GWML Electification

[The Stationmaster]

Hi,

 

There is a signalled route in the Up Direction through 3, but I think it is only from the Swindon direction. not from Oxford, but Platform 3 can be used for Turnback moves.

 

Simon

 

I know - I specified it around 25 years ago

[The Johnster]

There has been noticeable progress on the Splott Road bridge in Cardiff; traffic is now using the new bridge on the 'Newport' side and work has presumably begun on the other side of the road.  Single lane working controlled by traffic lights is still in operation, of course, and the higher level of the new bridge can be clearly seen on the Splott side, where the pavement has been divided along it's length to both serve as an access ramp for the bridge and the premises on the ramp.  A set of steps has been put in at the bridge end of the lower, original pavement; those with wheelchairs, prams, or shopping trolleys do not have far to go around the end, but it s a very plain illustration of the new level!

[DY444]

Hi,

 

There is a signalled route in the Up Direction through 3, but I think it is only from the Swindon direction. not from Oxford, but Platform 3 can be used for Turnback moves.

 

Simon

 

It's not ideal though as I believe you can only route to the UM from P3 (SB914) so anything wanting the UR has to go via the UM (SB904) and cross over at Moreton.

[The Pilotman]

I know - I specified it around 25 years ago

And I used it a fair few times once it had been installed

[royaloak]

Well, here's a question.  My daughter commutes to Oxford from Cholsey.  I am told that from the New Year (as a result of the electrification!!??) her regular train will no longer be a through train but involve a change of trains in Didcot.  Can this be true?  Whatever the reason, that's another rail passenger lost to car commuting!!

Plenty of through trains during the Peaks-

Up trains-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DID/from/OXF/2018/01/02/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Down trains-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DID/to/OXF/2018/01/02/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Plenty of through trains during the Peaks-

Up trains-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DID/from/OXF/2018/01/02/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Down trains-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DID/to/OXF/2018/01/02/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

Though no through trains from Cholsey to Oxford between 2L20 (Cholsey 0837 / Oxford 0907) and 2L50 (Cholsey 1552 / Oxford 1633).

Edited December 12, 2017 by Peter Kazmierczak

[SouthernMafia]

8-car 387 testing around Reading and Twyford tomorrow and Saturday...not being dragged lol.

 

Kick off just after Peak.

[The Stationmaster]

8-car 387 testing around Reading and Twyford tomorrow and Saturday...not being dragged lol.

 

Kick off just after Peak.

 

That could be interesting when if it stops on the Up Relief at Twyford, I'm still waiting to see how they're going to tackle that little problem.

 

Interestingly the 12.14 off Reading, ECS to Old Oak today is shown as a 'TfL Rail service' so is it one of. Crossrail's rubbishy trains I wonder?

[jim.snowdon]

Or simply provision for one - it is listed as a Q path - runs if required (which is presumably not yet ). The word so far is that TfL will take over the Heathrow stopping services from May, so presumably any 345s won't appear until around March next year. Observation would suggest that they can't yet get into the new Bombardier OOC depot.

 

Jim

[SouthernMafia]

That could be interesting when if it stops on the Up Relief at Twyford, I'm still waiting to see how they're going to tackle that little problem.

 

Interestingly the 12.14 off Reading, ECS to Old Oak today is shown as a 'TfL Rail service' so is it one of. Crossrail's rubbishy trains I wonder?

Appeared to manage it...What is the problem you're referring to ?

[The Stationmaster]

Appeared to manage it...What is the problem you're referring to ?

 

Easy enough to stop there, the problem is where to stop, especially if the promised 12 car formations come along in January.  

 

So it's all about which coaches will be platformed and logically it will be the leading ones.  Platform 4, Up Relief Line at Twyford is 180 meters long and can't be extended, so in theory, and with new stop markers to suit, an 8 car 387 can be fully platformed but a 12 car formation can't and neither can a 9 car Class 345 (205 m). So there will be a need to advise passengers where to travel, where ever the stopping marker goes. 

[Coryton]

Easy enough to stop there, the problem is where to stop, especially if the promised 12 car formations come along in January.  

 

So it's all about which coaches will be platformed and logically it will be the leading ones.  Platform 4, Up Relief Line at Twyford is 180 meters long and can't be extended, so in theory, and with new stop markers to suit, an 8 car 387 can be fully platformed but a 12 car formation can't and neither can a 9 car Class 345 (205 m). So there will be a need to advise passengers where to travel, where ever the stopping marker goes. 

 

Signs at Cardiff today are telling people on a specific (the only?) GWR train beyond Swansea to travel in the rear 5 coaches (not sure if it was for all stops or not.)

[SouthernMafia]

Easy enough to stop there, the problem is where to stop, especially if the promised 12 car formations come along in January.

 

So it's all about which coaches will be platformed and logically it will be the leading ones. Platform 4, Up Relief Line at Twyford is 180 meters long and can't be extended, so in theory, and with new stop markers to suit, an 8 car 387 can be fully platformed but a 12 car formation can't and neither can a 9 car Class 345 (205 m). So there will be a need to advise passengers where to travel, where ever the stopping marker goes.

Ah yes aware a 12 car wouldn't fit but couldn't see why an 8 car wouldn't fit seeing as you can get a 7 car Turbo fully platformed.

[phil-b259]

From Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources' preview

 

Various documents published by the Department for Transport in November created  further  havoc in an already struggling franchise replacement programme. I’ll start with the less controversial change.

In the consultation document on the next Great Western franchise DfT observes, with  masterly understatement, that with  the current franchise expiring on 31 March 2019, ‘this is not an ideal time to plan for a potential change of franchisee as it falls in the middle of a major programme of change, which is scheduled to be completed by December 2019’. Extension to April 2020 ‘would help to ensure that new trains and timetable changes are implemented as smoothly as possible’

But it doesn’t stop there. According to DfT, when they started preparing to let the replacement franchise from April 2020, ‘we identified a number of reasons why this would not be in the best long-term interests of passengers and communities served by the franchise’.

DfT then expands on the number of reasons why ‘maintaining continuity of franchise operator, for a further period of approximately two years, could enable a better long-term outcome for passengers’.

But the Consultation Document also includes a proposal to split the current GWR franchise. DfT concedes that this would involve substantial preparatory  work, such as reorganising the franchise into standalone business units, with separate workforces, train fleets and contracts with suppliers.  And guess what?

DfT also expects to have an option in the new Direct Award to extend  for a further period ‘of up to two years’.  This, explains DfT, ‘provides flexibility to cater for circumstances that cannot be foreseen at this stage, and to adapt the franchising schedule to maintain a steady flow of competitions’. That would take GWR to 2024, coinciding with the end of Control Period 6.

[Coryton]

But the Consultation Document also includes a proposal to split the current GWR franchise. DfT concedes that this would involve substantial preparatory  work, such as reorganising the franchise into standalone business units, with separate workforces, train fleets and contracts with suppliers.  And guess what?

 

 

Sounds like a miniature re-run of sectorisation.

 

I wonder if they could spend some money on consultation on what beneficial results might be obtained by stopping fiddling with everything all the time.

[jjb1970]

DafT and the government continues to lurch from one big idea to the next one looking for some sort of panacea and all the while some blame the TOCs and ROSCOs for the resulting confusion and mess.

[D854_Tiger]

DafT and the government continues to lurch from one big idea to the next one looking for some sort of panacea and all the while some blame the TOCs and ROSCOs for the resulting confusion and mess.

 

I can understand though why they might want to split up the GW franchise.

 

Here in the West Midlands, we have three franchises competing for our business to London and the perception of the pax is that it works well, so much so, business is booming on all three.

 

Now that maybe far more perception, than actual delivery on performance and fares, but it does seem to work in terms of generating business.

 

The same thing seems to work with the airlines, attracting multiple airlines to the same route doesn't just split the available business multiple ways, it clearly seems to attract new business as well.

 

One morning I decided to use Hampton-in-Arden station, to get to London on LM, an OAP was using the same train and told me how wonderful it was to have a direct train to London from her village, three minutes walk away (a village that is only one station away from International with three Pendolinos every hour), allowing her to visit her daughter down in London (all on one train). I got the distinct impression she was making that journey more often because of it.

[jjb1970]

The worry I have with railway policy and DafT isn't so much that all their ideas are bad (though many of them are) but rather they're in a constant state of flux and it seems like they just lurch from one idea to the next.

[Coryton]

The worry I have with railway policy and DafT isn't so much that all their ideas are bad (though many of them are) but rather they're in a constant state of flux and it seems like they just lurch from one idea to the next.

 

Quite.

 

The railways have become like education in that respect.

[jamie92208]

Quite.

 

The railways have become like education in that respect.

Or most other areas of policy under government control.

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

I can understand though why they might want to split up the GW franchise.

 

Here in the West Midlands, we have three franchises competing for our business to London and the perception of the pax is that it works well, so much so, business is booming on all three.

 

Now that maybe far more perception, than actual delivery on performance and fares, but it does seem to work in terms of generating business.

 

The same thing seems to work with the airlines, attracting multiple airlines to the same route doesn't just split the available business multiple ways, it clearly seems to attract new business as well.

 

One morning I decided to use Hampton-in-Arden station, to get to London on LM, an OAP was using the same train and told me how wonderful it was to have a direct train to London from her village, three minutes walk away (a village that is only one station away from International with three Pendolinos every hour), allowing her to visit her daughter down in London (all on one train). I got the distinct impression she was making that journey more often because of it.

 

But how much 'competition is there really?

 

LM (or whatever they are called now) only 'compete with Virgin because (i) They both have to call at large stations like Coventry and (ii) It is more efficient to have one train going all the way to London than lots of short runs with changes and (iii) Removing stops at  lesser used stations, like along the Trent Valley speeds up Virgin services but users still expect through trains to London.

 

Similarly while Chiltern have been very sucessfull in grabbing a large chunk of the Birmingham revenue - but that is on the back of the need to serve the likes of Banbury and Leamington Spay anyway.

 

At the end if the day true 'competition' only really works when there are very few restrictions on the ability of producers / service providers to push their wares. Unlike a supermarket or a financial comparison website the railway has a finite level of infrastructure capacity (and that has already been reached on the WCML) plus a finite number of resources to deliver it (train fleets, drivers etc).

 

As such while I have no problem with separation of 'brands' based on the type of service they provide, this assumption that splitting franchises in the name of 'competition is flawed and only increases costs (more staff needed following the separation of crew, maintenance, inefficiency in unit diagramming as services get split between different TOCs etc.

[Arun Sharma]

"We trained hard ... but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization".

 

attributed to Petronius Arbiter sometime around the first century AD but more accurately attributed to Charlton Ogburn Jr. in 1957

 

Seems to sum up DofT's concept of progress

[D854_Tiger]

But how much 'competition is there really?

 

LM (or whatever they are called now) only 'compete with Virgin because (i) They both have to call at large stations like Coventry and (ii) It is more efficient to have one train going all the way to London than lots of short runs with changes and (iii) Removing stops at  lesser used stations, like along the Trent Valley speeds up Virgin services but users still expect through trains to London.

 

Similarly while Chiltern have been very sucessfull in grabbing a large chunk of the Birmingham revenue - but that is on the back of the need to serve the likes of Banbury and Leamington Spay anyway.

 

At the end if the day true 'competition' only really works when there are very few restrictions on the ability of producers / service providers to push their wares. Unlike a supermarket or a financial comparison website the railway has a finite level of infrastructure capacity (and that has already been reached on the WCML) plus a finite number of resources to deliver it (train fleets, drivers etc).

 

As such while I have no problem with separation of 'brands' based on the type of service they provide, this assumption that splitting franchises in the name of 'competition is flawed and only increases costs (more staff needed following the separation of crew, maintenance, inefficiency in unit diagramming as services get split between different TOCs etc.

 

 

How much competition was introduced when Ryanair decided to fly from Stansted to Monchengladbach (Dusseldorf) against BA flying from Heathrow to the real Dusseldorf.

 

Some, but not enough to fill those Ryanair flights, those Ryanair flights have been filled by the new more convenient (for plenty) journey opportunities that have been opened up by the new route.

 

The same can be true on the railway, simply by competing TOCs serving different stations along the way but with similar overall journey times.

[corneliuslundie]

There seems to be confusion in the minds of DfT about what constitutes competition.

Splitting GWR into local and long distance parts would not introduce competition.

Dividing it down the middle into two competing but similar franchises would produce both competition and chaos - and would certainly discourage bidders.

There has been no queue of Open Access operators wishing to operate out of Paddington, suggesting that they do not see any potential. Though of course by the rules Open Access operators are not supposed to compete with franchises anyway. Let Open Access operators compete and you have real competition. But again it would discourage bidders for the franchises, and reduce the "enhancements" that bidders could afford to offer.

So what does DfT have in mind apart from a vague idea that competition is a "good thing" - though i have grave doubts whether it really is in public transport.

Jonathan

[royaloak]

Sounds like a miniature re-run of sectorisation.

 

I wonder if they could spend some money on consultation on what beneficial results might be obtained by stopping fiddling with everything all the time.

If they stopped fiddling with everything what would all those Civil Servants do, I have always maintained that franchising is nothing more that a Civil Service job creation scheme and it is the railways (and passengers) paying for it.