Another HST looks set to be 'Turbotised' from December

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

Whilst leafing through a timetable familiarisation booklet for the new timetable I noticed that it states that the 11:21 Paddington to Great Malvern and return working at 14:34 from Great Malvern to Paddington will revert to a 3-car turbo from the December timetable change.  That means that all Great Malvern trains (save for the first one in the morning and last train of the evening) will be worked by Turbos.

So, the further removal of high quality trains from semi-long distance trains looks set to continue.  The train in question loads very heavily between Slough and Paddington as a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) on the return working with Slough to London commuters, but it does also carry around a lot of fresh air for much of the journey.  It has also proven to be more and more difficult to resource a driver for in recent months as there are now 14 drivers outstanding at Oxford depot alone to learn HST's, but an ongoing union dispute is preventing it from happening.

Will a Hereford be next on the list next May I wonder...?

[ChrisB]

Yes, I & others are aware of this.

You are right in saying that for 95% of its journey, it carries around fresh air.

There are no plans (which would anyway be heavily resisted by the Customer Panel) to tubo-ise any Herefords - do not fear.

[IndustryInsider]

There are no plans (which would anyway be heavily resisted by the Customer Panel) to tubo-ise any Herefords - do not fear.

Good.  Although to be honest the 08:21 Paddington to Hereford and return 13:11 Hereford to Paddington probably load to a similar level as the 11:21/14:34 - busier on the outward journey to Oxford perhaps, but noticeably quieter on arrival at Paddington on the return.

[ChrisB]

yes, we're watching that one....

[inspector_blakey]

I know I'll make myself unpopular in some quarters by saying this, but on the face of it the decision appears sound to me. I really don't think there's a commercial or environmental justification for running a largely empty 7- or 8-car train to Moreton and back just for the benefit of a few commuters between London and Slough.

Now of course, in an ideal world there'd be something a little more suited to the journey length than a Turbo, like a 17x variant, although sadly that ain't happening any time soon. But maybe something called it an "Adelante", which has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

[ChrisB]

Which costs pretty much the same as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), but seats the same as a three car turbo.

I don't think so.

[willc]

Just because a lease used to cost a certain amount in the past doesn't mean a new one will cost the same.

And I do wish you'd stop spinning this line about the number of seats on an Adelante v a Turbo, because I will have to keep pointing out that people do not use all the seats on a 165 or 166 unless in dire extremis because it's so bloody uncomfortable, which is not the case when all the seats in a 180 are in use. Plus an Adelante actually has about 20 more and more comfortable seats than a 166 (which has fewer than a 165 due to the extra first class compartment, extra toilet and the area of tables in standard in the centre coach), plus the perch seats in the vestibules.

Good to see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) doing yet more to renege on its pledge in December 2004 of "delivering InterCity quality and comfort to the route throughout the day". For the full press release see http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=203

There are no plans (which would anyway be heavily resisted by the Customer Panel) to tubo-ise any Herefords - do not fear.

Really? So why are the Sunday 14.42 from London and 18.30 return from Hereford operated by a Turbo then? And if it's like the first phase of HST^▸ (High Speed Train) withdrawals in February last year, what makes you think they would tell the customer panel anyway? Or care what anyone thought. They didn't bother to tell the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) and just stuck up posters at stations a few days before it happened.

Certainly wasn't a press release boasting about them turning back the clock. Though they did have the brass neck when the 09.29 from Moreton was introduced at the end of last year to say "Our customers are at the forefront of everything we do and the decision was made to introduce the extra service after listening to what they had to say.^ But only after we gave them no opportunity to say anything earlier in the year...

On current trends - and going by my own recent experience of loadings when using them for all or parts of the journey, the 08.22 and 13.11 are sure to follow suit at some point - that would be a good way to celebrate redoubling! After all, the forerunner of this service was a 166 (hired by FGW from Thames up to spring 2004) for some years before the 180s arrived.

[ChrisB]

Just because a lease used to cost a certain amount in the past doesn't mean a new one will cost the same.

Fair comment.

And I do wish you'd stop spinning this line about the number of seats on an Adelante v a Turbo, because I will have to keep pointing out that people do not use all the seats on a 165 or 166 unless in dire extremis because it's so bloody uncomfortable, which is not the case when all the seats in a 180 are in use.

And just *when* are all seats taken on this service? If they were, you'd still have an HST^▸ (High Speed Train). It's use it or lose it....it's very difficult to back a call to retain an HST if it's carrying fresh air around for most of the journey.

Good to see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) doing yet more to renege on its pledge in December 2004 of "delivering InterCity quality and comfort to the route throughout the day". For the full press release see http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=203

2004? That's 6 years ago. I bet you're no longer doing things you promised six years ago too!

Really? So why are the Sunday 14.42 from London and 18.30 return from Hereford operated by a Turbo then?

I said 'plans' - i.e. in the near future. Not current. Journalists....!

And if it's like the first phase of HST withdrawals in February last year, what makes you think they would tell the customer panel anyway? Or care what anyone thought. They didn't bother to tell the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) and just stuck up posters at stations a few days before it happened.

They told the Panel about this one. Can't comment as to whether they told the CLPG, as I'm not on the committee. They do seem to trust us, and we've signed a confidentiality agreement, hence me being unable to post here until the news came out. The amount of air it carrys around prevented any serious campaigning. We heard the ticket statistics, and they weren't good.

A scheme to raise patronage during the day is what this line needs, then a campaign to reinstate HSTs when sales improve.

[Mookiemoo]

But you have a catch 22 - when I lived in ludlow if I wasn't going in the peak I went via newport as the off-peak cost was not as prohibitive as the peak. 

Reason - apart from the something past three there was nothing direct to London with decent accommodation - so I didn't use it

Is it pax first then the service or the service then first then pax

[ChrisB]

pax first these days....

[grahame]

Good to see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) doing yet more to renege on its pledge in December 2004 of "delivering InterCity quality and comfort to the route throughout the day". For the full press release see http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=203

2004? That's 6 years ago. I bet you're no longer doing things you promised six years ago too!

I don't think that's fair, Chris ... First made a number of pledges leading up to them being awarded the franchise for the next seven to ten years in 2005, many of them as part of the franchise agreement.  I think they should keep promises made as part of their bid to run services up until 31st March 2013 or 31st March 2016 until those dates - otherwise, what is the point of making a promise?

If a promise is made for 10 years and you consider it reasonable to break it after six, how long should it be kept for?   Four years?  Two years?   Or just until it can be quietly forgotten?

[willc]

And just *when* are all seats taken on this service?

I wasn't talking specifically about this service - because you don't use your Turbo v Adealnte v HST^▸ (High Speed Train) capacity point specifically, just every time anyone mentions a 180. In the case of this latest service to lose an HST it is lightly loaded - but then so was the off-peak HST that BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))/GW^▸ (Great Western) ran to Malvern and back for many years - indeed it was the first HST service on the route.

2004? That's 6 years ago. I bet you're no longer doing things you promised six years ago too!

Too busy to remember - but then i never put out a press release about it. And name me one other FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service that in the past six years has seen the quality of the rolling stock provided go backwards? Apart perhaps from Reading-Gatwick, which has lost the far more suitable 166s (lots of luggage space) back to the Cotswolds to replace the HSTs.

I said 'plans' - i.e. in the near future.

So what did the panel do when the change to stock on that Sunday service was made? And if it did say something, it clearly had no effect on FGW's decision.

A scheme to raise patronage during the day is what this line needs,

A point that was made to FGW when they announced that the 180s were going and that they would acquire HSTs to replace them on the services they were then operating, the cotswold Line included. Everyone was well aware that there was a yawning gap between the number of seats in 180s and HSTs but FGW did nothing at all to promote off-peak travel on the line, nor the Cotswold Line and Network Railcards, despite the many months that they had to get something organised while the 180 fleet was being wound down.

I don't believe for a minute that HSTs will be coming back off-peak, because even with a carpet-bombing level of publicity and promotion, you will never generate enough bodies to fill them, because the number of people living on the line is not massive, despite what some in worcester believe, and there is a limit to how many need to travel to Oxford, Worcester or London.

That was why the 180s were ideal for the line. The right capacity for all but the very busiest services, combined with the right level of comfort for the length of journeys. As we know full well, the 166s are cheap to operate. And so what if they're a bit crowded after Charlbury? The passengers will use the service anyway, so why make the effort to provide a better but more expensive train?

And when I say the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) weren't told about the February changes last year, that's because they weren't, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. But then I'm just a journalist... so why would you believe me anyway?

Here is an extract from a story I wrote last year:

"CLPG chairman Derek Potter said: ^We were told last year we could expect to see most trains on the line operated by HSTs.
^We understand that situations will arise where, in order for the service to run, it^s a case of a Turbo or nothing, but we would expect to see the advertised type of train provided wherever possible. We weren^t consulted about these changes and are asking for a meeting with FGW managers to find out what^s going on.^

The full story is here http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2009/02/24/Oxford+news+%28om_oxfordnews%29/4151598.Payout_vetoed_despite_rail_crush/

[ChrisB]

That's a fair comment - I hadn't realised that it was from a press release referring to its new franchise.

BUT, having read the whole release - there is no pledge there at all. It doesn't say, or intimate that at all.
What it says, is this....

There are many improvements for customers, including the majority of services between London Paddington and the Cotswolds being operated by new 125mph Adelante trains delivering InterCity quality and comfort to the route throughout the day.

This says that the majority of services will be operated by Adelantes. It just so happens that those have that quality...

Now, by all means take them to task for not having them running those these days (or something similar in replacement, but that's a different argument in my book.

It does not say that the majority of services will be provided by *any* stock that has InterCity quality.

Semantics, I know.

[ChrisB]

I wasn't talking specifically about this service - because you don't use your Turbo v Adealnte v HST^▸ (High Speed Train) capacity point specifically, just every time anyone mentions a 180. In the case of this latest service to lose an HST it is lightly loaded - but then so was the off-peak HST that BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))/GW^▸ (Great Western) ran to Malvern and back for many years - indeed it was the first HST service on the route.

And we all know that economics have changed, and no one can justify running HSTs around carrying mostly air these days.

So, for a majority of its journey (lets say for over a hour continously), which trips are currently  seriously overcrowded? I think a 166 is reasonable for journeys of less than an hour as they are elsewhere. Are there any that one could justify even running a 7car HST?

How do you suggest we make the case.....? IN the peak, all stock is utilised, so a different route would be losing out to gain one for the Cotswolds. Off-Peak, yes, there is stock available,but it needs to be justified.

And name me one other FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service that in the past six years has seen the quality of the rolling stock provided go backwards? Apart perhaps from Reading-Gatwick, which has lost the far more suitable 166s (lots of luggage space) back to the Cotswolds to replace the HSTs.

Exeter - PNZ, I believe, and some journeys between the two - operated at the start by HSTs, now 158s and below. And wasn't there a Bedwyn HST once?

And when I say the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) weren't told about the February changes last year, that's because they weren't, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. But then I'm just a journalist... so why would you believe me anyway?

I'm not sure I said that I didn't believe you.

[ChrisB]

The problem over HST^▸ (High Speed Train) v turbo usage has been exacerbated by the wish to increase services along the line, thus spreading out the number of passengers / train. There might have been a small increase in numbers attracted by the increase in services, but nowhere enough to fill one HST, never mind several.

So - as I see it there are 4 options....

1. Reduce the overall service so as to decently fill an HST for each trip;

2. Put HSTs on all Oxford fasts, and use turbos to provide a regular service along the Cotswold Line as feeder services into these HSTs

3. Raise the fares to generate enough cash to pay for running half-empty HSTs

4. Increase the patronage severely.

With the advent of Chiltern's Oxford to Marylebone service threatening even the current level of patronage on this route, the days of HST usage I feel are severely threatened. Everyone needs to work *with* the operator to counter this threat and keep the current patronage and even raise it.

All I'm seeing at the moment is a general welcome for this new service to London. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.

Discuss.