Great Western Coffee Shop

You are wondering oh here we go again, Maidenhead People always going on about HST's, but what other trains are better?
Lets be serious, after all they are the fastest meanest mode of train fleet that can whizz you from Paddington to Maidenhead in a mere 15 minutes right.
However it would be acceptable if another stop was added into the 1622 and 1649 service from Paddington which currently stops at Slough to stop at Maidenhead as well.
Reasons for this;
There are large crowds of people who deboard from both the 1622 (arrives at 1638)  and 1649 (arrives at 1704) at Slough who travel to Maidenhead. It is horribly overcrowded at times on the station and on the 1645 train, which is worse if the 1645 (previously 1643) was cancelled. This goes for the 1718 from Slough as well. This would make sense to call those to trains at Maidenhead as First Great Western would be popular if it introduced them.

Or if HST's are to much to ask for just fix the Turbo air conditioning then FGW will have a good commuter service.
If you made commuting easier First Great Western, then rest assured more people would travel on your trains, just believe me.

The HSTs were never designed for commuter services. They were designed for long runs not stopping and starting. Arguably stops at Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath and Bristol are putting a strain on them that is beyond their design capability.  I do not know how much the new engines hep this, but making them stop at Slough and Maidenhead as well may affect their reliability.

I suspect it wouldn't be acceptable to people travelling on the 16:30 and 17:00 expresses to Bath and Bristol, which would (I suspect) get delayed behind the 16:22 and 16:49 if they had extra stops.


Agreed, but then again after refits which leave close pitch seating and very little luggage space indeed, you could argue they're no longer designed [just] for long runs only!

Well thats funny, because Andrew Haine, who was the managing director of FGW in 2007, decided that it would be good if HST's where to stop at the commuter stations of the Thames Valley, even the smaller stations such as Cholsey, Goring and Streatley, Pangbourne and Tilehurst not to mention Radley, and other stations that prior to 2007 did not see them at all.
I don't know how the reliability would affect the HST should they stop at both Slough and Maidenhead, because they have been going so since 2007, which is when i think the engines were fitted?
Nevertheless and as i have said previously the thames valley is getting more and more crowded, soon both towns might even over top Reading with commuters to London, especially when crossrail gets into gear  ;D

Well thats the issue of not having passing loops on the Mains at Slough and Maidenhead, i guess. ;)




Edit note: Quote marks amended, in the interests of clarity in subsequent discussions. CfN.

Unfortunately, from First Great Westerns' point of view, there are already too many people trying to travel on their trains between Paddington and Maidenhead in the peak times: that is why every such train is crammed now.  ::)

Well thats more evidence that more fast trains should stop at Maidenhead...

Not if it increases journey times and makes those trains even more crowded?  :P

Well yes thats true, then tell fgw to cancel the Slough stop and call at Maidenhead instead, who cares about Slough commuters, there have a better choice of turbo services and obviously are closer to London.
One towns gain is other ones loss i am afraid  ;D

Slough:  Annual Rail Passenger Usage 2012 - 4.517 million.
Maidenhead: Annual Rail Passenger Usage 2012 - 3.292 million.

With 1.2 million more passenger journeys I think that, with limited resources, FGW have the calling patterns about right. Notwithstanding the temporary loss of an evening HST call at Maidenhead, obviously.

Erm the figure for rail usage from Maidenhead from 2011 to 2012 was: 3.964million so almost 4 million rather than 3.2million that was record back in 2002 2003. So you could argue that both Maidenhead and Slough almost have the same numbers of people, and yes adding additional stops shouldn't be an issue. For example take the South West Trains Model, where trains call at some of the busiest stations on there network such as Clapham Junction, Woking and Basingstoke. They manage to cope with 8 car trains with two station calls, so why should the same not be applied to calling at Slough and Maidenhead. If it is an issue, just run the 1622 and 1649 onto the reliefs at Slough and rejoin the mains after Maidenhead. After all Reading commuters are more likely to use the 1630/1636/1645/1700 services than the 1622 or 1649 from London Paddington. Also most Reading passengers heading to Oxford can use the Crosscountry services and with the 1622 and 1649, there should be practicably be quieter until Reading at the very least. However i do realize there will be extra journey time to Oxford and north to the cotswolds but at the end of the day, the commuter service is where the trains are most needed unfortunately.

I'm not doing very well today. Blame lack of sleep (added to by not having a siesta - instead watching the cricket) and being a bit forum rusty after a break from posting.

I mistakenly quoted 2002-03 figures for both stations. So....

2011-12 Slough: 5.461 million
2011-12 Maidenhead: 3.964 million

Just shy of 1.5 million in favour of Slough. Which makes my point about service provision and use of limited rolling stock even more valid.

Nevertheless, thank you James for pointing out my error and leading me to more carefully look at the figures from the Office of Rail Regulation. And apologies for the erroneous early post.

The reliefs are full to capacity too - so there are no paths for re-directed HSTs.

FGW have experts on planning, and have been doing the job for quite some time, James - I think they probably know better than you....

Those on the 1622/1649 won't be happy having another stop added either - just so even more standees can pack out their train. There are already NO seats on these before Reading....

I'm not sure where you're quoting me from, James ... I don't think I have said that anywhere; it's not my view that there should be side loops on the mains to allow non-stop trains to pass semifasts.

Putting extra stops in to cover more stations at peak time especially doesn't make sense as it will lead to more overcrowding - I posted the maths of that in an earlier post when we were talking about why there's a gap at Surbiton, and I don't recall seeing any answer suggested to that.   We've explored the idea of extra stops, and the consensus is that it will overcrowd and irritate - unless anyone has any new points, shall we move on?

No problem, thats cool.    :P

Your analysis is good about giving Slough more train services than Maidenhead, and i see the logic in that (i.e with the branch to Windsor and Slough Trading Estate also added by the local resident commuting force of Slough).
However if First Great Western, would plan to stop the 1622 and 1649 at both Slough and Maidenhead, then this is how it could run (feel like i am repeating myself  ;D)

Just before Slough the 1622 and 1649 should cross the main's onto the relief's and stay on the relief's until say Didcot Parkway. If not the trains could be put back on to the main's after departing Maidenhead. Thus meaning that the fast express trains of the 1630/1633/1645/1700 and 1703 wouldn't get stuck behind the 1622 and 1649 unless something goes wrong.

The timings would be;
1622 arrive at Slough 1638/depart at 1639 then run to Maidenhead arriving at; 1647 and departing 1648, then non stop to Reading arriving at; 1700. Then non stop to  Didcot Parkway arriving there at 1715/1720 departure then arriving Oxford at 1730.

The same applies to the 1649.
It would mean that certain local stopping services may either need to be retimed, or terminate at other destinations, which would conflict with the 1622 and 1649 services from London Paddington.

I am doing this because of the fact that Maidenhead needs better train provision especially at peak times.

That quote was my own grahame, however i didn't know how to remove it, so i apologise for that. If you feel this thread should move on then i am happy for it to end there yes.

As I said, the relief lines are FULL too. There are simply no slots available to do your suggestion.

No problem, James: purely in the interests of clarity for future readers of this particular topic, I've amended the quote marks in your original post. CfN.

Sorry, yes you did say that before. However what would you suggest if no additional HST's no Turbo's or no Adelante's call at Maidenhead?

To just run slow services and only run the few fast avaliable trains, with more less fast trains in the future?
My question is then why Maidenhead is used for commuter services if a proper decent service cannot be provided.
You have had years to develop a suitable service, anyway we are not getting anyway and i am sorry but the service is getting worse and even more messed up. I feel i cannot put anymore suggests here, that which i find are helpful and may resolve some of the issues Maidenhead commuters face day in and day out. To be honest i am going and on about this so i think i like to finish this thread please.

Thank You Chris for sorting that out. Still trying to learn the art of posting correctly  ;D

Until the electrification & Crossrail is complete, there simply is no way of getting additional HSTs to stop before Reading without threatening the reliability of the current timetable.

Anyone considering commuting to London needs to take this into account, and if they don't like what they currently see, either be prepared to travel very early/late or at least arm yourself with suitable technology to allow early boarding in the evening at PAD. I rarely fail to get a seat....

Now thats a fair suggestion ChrisB from myself that is, however i have seen from my experience that although you give that good advice not many people will take that on board.
In this day and age everyone is in a rush and no one will bother to check anything, all they want is a fast service at that time, and if theres nothing well then obviously you have a upset commuter.
Also remember it doesn't help anyone if a service is withdrawn with no information given to the commuters in general (not just Maidenhead commuters). You can help yourselves out, by giving out the information at stations via leaflets or posters, and people may give the fgw colleagues a hard time, but at least the information gets out to them.
Its all about being fair with each other, after all there are the commuters, so good customer service should always been provided.

Edited, one example was no information given out at Maidenhead about the withdrawal of the 1948.

The other issue - particularly in the morning so far as Maidenhead passengers are concerned - is that many (perhaps most) peak HSTs are already full out of Reading, so if you stop an existing service the best you may get is additional standing space.  In the evening you would have the effect of driving away longer distance passengers - after all I might risk the prospect of standing all the way to Maidenhead, but standing all the way to Swindon (1 hour and 5 minutes) is not what I would contemplate even though I might be pretty sure of getting a seat beyond Reading.

FGW might take the view that Long distance passengers give them more revenue (particularly as for some reason we pay more per mile not just in total).

Communication is another kettle of fish of course, and I'd be the first to say that all TOCs are capable of better. The example of the 1948 is one that I shall be taking up through the Customer Panel next month. Compared with Reading works, these changes were awfully communicated

Thanks for picking that one up, ChrisB: from the discussion here on this forum (at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=12717.0) we saw that even basic communication with the travelling public is still somewhat lacking in such areas.  :o

The real problems stem back to the late 80's when BR / Government short changed the Thames Valley services by not buying enough 165.  Personally I find nothing much wrong with the 165's (toilets are the weakest link) the 166's would be better being converted to 165's

The 165 journey time on a non stop service is not much different to an HST

By the end of the decade problem will be solved loads of seats from Maidenhead on the 10 car Crossrail trains

I think your right about the toilets on the turbos, some can be in such a state as the one a few weeks back that stank right through the whole train on my way from Windsor to Slough.
I agree the turbo is also as fast as a HST, but people don't like the turbo as it's not built for high speed service, its more for a semi fast/stopping sort of service.

Now ChrisB reckons that a different approach to peak times should operate so that everyone gets a fair service (if i am right in saying that). That involves people travelling very early in the morning and late at night.

For that reason here's what i would do.
Between 0600 am and 0659 am these trains would run;
* 0603 Maidenhead to London Paddington, calling at; LONDON PADDINGTON ONLY (TURBO SET)
* 0613 Maidenhead to London Paddington, calling at; Slough, and London Paddington (TURBO SET)
* 0623 Maidenhead to London Paddington, calling at; LONDON PADDINGTON ONLY (ADELANTE SET) This train would then link up to form a service to Great Malvern or Worcester
* 0633 Maidenhead to London Paddington, calling at; Slough, and London Paddington (HST)
* 0643 Maidenhead to London Paddington, calling at; LONDON PADDINGTON ONLY (TURBO SET)
* 0653 Maidenhead to London Paddington, calling at; Slough and London Paddington (HST)
After 0700 am then there would be a half hourly service at these intervals at 03 and 33, calling at Slough and London Paddington (a mixture of trains could operate).
All other trains would link up to form train services from London Paddington.

In the evening the main peak time for Maidenhead commuters would start at 2000 and end at 2059, with trains running every 20 minutes calling at; Slough and London Paddington. before that time a half hourly service would operate.

Otherwise another method would be to ban non london commuters from travelling and have a dedicated only service between 0600 am and 0859 am and between 1700 and 2059. Apart from that i have run out of ideas, good old me hey  ;D

Doesn't that describe the Maidenhead to Paddington service quite well - a semi-fast stopping service.  As I recall the HSTs were designed when most of the trains were supposed to be Paddington, Reading, Bristol TM or Paddington, Reading, Bristol PW, Cardiff.  Places like Didcot, Swindon and Chippenham were to have very few services.  The HSTs were therefore designed for one stop every 30 minutes not for rapid acceleration and deceleration every few minutes. The new engines may have improved their resilience, but fundamentally they are still supposed to be intercity trains.

Reading - Maidenhead - Paddington and Reading - Slough - Paddington are what I would describe as semi-fast services.   

For the record so are Chippenham - Swindon - Didcot - Reading Services - But rationalisation in the 1960's and 70's left them with no alternative but to use HST's for these duties as they had axed all semi-fast and stopping trains. It was fine when the service was infrequent, but then these towns all grew massively and so services had to be increased.  This fact was known to the planners when the HSTs were ordered, but not to BR or the Ministry of Transport who weren't in a forward looking mood when it came to railways.   

Maidenhead is too close to London to get fast services - there are just too many stations east of Reading to give everyone the service they want (ie very few stops)

Surbiton has been used as an example - but there are far more stations east of Maidenhead than there are north of Surbiton....the more stations. the fewer fast trains able to be provided. There are also more trains on the GW fast lines than on the SWT fast lines - thus enabling trains to stop more often on SWT fast lines than on GW fast lines....

1 minute isn't enough time to allow for an HST to offload/load and safely dispatch. Try 2 minutes.