaced by a GWR service, the Mk3 stock could either be retired or used to free up 165s.

Second, as Grahame has said it wouldn't be via the NNML the proposals are taken from the DFT back in 2012 when they planned to use IETs on a Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham New Street service, although I think a service to Moor Street or Snow Hill would be better.
Logged
JontyMort
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 293


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2020, 09:35:09 pm »

If I read it correctly, you're suggesting using IET's to enable a cascade to release some Class 150s. That seems a very expensive way to release some rolling stock, and I think with changes planned (although not yet announced), there will be enough capacity.

Also, there's no fast route into Paddington from the Chiltern route anymore - it was closed recently to enable HST construction, and the remaining route via Ealing would be somewhat slower.  And Paddington is pretty full already.

I'm not really sure what passengers would gain from such a move. It seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist.

To answer all of your questions.
Firstly, Nope, the idea being to give passengers more choice with Chiltern Mainline services replaced by a GWR service, the Mk3 stock could either be retired or used to free up 165s.

Second, as Grahame has said it wouldn't be via the NNML the proposals are taken from the DFT back in 2012 when they planned to use IETs on a Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham New Street service, although I think a service to Moor Street or Snow Hill would be better.

I think the original post may have been referring to a suggestion of running Paddington-Swindon-Cheltenham*-Birmingham with HSTs. If itís the one Iím thinking of, it didnít get beyond the drawing board.

*Skipping Gloucester on at least some of them, I think.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3604


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2020, 09:55:01 pm »

I think the original post may have been referring to a suggestion of running Paddington-Swindon-Cheltenham*-Birmingham with HSTs. If itís the one Iím thinking of, it didnít get beyond the drawing board.

*Skipping Gloucester on at least some of them, I think.

That was one of the proposed services for the Virgin Cross Country services in Operation Princess.  They even took over the Swindon Cheltenham services for a short time IIRC before the idea was scrapped.
Logged
Electric train
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3284


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2020, 10:26:23 pm »

Hi

I'm new here, if this is the wrong place to put the topic please feel free to move it.  Wink

Back in 2012 the DFT published plans for the Greater Western franchise to run a service from Paddington to Birmingham New Street. However, I don't see why Chiltern Mainlines MK3 sets could be replaced with GWR IET's going to Paddington instead of Marylebone, Chiltern could either then use the mainline sets on other services, allowing the 168s to free up 165, which could then go to GWR to replace 150s.   

Just a little idea of time, it probably won't work and someone will be able to tell me why.

This proposal would remove a very good revenue earner from Chiltern Trains, the Marylebone - Birmingham business is one they work hard at to achieve and at one stage Virgin Westcoast were trying very hard to undercut.

The MLN1 (ELR for  Paddington to North Road Junction) particularly the Padd RDG section is at capacity or close to it under the current signalling system
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
paul7755
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4738


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2020, 11:29:38 pm »

...However, I don't see why Chiltern Mainlines MK3 sets could be replaced with GWR IET's going to Paddington instead of Marylebone...
As written, youíre actually disagreeing with your own suggestion...   Huh

Paul
Logged
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 601


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2020, 10:57:59 am »


To answer all of your questions.
Firstly, Nope, the idea being to give passengers more choice with Chiltern Mainline services replaced by a GWR service, the Mk3 stock could either be retired or used to free up 165s.

Second, as Grahame has said it wouldn't be via the NNML the proposals are taken from the DFT back in 2012 when they planned to use IETs on a Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham New Street service, although I think a service to Moor Street or Snow Hill would be better.
So how does replacing one service, already successful and (as far as I can tell) popular with passengers, with a different service going a different route increase choice?  Chiltern has invested a huge amount of money to improve the infrastructure between Marylebone and Banbury, including doubling many miles of it, and also in refurbishing the Mk 3s to a high quality. And you're suggesting abolishing the service, simply to give them "a choice"?
Logged
southwest
Full Member
***
Posts: 51


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2020, 04:13:05 pm »

...However, I don't see why Chiltern Mainlines MK3 sets could be replaced with GWR IET's going to Paddington instead of Marylebone...
As written, youíre actually disagreeing with your own suggestion...   Huh

Paul

Thanks for your reply.  Not sure it's really called for though.
Logged
southwest
Full Member
***
Posts: 51


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2020, 04:14:12 pm »


To answer all of your questions.
Firstly, Nope, the idea being to give passengers more choice with Chiltern Mainline services replaced by a GWR service, the Mk3 stock could either be retired or used to free up 165s.

Second, as Grahame has said it wouldn't be via the NNML the proposals are taken from the DFT back in 2012 when they planned to use IETs on a Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham New Street service, although I think a service to Moor Street or Snow Hill would be better.
So how does replacing one service, already successful and (as far as I can tell) popular with passengers, with a different service going a different route increase choice?  Chiltern has invested a huge amount of money to improve the infrastructure between Marylebone and Banbury, including doubling many miles of it, and also in refurbishing the Mk 3s to a high quality. And you're suggesting abolishing the service, simply to give them "a choice"?

Proposal
a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29959



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2020, 03:37:24 am »

Many thanks for your references back to what I think was a potential service a decade ago from Paddington to Birmingham via Swindon and Cheltenham Spa.  There would have been some sense in such a service, taking London to Gloucester / Cheltenham traffic and Swindon to the Midlands and North traffic, overlapped on the same train along the southern cotswold line with (in those days) a long single track section, and with loadings of the London to Cheltenham trains being less west of Swindon than east thereof.  Also providing a decent service from Swindon, which has characteristics of a midlands or northern city, to the Midlands and the North which is a pretty messy journey by train at present.   

Through traffic, Paddington to Birmingham via Stroud?  Zilch!  But then other services that are strung together across major intermediate points also have few end to end passengers but do very well.  In our neck of the woods. Brighton to Great Malvern, or even Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour, or the occasional Weston-super-mare to Weymouth train.

Proposal
a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others.

Indeed - a word you introduced and used to describe my comments (though I had not used the word myself) in the fifth message in this thread.  You've put forward a question or suggestion of a London - Reading - Banbury - Birmingham service for consideration, and I'm afraid in the modern era it's met with some serious practical concerns in that consideration.   Good - all part of the looking for good ideas in a sea of ones that don't stack up for one reason or another; some can stack up well with tuning helped along by other views, others are probaby best put aside as learning experiences, with the lessons learnt making following suggestions more likely to be winners.

P.S.  There have been through services from Paddington to Manchester and even Glasgow (I think) in the past - I am suffieiciently old to have travelled on them too. I recall an 06:00 off Paddington and a late evening arrival back there; the service was really a feeder for the first service of the day Poole - Southampton - Reading - Oxford - Birmingham - beyond which grew into Cross Country, with the train being operated from / serviced at Old Oak.  Not hugely crowded off Paddington, and indeed for a period it didn't even bother - started at Ealing Broadway!
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 601


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2020, 09:58:00 am »


To answer all of your questions.
Firstly, Nope, the idea being to give passengers more choice with Chiltern Mainline services replaced by a GWR service, the Mk3 stock could either be retired or used to free up 165s.

Second, as Grahame has said it wouldn't be via the NNML the proposals are taken from the DFT back in 2012 when they planned to use IETs on a Paddington - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birmingham New Street service, although I think a service to Moor Street or Snow Hill would be better.
So how does replacing one service, already successful and (as far as I can tell) popular with passengers, with a different service going a different route increase choice?  Chiltern has invested a huge amount of money to improve the infrastructure between Marylebone and Banbury, including doubling many miles of it, and also in refurbishing the Mk 3s to a high quality. And you're suggesting abolishing the service, simply to give them "a choice"?

Proposal
a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others.
And that was my considered reply back to you. Along with your reply to paul7755. You seem to take great offence from my reply, so there is not much point making a suggestion if you're not willing to listen to opposing views really?

Neither have you answered the main criticism from both of us, which is that far from increasing choice, you're just replacing one service with another.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2020, 01:55:50 pm by Phantom » Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page