I think main reason is (excessive) time, cross country effectively operate semi-fast services, nothing express.  

Many London services will have sections that are 50-100 miles between stations, and the trains use electric power to quickly accelerate to high speed.

Cross country uses (aging) diesel trains, often with downrated motors or one engine isolated so they are a noisy, sluggish by comparison train.  You never get the feeling you are flying along making good progress with cross country. 

Then there are other problems, cramped seats, lack of view with some seats looking at pillars, and tickets that are expensive (if you are not aware of spilt ticket sites), and even if you use split ticketing they seem to deliberately change your seat every split, sometimes change from front to back unit mid journey too.

My last cross country journey, trolley was static on way out, so no food unless wanted to fight way along aisle crowded with standees, on way back was double unit, but our seats were in unit without trolley.  So no refreshments available.  If I could get equivalent of a good pub lunch on a 3+ hour journey I would spend the money, but I can't so if I have a choice I avoid XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))

Latest ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road, formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) figures put GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) as second (after Network Rail main stations) as operator with most passenger assists

36,499 for period 8-10 (13 Oct - 4 Jan)
increase of 25% on previous year,
and averaging just over 3000 per week

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/vdjdaxz1/assists-factsheet-2024-25-rail-periods-8-10.pdf

Not sure if that means more people are finding trains harder to use so booking more assists, or if GWR usage has gone up 25%, or if more are aware it exists so choosing to use it.

Wheels regularly need work (both at intervals due to wear, and unplanned if they get flat spots), hence a number of wheel lathes around the network. 

But unless I am mistaken if it is the sort of thing that get sent away in batches for repair, you would think they should have had the nouse to order spares which they can use, to cover those sent away.  That seems to be the failing, not having enough available until repaired ones return.

They might be 'specialist parts' but they clearly wear out, degrade or fail regularly (otherwise why do so many trains need the part).

That sort of suggests the stores manager, or company contracted to maintain them doesn't know what they are doing, and forgets to order in time sufficient replacement parts.   If something has a lead time of many months, then you need at least that many months stock, and bit extra in case more than average fail.

It's not like they are parts for classes of train about to be withdrawn, so run down the stock, these are parts for trains they expect to have for years/decades, so should still be ensuring they have spare parts.

This is management spin, someone somewhere didn't get the spare parts, and now they are making excuses for the one job they are supposed to do (run sufficient trains per their business commitments with DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)).  Someone ought to fall on their sword.

The ETRMS fitment was not originally part of the trains, it was a later add-on, so in theory can be unbolted and taken off again.  Yes it would be more work (and more cost) to make them GWR spec, but it is not impossible.


On another note, the latest version of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) procurement pipeline spreadsheet, has the GWR project Churchward DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) replacement with slightly earlier date than those for Northern.  Confusing me because Northern have issued a tender, but to best of my knowledge GWR haven't.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-commercial-contracts-for-dft-and-partners

The estimated contract start dates are now 9th Jan 2026 for GWR, 2nd March 2026 for Northern DMUs and 27th May 2026 for Northern EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit), battery EMUs and multi mode MUs^▸ (Multiple Unit)

Can anyone enlighten me what is going on.

I think 5 might be Clapham Junction platform 2, as there is disused platform 1 to left.  I think it is Mildmay line

4th block of text "We're sorry for the impact ...."

Apology in the middle, so apology clearly not a priority

Of course they are referring to an event in the future, for which they have sold tickets, so should it be just a half hearted apology, or something meaningful like offer of 150% refunds, or alternative date of customers choosing (not their limited alternative date)

Wasn't Taunton station heavily rebuilt in early 1930s and quadruple track extended to where lines diverged.   4 through tracks with an island in the middle and 5 bays for all the local services.

As someone has compared it Southampton, that was also widened to 4 through tracks with island in the middle at roughly same era (about 3 years later than Taunton)

There is a certain amount of history to where we are today.  If go back about 10 years the plan was electrification to Swansea, Bristol and Oxford.  This was abruptly cut when costs were overrunning.

The IETs were originally in two types (known as class 800, and 802).  800s were planned with lower power engines and smaller fuel tanks for slower add on services to South West Wales, Cotswolds etc.   When the electrification got cut back they were modified to be like the South West sets (class 802) to go further and faster on diesel.

The original plan also included running double sets at London end (where track capacity is limited due to number of services) splitting with single units going on the west, splits would have been at various eg Cardiff, Swansea, Exeter, Plymouth etc (depending on demand and time of day).   

But there was a problem, when old fashioned analogue train protection was turned on, software threw a wobbly and needed to run through a whole boot up process to talk to the protection.  The result was after coupling or uncoupling train had to wait many minutes whilst software reset.  This scuppered the idea of joining and splitting services en route.   The timetable was changed and the large number of short units ended up working as double units throughout, even to the remote lower passenger numbers parts of network

GWR ended up with 36 5car and 21 9car class 800, and 22 5car and 14 9car class 802.  Totalling 56 5car and only 30 9car units.

Even after the 175s arrive, still not going to be a very good match for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) services

The 10 2car 175s could take over a few Paignton, Exmouth services from 150s, but their longer distance seating and door layout is not ideal.   For most other services operating them as just 2car is likely to give capacity problems at certain times

The 16 3car units will be more useful, although there are number of services to Barnstaple, Oakhampton, Newquay etc where passenger numbers ideally means they will need to be longer formations.  However some of these services have stations where joined units don't fit platforms (or guards cannot easily check tickets in both units).  My understanding is don't have selective door opening, it is front unit only and back unit not open, or all doors only.

Struggling to see how the allocations on the busy services will work, will it be 2 or 3 or 2+2 or 2+3 or 3+3 formations.

There was earlier comment about lack of 5car formations on Portsmouth-Cardiff.  Currently GWR have 41 class 158 vehicles, most are 2car, there is one 3car unit, and 4 units bodged into 3car made up from 6 2car units (so middle vehicle has a driving cab).  Clearly 41 vehicles is not enough to operate 8 trains of 5 vehicles and have spares for maintenance.   As they are about 35 years old scheduling them at nearly 100% usage is never going to be reliable, so realistically about 2 in 8 Portsmouth-Cardiff services are always going to have unsuitable stock (even after 175s cascade trains)

So short term that leaves the 165 units (built for branch lines and local suburban workings), but often used by GWR on long services to places like Worcester, Weymouth etc.  Again hardly in the suitable train type category on these extended workings. At least they have had a refresh, which partly hides their 33 years old age.

Then there are the 166s, all 3car, and often used as single units even on the quasi-intercity Cardiff-Portsmouth service (a route that serves 7 cities, a rather higher number than some mainline services).  But a 166 was never built and specified as a regional train, it was (and still is as seating has never been reconfigured) an outer suburban commuter train.  These days seem to be used randomly as common fleet with 165s (rather than being dedicated to the longer workings).  Actually not uncommon to see a 165 and 166 coupled.  Basically these are 32 year old hand-me-downs

Then GWR have the (now split at Exeter) Cardiff-South West workings.  Logically they would have identical fleet to Cardiff-Portsmouth.  But no, GWR has opted for 5car IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) (not because they are ideal, but because it is all that could be spared).  And yes they can at least run on electric Cardiff-Patchway (unlike the Cardiff-Portsmouth services which use old emissions spec diesel throughout, even though Cardiff-Patchway and Redbridge-Portsmouth are electrified).  Again questionable if they are suitable type, or simply spare hand-me-downs.

As for using IETs on some Bristol-Worcester services, don't get me started as to why GWR have ended up with so many 5car IETs instead of full length ones, but having got them (and abandoned the splitting of services they were ordered for, because software too slow to reconfigure during coupling/uncoupling) need to utilise the excess quantity of short IETs somewhere.   

Off record, personally wouldn't be too sorry if over half the 5car IETs were returned to leasing companies (and there are plenty of more suitable services around the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) that could use them better) and GWR ordered some comfortable 110-125mph battery EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) for services to Oxford, Bedwyn, Warminster, Frome, Gloucester etc.

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road, formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) today (20 March) published latest passenger figures covering Oct-Dec 2024

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has :
8% increase in passengers per table 1.1 (compared to Oct-Dec a year earlier)
5% increase in passenger km per table 2.2 (so average journey length down as 3% below change in numbers of passengers)
3% increase in train km per table 4.1 (so not keeping up with passenger growth, in other words busier trains)
5% in vehicle km per table 5.1 (so marginally longer trains on average as 2% more than train km)

Dividing last two suggests GWR trains have average 5.93 carriages, which is rather more than most local services in Wessex get

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/voqeicwn/passenger-rail-usage-oct-dec-2024.pdf

Anyone else think it odd that passenger numbers increased in 2024, but GWR didn't increase its train fleet that year (it actually withdrew some without replacement)

You do wonder if DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) actually monitor disruption and do any coordination of transport

Close main rail line to the west, and pick same weekend to close part of M4 near Bristol (and close M25 at junction 10)

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have put out media statement including
"The closure of M4 between Bath and Bristol will also affect the train operator’s ability to provide replacement bus transport, and there will be no buses between Swindon and Bristol Parkway.

Replacement buses will operate between Didcot Parkway and Swindon; Reading and Swindon; plus Bath Spa and Swindon. After 0920 train shuttle services will operate between London Paddington and Reading/Didcot Parkway."

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) seems to have 3-5 DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) semi-permanently out of use (due to lack of spare parts).   Being 33-36 years old they should really be withdrawing handful and parting them out to provide spares to keep the others running.   But although that is to some extent happening in practice with parts being 'borrowed' no one seems to have the guts to do it formally as it will leave shortage of trains on paper (not enough to cover all scheduled workings and allow normal number of maintenance spares).

GWR uses about 4-5 IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) on former Castle HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) Cardiff-Plymouth services (now split at Exeter) and couple on Bristol-Worcester services (this was presumably what @simonw experienced) This is simply due to lack of anything else, doesn't mean they are best choice.  Also has direct result that a number of mainline IET services are often short formed as 5car instead of the booked 9 or 10car

The arrival of the 26 class 175 units (10 2car, 16 3car totalling 78 vehicles) to Devon and Cornwall will free up some 158, 165 units to Bristol area (timescale is vague, but in drips and drabs over next 10-20 months). The first ones with GWR need to cover the expanded Cornwall metro, then next ones replace the remaining aging Castle HSTs, so probably be 2026 before Bristol area sees an improvement.

I think the idea is that the IETs go back to mainline duties, and Bristol area locals make do with the old DMUs until 2029-2031 when (currently unauthorised and just an aspiration) replacements under project Churchward might arrive.

GWR has never had any regional trains in its fleet, it only has suburban/local trains and intercity style IETs (nothing between).  Technically could argue the 158s are regional, and 166s outer suburban, but as they seem to be used interchangeably they are effectively all same type.  There aren't enough 158s or 166s to be dedicated to regional services.

The result is get GWR suburban fleet doing 3+ hour journeys with no real passenger comfort and ambience, and IETs doing services under 2 hours with catering closed (and excess of First class).   Hopefully their new fleet will be 2 types, regional (which they desperately need) and local trains (South West trains did this with 444, 450, many common parts, but different bodyshells and configuration).  But GWR might try and do a single compromise standard type that fits neither role perfectly, have to wait and see. 

In an ideal world GWR would get battery BEMUs (dual voltage) for its long regional services, with seating designed for 3+ hour journeys, and able to cope with churn (lots getting on and off) at places like Bath.  With other features like 915mm level boarding and working air conditioning whose temperature is identical in all coaches. 5 or 6cars for the regional trains (no shorter) and 3car for local/suburban version (no 2car units).  And platforms extended to 6car length.  I can dream.
.

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

The idea of 4car 158s has fallen apart.

Today 1F25 16:27 and 1F27 17:27 Cardiff - Portsmouth (the busy peak hour workings) are both reduced to just a 2car unit

Earlier 1F18 from Portsmouth conked out at Fareham and continued to Bristol as empty 5F18