FGW 1st Class - ongoing discussion of the benefits and their apparent reduction

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

I believe there are currently 49 IC125 diagrams + 4 180s (total 53), versus 18 9-car and 32 5-car + 14 retained IC125s (total 64) post-IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.). That's 11 diagrams more than now, BUT the additional Bristol Parkway services will require an extra 4, leaving 7. Worked out a different way, the services to be worked by IEPs of one form or annother ammount to 43 diagrams, which also gives me 7 diagrams left over. Those 7 leftover diagramed IEP units are all that is left to lengthen any of the 5-car services to 10-car. If the Worcester services are to be 10-car as far as Oxford, as some have suggested, that's three units off the 7. If the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Oxford service listed as an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) above is actually to be IEP worked that's another three units. So, if either of these are true, you have four units left to strengthen services on the Cotswolds, Cheltenahm, S.Wales or Bristol via Parkway routes. I don't think those 4 leftover units will be enough to ensure everything that needs to be longer than 5 coaches is longer than five coaches.

Have you factored in the quite significant planned reduction in journey times and the implication that might have in terms of several diagrams as they currently stand possibly having the excess time created to squeeze in an extra trip?

[paul7575]

If the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Oxford service listed as an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) above is actually to be IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) worked that's another three units.

Why should it not be an EMU, especially as they've shown it as an EMU on the diagram as well as NOT describing the Oxford terminators as IEP within any of the supporting text?   

What you appear to be doing is suggesting the diagram might be wrong simply to further your own agenda...

Paul

[Rhydgaled]

Why should it not be an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit), especially as they've shown it as an EMU on the diagram as well as NOT describing the Oxford terminators as IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) within any of the supporting text?

Because (I think) there are currently 2tph to Oxford using INTERCITY stock, and the only EMUs on the franchise (unless you count 'electric' IEP as an EMU) are likely to be outer-suburban stock similar to 377s or 350s. Also, the person constructing the diagram could have put 'EMU' by mistake when meaning 'electric' IEP.

My figure of four units left for strengthening elsewhere is still valid if we assume the diagram is correct (and therefore that they really are planning to downgrade Oxford from INTERCITY to outer-suburban trains, other than Worcester/Hereford services) and that the Worcester/Hereford will be 10-car between Oxford and PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains).

[ChrisB]

fyi, 3 lanes at WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) are being converted for 10car bi-modes.

[IndustryInsider]

Why should it not be an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit), especially as they've shown it as an EMU on the diagram as well as NOT describing the Oxford terminators as IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) within any of the supporting text?

Because (I think) there are currently 2tph to Oxford using INTERCITY stock, and the only EMUs on the franchise (unless you count 'electric' IEP as an EMU) are likely to be outer-suburban stock similar to 377s or 350s. Also, the person constructing the diagram could have put 'EMU' by mistake when meaning 'electric' IEP.

My figure of four units left for strengthening elsewhere is still valid if we assume the diagram is correct (and therefore that they really are planning to downgrade Oxford from INTERCITY to outer-suburban trains, other than Worcester/Hereford services) and that the Worcester/Hereford will be 10-car between Oxford and PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains).

No attempt to answer my question I see, but I have to agree with Paul in that the diagram and associated text clearly refer to 'EMU's' whereas all other services on that diagram are specified as 'IEP' in one of their two forms.  To describe the current Oxford to London service as using 'InterCity' stock is misleading, when many of the fast trains (well over a third throughout the day and the majority of off-peak services) are currently provided by Turbos. The only logical conclusion is that outer-suburban EMUs will be operating one of the 2tph on the Oxford to London route, with the possible exception of the odd service in the peak hours - though with the IEP diagrams stretched, I can even see those being provided by 8 (or even 12) car EMUs.

fyi, 3 lanes at WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) are being converted for 10car bi-modes.

By three lanes, I guess we're talking about the Long Siding and Hereford Sidings 1 and 3?  All of those are currently long enough to take a 260m long train, so minor works on walking routes and so on will be all that's needed, except the Long Siding which might need extending by 20m or so.  It'll then renamed 'Even Longer Siding' presumably.   

I can see many potential problems with running 2x5 car trains on Cotswold Line stations that can only take six carriages at each platform though!

[ChrisB]

The electric hook-ups all need installing along the length of the sidings.

SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) on both sets will likely mean a 'half & half' stop - the rear half of the front set & the front half of the second on the platforms.

[paul7575]

Because (I think) there are currently 2tph to Oxford using INTERCITY stock, and the only EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) on the franchise (unless you count 'electric' IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) as an EMU) are likely to be outer-suburban stock similar to 377s or 350s. Also, the person constructing the diagram could have put 'EMU' by mistake when meaning 'electric' IEP.

Oxford only has a few HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) today because they don't have enough Turbos. 

It's described in the consultation as an 'LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) route' and outer suburban stock will be just fine, running in up to 12 car formations as they describe in the document.  Just like Cambridge - which will be getting 12 car Thameslink services. 

Paul

[Rhydgaled]

No attempt to answer my question I see

Sorry, this one?:

Have you factored in the quite significant planned reduction in journey times and the implication that might have in terms of several diagrams as they currently stand possibly having the excess time created to squeeze in an extra trip?

If so, the answer is I don't think I did. As far as I can remember, only a few headline figures were published and there were some doubts raised about whether these were acheivable on a regular basis. I don't remember, but I don't think the press releases made clear whether the significant time savings applied to the regular service pattern or just the fastest express trip timetabled. While I doubt the differential between GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) services will be as high as the current 'Flying Scotsman' (which seems to be 18 minutes faster than the next fastest Edinburgh to Kings Cross service), the heading time savings might have been based on services with a reduced calling pattern. While I don't doubt that journey times will be reduced, I assumed this would not be by enough to save units. That said, the consultation's service diagram does show the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-SWA^» (Swansea - next trains) services as having fewer stops than today, so maybe the claimed time savings to south Wales at least will turn out to be accurate after all.

To describe the current Oxford to London service as using 'InterCity' stock is misleading, when many of the fast trains (well over a third throughout the day and the majority of off-peak services) are currently provided by Turbos.

Oxford only has a few HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) today because they don't have enough Turbos.

Appologies, I thought there were 2tph PAD-Oxford fasts (one terminating at Oxford and formed of IC125s, the other running through to the Cotswolds in most hours with a mix of IC125s, 180s and (where necessary due to a lack of 180s) Turbos), with the Turbos on PAD-Oxford stopping services.

[IndustryInsider]

Thanks for the reply, Rhydgaled.

I think we can therefore take your figure of seven 'spares' as an absolute worst-case scenario in terms of doubling up of Bi-mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s then, with there being a likelihood of more than that depending on how intense the diagrams are and what additional trips can be added thanks to journey time reductions.  Basically, it's impossible to be accurate!

[ChrisB]

According to a Balfour Beatty press release I saw earlier, they refer to 4 extra paths an hour - don't know if that helps?

[John R]

This thread has gone completely off topic. Perhaps the moderators could split off the discussion on services post IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) into a separate thread?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Fair comment, John R - I'll work on that this evening. 

[johoare]

Just to take it back on topic a bit (and with apologies to Chris if he is currently mid splitting topics).. First Class on the 7.59 from Maidenhead to Paddington this morning was full. No ticket check as usual so hard to tell if it should have been full or not.. I did notice the 7.08 departure was cancelled so may have been a result of that but most likely not due to the gap between the two trains..

[TaplowGreen]

Just to take it back on topic a bit (and with apologies to Chris if he is currently mid splitting topics).. First Class on the 7.59 from Maidenhead to Paddington this morning was full. No ticket check as usual so hard to tell if it should have been full or not.. I did notice the 7.08 departure was cancelled so may have been a result of that but most likely not due to the gap between the two trains..

Thanks for getting it back on topic! 

[chrisr_75]

I noted with interest that there is a slide from FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in Graham's thread about community rail which states "additional standard class seats on HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and first class improvements". How anyone could seriously present the removal of the quiet carriage, less seats and restricted advance tickets represents as an improvement, I do not know!