Afroal05

Nothing on my last update from 15th September. Units still fail crack checks from time to time and then require moves to North Pole for remedial welding. Units still running under concessions. I believe that there is going to be some experimental work undertaken on the two units that have not been in traffic since April. That's 800013 & 800026 which both had extensive cuts made to establish the severity of the damage when the problems were first discovered. Al EDIT: An example of a unit that has recently failed crack checks is 802012 currently at Long Rock (Penzance) and requires a 75mph restricted move to North Pole. It has been down there since 20th October as resourcing such a move is quite difficult, especially with ongoing driver shortages.

I've just come across this, what a wonderful layout! Read the thread from start to finish over the last few days and really excited to see the future developments. The little details and the richness of the colours looks great, I've definitely felt inspired seeing the way you've turned the bare baseboards into such a wonderful world with different areas that all transition really nicely. I particularly like the two photos above! Al

For anyone interested in the day to day impact the cracked sets is having: Since the end of May a train plan has been written around the principle of 65 service diagrams a day with nothing diagrammed spare. (Pre cracking the train plan was based on ~75 units in traffic and 5 spares.) Initially it was quite a struggle to actually get 65 units in traffic and it was quite common to have much nearer 60, the worst day I can remember was 56. This resulted in lots of 5 vice 10 and 5 vice 9 which clearly wasn't very good and as more people returned to travelling some services have been very busy. Since the end of August however there have regularly been 70+ units available for traffic. There are still some shortformed services each day and this generally relates to the maintenance plan not meshing with the diagrams right now. For example, a unit departing Penzance in the morning coming in on a layover at North Pole and being kept back on depot for an exam that night or similar and another unit being required to cover the rest of the diagram that day. That's the short summary. Each day as part of the prep for a unit on a depot an inspection is conducted to assess any new cracks and if any existing cracks have worsened. If they have then the unit is stood down on depot and further non destructive testing is required before the unit can either return to traffic or require moving to North Pole for welding repairs. Units that fail the further testing and require a move to North Pole have to do so under a concession signed off by senior managers in engineering, there usually aren't any special restrictions to these moves (speed limits or similar) and on the odd occasion and move has been made in passenger service. (Finding available drivers to move units additionally from Penzance to North Pole is nigh on impossible.) Units do fail the checks every now and then but with spares now available most days these don't impact the service like they did when we were scraping the barrel each day and a lost unit meant lost services. Units that make their way to North Pole under concession appear to be lined up for some kind of remedial welding. This, I don't think, is a long term fix but rather keeps the unit safe and serviceable for the foreseeable future. There are still talks ongoing about what a long term fix is and it is likely that when this is agreed upon the units will go away to an external site a couple at a time for fixing. But for the time being whatever work is being carried out is boosting the fleet availability slowly. The downside of every cracked unit needing to end up at North Pole is that North Pole is very full and leaves little additional room for ad hoc failures to be dumped on depot or for there to be spares on depot. More than once units have come off depot in to service late with the reason being someone needed to play Tetris to manoeuvre a unit out of the way. This has led to a drive to get more exam work undertaken at other depots around the network; Laira will now undertake major exams on IETs (except for roof work which has to be subsequently carried out at either Stoke Gifford or North Pole) and do one or two a week. Other changes to alleviate the unit shortage has been 387s to Bristol Parkway - this has been mentioned before in this thread - and there appears to be no end in sight to their use. Indeed tests through to Cardiff have now taken place. To help bolster the 387 fleet, since 2 units are now in service everyday to and from Parkway, the 3 units acquired from C2C are now joined by 3 units from Gatwick Express. The C2C units are generally only found on the Newbury shuttles as they do not have receivers for the SDO beacons required when working 8 or 12 car formations on Paddington - Didcot services. They could run if boxed into the middle of a 12 car formation. The Gatex units do have the receivers and can be seen working into and out of Paddington daily. Permission has been given for Class 800 units to finish at depots in the West of England and receive servicing. Previously an 800 could not go on to Laira or Long Rock depot for 'contractual reasons'. This agreement has probably been the single biggest development for fleet controllers as it reduces what has felt like four fleets of entirely different trains into two fleets; 800s and 802s. Unfortunately 802s still cannot end at Swansea Maliphant and 800s cannot couple to 802s. It has been done for rescue/recovery and by accident but officially they don't play together and can't do so. If this were to change (and it is constantly mooted) then you have 5 and 9 car trains and little else matters. As it is you have to be careful when 800/5s go into the West of England making sure they are not planned to detach and reattach to an 802! GWR are still yet to run the all singing, all dancing December '19 timetable with 'super-fast' services running non-stop to Swindon/Chippenham or Bristol Parkway. These are still omitted from the timetable as part of the reduction to get the IET diagrams down to 65 a day. The hourly Cardiff services (which help to provide a half hourly service to South Wales alongside the hourly Swansea's) are cancelled along with IETs to Bedwyn. There are one or two exceptions to this pattern (1B20/1L29, 1U18/1L57, 1K18/1K25 spring to mind.) There are also a few services that are now diagrammed for 5 cars that might have previously been 10 cars. It largely feels like a 'normal' timetable now, just a far cry from what we were gearing up for in Jan/Feb '19! (I accept that in a crack free world the timetable might still have been de-scoped a little due to covid). The DfT are involved in thrice weekly calls with GWR and Hitachi to keep up to date and on top of the rectification work and the plan going forwards and the pressure is definitely on to run as many trains as possible as passengers return to rail travel and greater scrutiny is now on shortformed services and delivering the seats to plan. The fleet still feels like it is in a slightly vulnerable position. I have no statistical evidence but I wonder if each unit is averaging more miles/hours in service than they were before. Issues like engines GUs failing or units with diesel only or other restrictions seem to be more frequent and perhaps that is because units are getting less maintenance time on depot. There are still anywhere up to a dozen set swaps at various locations, but mostly Paddington, performed daily to tinker and manage where specific units are ending each day according to their defects, fuel miles, prep hours and exam requirements. Clearly for the passengers most of these swaps go completely unnoticed as they take place between services, it is just the ops staff that have to manage the juggling and re-platforming of services. Apologies for the rather long information dump and any industry jargon, I thought an update might be of interest as to what repercussions there still are.

TMS version 81 now! (The last major update appeared to show a jump from v67 to v81. I didn't dare ask where the other versions went...)

No TPE 802s do not have ATP, the rough plan had been to run them to/from the West of England and start/terminate at Reading. There was some discussion between myself and DY444 some pages back about what you could and couldn't do (and what you could do with some amended working) involving ATP. Perhaps, but perhaps it is expected that the rail operators will be able to successfully arrange alternative transport through the channels that would normally be used for less major disruption. It appears it hasn't worked as well as it might have been hoped here. I take this point completely, I have somewhat blurred the message of 'minimise travel' and made 2+2 = 5. I can understand how people want to travel about again and clearly would encourage people to use the train - fleet availability issues aside! I agree that I think people either know or could figure out what points are and if they don't know - what can we all do when we don't know something? Look it up! I think we dumb down industry language and phrases too much, there is one way the travelling public will learn and that is through hearing it, trying to understand it and/or asking questions accordingly. A slight education in the banal announcements if I may. The system most of us use is called Tyrell which has a number of pre-defined reasons for incidents (whichever system a TOC uses has all of the same reasons because I think they are nationally agreed). There are a huge number of incident reasons but most are so so so specific they are nigh on useless - 'A fire near the railway suspected of involving gas cylinders yesterday' - when has anyone ever heard of that one being announced? Each TOC is measured on how swiftly (and in prolonged disruption how often) they update passengers and staff of events. There is even a league table - The Golden Lion - which is taken very seriously. The upshot of this is that when something kicks off there is a real hurry to get the first message out there (as both internal and external messages are sent simultaneously with the controller selecting which bits of manually entered or pre selected information goes where) and ensuring their disruption/amendments scores are as good as they can be. The very first thing you have to select on the incident form is phrase that best describes the incident - this then becomes the banal phrase that Digital Doris will announce all over the network where that train calls. As the controller in question is usually under duress to get the amendment out (more so in disruption affecting multiple trains) then you often pick a reason that you know exists and have used frequently 'A fault on this train', 'Emergency services dealing with an incident', 'trespassers on the railway' etc when there might be one more specific. But to find a more perfect fit you would need to scroll through ALL of the reasons or search the exact word you need - and it is never under the specific word you think it is. In terms of the specific reason 'A problem currently under investigation' it is because the individual, try as they might, cannot find a reason that matches the true cause of the problem and it is regarded as the fallback in such a situation. It would then be prudent for the controller to put more specific details in the 'Internal Information' box so that the likes of yourself on the ground can interpret the information and disseminate at your discretion. I always tried to put the full story in the internal information in the hope that staff might then be able to better educate passengers. To use that reason is never a mistake or a slip of the finger but a conscious decision where - in the moment - there is no better reason from the peculiar list to chose from. Why have messages preset messages in the first place? To try and create a unified message from Paddington to Penzance and all calling points in between and so that there are a few simple reasons on journey check websites like this - https://www.journeycheck.com/greatwesternrailway/ With 30 seconds of work, per train, for the controller the messaging system will update CIS screens, journey check websites, journey check/TOC/NR apps, internal messaging systems and during disruption this is the most efficient way of keeping everyone everywhere updated. For context, there are 3 controller on shift updating the information systems for the whole of the GWR network. CIS screens can be manually amended locally and there is also a CIS controller who makes sure the information input into the Tyrell system as imported correctly. For the Class 80X saga there is no perfect banal phrase other than 'more trains than usual requiring repairs' or 'a shortage of trains due to extra safety inspections'. I am not saying either of these are right though! The Code Black status message needed to be updated every 2 hours throughout the incident although this would usually only be internal information. I am in no way defending the way in which the system works or the nature of the announcements made but hopefully giving an insight into how these things work from another side of the industry. I could write War & Peace on some of these things and really ought to be more succinct in my messages! For interest, this is the very top of the long list of reasons available to try and illustrate what you work from:

T1 & T2 are common requests when anything goes wrong in Cornwall, I have requested them myself in a previous role a number of times. I agree L1 seems more peculiar. What I will say is that it is normally the station teams on the ground that are providing the lists of routes they want ticket acceptance on to move passengers and then up to controllers to interpret if these requests are reasonable or not. In the case of the 80x disruption the attitude towards trying to keep passengers moving has been 'anything goes' and so it doesn't surprise me if less obvious routes were requested. To request bus ticket acceptance it is treated the same way if it is First Group as it if were Stagecoach or Arriva buses, they are regarded as entirely different entities. A request is made to the chosen transport provider - currently First Travel Solutions (but it hasn't always been them!) with a reference code that costs can be attributed to and then FTS will liaise with the relevant company and agree the ticket acceptance. FTS will then call back to advise when it has been arranged, this can feel like an eternity when you are trying to move passengers. From a GWR controller's point of view once it is requested you would expect the information to be disseminated to all bus drivers accordingly to prevent issues as the controller is by this point probably advertising the acceptance on the relevant websites. The only way you would ever find out there was a problem would be through social media or via station teams getting comments from disgruntled passengers. As you have picked up on - I do not feel there is any affiliation with any other First Group company, there is no frequent dialogue between any of the bus company's empire, TPE, SWR, AWC or Hull Trains, we are all separate entities beavering away independently. ********** I don't think I can honestly answer for what the Railway wants, only what I want based on my personal feelings on the pandemic and what people define as an 'essential' journey. I agree that following of the rules has been in decline but seeing the whole train service from Control there is more enforcement than you might think. Trains crew are unhappy with are recorded daily, serial offending trains are fed back to train planning for strengthening (I ad hoc strengthened a particular PAD-BRI service everyday for a week before this crisis because it was reported as over capacity). We have had trains refused by crew until people alighted and police called to a couple when people refuse to comply. It may not be as widespread or as iron fisted as some would like and I would like to see more compliance from the travelling public. We have ball park figures for what a covid compliant unit is - 139 places in a 5 car for example - but it is not enforced strictly as it is a pencil pushers calculation and not an exact science. The judgement is down to the traincrew who are there in the moment and must always be relied upon to have some judgement in what is safe and what is not. They have the right to refuse to take the train and some have. Under the emergency measures agreements I would have thought the priority should be keeping staff and customers safe and not worrying about the railway purse and getting as many paying passengers back in. High loadings could be viewed as a bad thing were they to be linked to an increase and spread in the virus (and subsequent deaths). 'Which is the worse scenario? To be advised "come back later" without any specific advice as to when "later" might be (In an hour? In a few hours? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Will I make it to work? Will I miss my father's funeral?). Or to be advised "No service until further notice"? (Quite simply nothing is going anywhere and everyone receives the same unambiguous message).' I agree entirely with you here and I would have liked to have seen a clearer message. GWR's 'Code Black' message seemed pretty clear to me - but I only ever saw the internal messages. We were advising people not to travel on that specific day. Perhaps it should have been made clearer that it would last days but the situation was changing hour by hour and every day there was the suggestion you might have 40+ units back the next day. My two penneth - I would like to see clearer messages to all passengers, I hear the automated reasons we select from in Control from a limited selection and just wish we could be more honest with the travelling public. Before I left my role in the information team we were told we were not allowed to put things as 'A points problem' even when it was a points problem because the manager's opinion was the travelling public are confused by what points are. In the end just about any infrastructure problem is given the reason 'A problem with the signalling system'. There are plenty more examples of things like that but I'm digressing from stricken 80Xs and slipping into personal opinion!

After some rather sleepless days and nights I was fortunate to have 10 days leave hence I haven't given any up to date information. I went off grid which was a most needed tonic after the incredible events of the previous week. Apologies for such a lengthy reply. I have replied to some things I felt I could comment on, I appreciate I am quite late to the debate on some of the points. GWR are currently working to a plan of 65 units available each day for traffic. The units having been signed off for traffic for the day, previously units were prepped and certified for 35.5 hours, this was been reduced to 24 to allow more frequent inspections but has now reverted back to the 35.5hrs. The units made available for traffic are a spread of 800/5s, 800/9s, 802/5s and 802/9s. Despite the plan being written for 65 units there are only 61 available today... It was a herculean effort for days and days by many many people across the business. You just wish that when TV series like 'Paddington 24/7' are in here filming that they actually catch problems of this magnitude. The drama that is constructed about generally very minor incidents is nothing in comparison with the extraordinary work that goes into events like this and that so many people have no idea occurs. It's saddening when all of that effort is still met with suggestions that more could have been done (as per my two replies below). The day I last wrote a post finished with a Zoom call in the stairwell at 2345 briefing senior managers what the rough plan was that I had written that evening. Pleasingly it looks like the plan was of some use as it was mostly utilised on the Friday. It was a little ad hoc the following weekend but now we are working to a 'proper' train planning devised plan, albeit for a reduced number of units. Because I believe the ORR wanted to further inspect and understand why and how a fleet that 24hrs earlier was deemed not fit for traffic was going to be returned to service almost overnight. There was a requirement for the sign off paperwork to be inspected further and approval from higher up that no corners were being cut to save face and endanger passengers or staff. Whilst it may have taken many hours and many changes to have travelled Paddington - Plymouth that option was only available because a number of TOCs working together and talking to each other. If XC hadn't willingly offered up several units to run additional PLY-BPW services (which they did, even if you didn't see them) and the Swindon shuttle then it would have been much harder to have travelled anywhere on the GWML. XC couldn't have strengthened many more as most of their services were already running as pairs of Voyagers as they have been throughout the Covid timetable. Neville Hill conducting a powercar exam on an XC set then allowed the HST to stay on the Swindon circuit, preventing it from being a single Voyager. The single Voyager they had planned for the Swindon circuit was frequently full and standing, the 7 car HST made a real difference. Ticket acceptance was in place with AWC, Chiltern, XC (and initially I believe with LU as well) to try and get people moving. SWR were less willing as they felt they couldn't amend or strengthen their West of England services and thus didn't have the capacity. Bus ticket acceptance wasn't necessarily required in Cornwall as a very close to full service was run with additional West units covering for High Speed Services (having said that I don't know if ticket acceptance with First Kernow was asked for or not, it may well have been and they are usually very forthcoming and without issue). The 'come back later' approach as you call it surely is a necessity to prevent hideous overcrowding at a time when social distancing is still prevalent! You cannot welcome people onto the railway when you cannot provide a service, it has to be for essential journeys only and advising people not to travel. Loadings were high on a lot of GWR services and that was with asking people to stay away. There was/is no magic fleet of trains we can roll out for such rare instances as this, I really don't see what other option there is/was. Yes! Now trundling through to Bristol Parkway in service. Only 12 drivers sign route and traction at the moment which is a little bit of a challenge. Pencilled in until mid June at the moment. (Subject to change as has everything during this extraordinary event). The requirement is that 80/93 80X are required for service each day allowing Hitachi to maintain and tinker with 13 units each day. During the last covid timetable this was roughly a 60/20 split of units working passenger trains and spares available on depot at short notice to cover for failures etc. The 'full' timetable originally planned for launch in December '19 complete with superfast services etc clearly required a much higher proportion of those 80 units for service with only a handful of spares (say 75/5 or similar). The May timetable we were supposed to have just started was 90% of the December '19 timetable, still with the superfasts and a handful of other services omitted. I have no provisional date to even try and return to that level. The plan for the next few weeks is to run a service with 65 units a day. Today there were only 61 available. Well... it was. I was expecting 3x TPE 802s to arrive at some point. Then the advice changed again that actually some units might be allowed to return to traffic and that was shelved (along with any loco hauled ideas and 2+4s to Reading etc) TMS software is a big issue here. Every few weeks the fleet has a new version of the TMS updated, over a 3 day period when it happens you cannot attach two units with incompatible TMS versions, they have a hissy fit and won't work. It is said that this is why 800s and 802s cannot attach (which would be really useful sometimes). It is also because of the TMS that the original plan to be able to couple up units into 14 or 15 car formations cannot happen - the onboard systems are unable to monitor more than 10 engines (GUs technically) and so there is no fire protection in the rear vehicles. Units can be coupled for an emergency recovery and when that happens a competent person has to be in the rear vehicles to observe for fire purposes. It's quite a nuisance when it seems to the uneducated (myself) that it is just a computer issue, but those are the rules we have to play by! Yes, as above, 800/802s don't play well together. Although it has happened by accident a couple of times and a 5 car 800 and 5 car 802 did make a run from Oxford to Paddington to passenger service without any issues.

The ambition (and it is ambitious) would be to introduce a couple more ad hoc this evening, a wider plan tomorrow and a bigger plan from the weekend. I have my pen in hand writing some things out now... Priority today would be to get that turbo (166215) off the RDG-NWP circuit and try and strengthen 800009 so that there are 9/10 cars running around to help with passenger loadings.

Update expected by 1800 on up to 25 units for GWR. Writing and implementing a plan to go from 2 to 25 units overnight will be the biggest challenge. (From both a unit and a crew point of view.)

I am not saying plans and rules cannot be rewritten. I am saying that they will not be rewritten overnight (or anytime 'soon') and stock that is coming from elsewhere will arrive and will adhere to the current rules we are using until such a time as the people managing the train service are given new rules and guidelines to follow. I cannot expect or even hope for them to change and the suggestion that they will or might can only be speculation until it happens.

And '009 came into service late after striking a badger yesterday and needing a new skirt and cleaning. It's in traffic now. 800006 struck a deer and is definitely out for the rest of the day, it is hoped (with no clear idea yet) that it can be returned to service tomorrow. A 165 is out on the other diagram today but it is inevitably losing time with each journey (limited to 90mph). I don't think I know of anyone within GWR that has, quite probably only at director and senior manager level. Whilst there are a lot of crew about the resources managers are still scrambling around trying to cover the service. IET crews are working more 2+4 services or the 387s to/from Swindon. Swansea crew (who would generally be the booked crew on the South Wales services) lose a fair amount of time getting to Newport to work the shuttles to Reading and back. I admit i'm surprised there seems to be such a scramble but there is. They (Resources) are also trying to crew the plan for tomorrow and get individuals diagrams amended and get everyone in the right place. You wouldn't have thought running a two train shuttle would be so challenging, but it is. At the moment there is still a ban on having a second person in the cab at GWR - unless the driver agrees otherwise - and whilst trainee drivers are being put into bubbles with trainees there are still people declining this option or bubbles getting sick.

The last advice was 4 days per unit and up to 12 months to return the full fleet. With 387s and turbos currently providing the only GWR traction between Paddington and Reading there isn't currently a 125mph timetable that can be run. With 3 TPE 802s now anticipated to arrive this week they won't be going beyond Reading until there is some official ruling or guidance that supersedes the current rules that I have to adhere to!

Fair point! The 57s on the sleeper don't either. However any rolling stock that is due imminently to bolster the fleet (and I'm not talking about the C2C 387s) isn't likely to go beyond Reading and the reason stated has been because it isn't ATP fitted. I'm now trying to find what guidance I have for non ATP fitted stock on ATP fitted lines.

To paraphrase and quote sections of the document governing ATP: A train with defective ATP must not enter passenger service on any line fitted with ATP. (A train without ATP should be treated in this instance as defective) The affected cab is boxed in and a multi only restriction applied Maximum speed 100mph for all movements over ATP fitted lines, passenger, or ECS. Trains with defective ATP can be routed via non-ATP fitted lines (e.g. Relief Lines Hayes & Harlington to Didcot Parkway) and may remain in passenger service providing that all other in-cab systems are working normally. The consent of Network Rail must be obtained. To note, it is not permissible to send a passenger train with known defective ATP in the leading cab in passenger service from Reading towards London via the Relief Lines. So in short, no, it can't happen without a changing of the rules between GWR and Network Rail which I suspect is unlikely. As for where 2+4s can go that is much easier. The Statement of Compatibility (or SOC) governs that and as has been demonstrated with 387s to Swindon in passenger service this can potentially be changed very quickly. HSTs are already cleared in the sectional appendix, it is simply a matter of risk assessing the new locations for stepping distances, stopping locations etc.

Whilst some of this is presumably in jest - bringing in rakes of unusual trains will cause a problem in itself. At the moment the effort is to get trains in to move around passengers who are trying to go about their daily business (work or pleasure) and if we roll out novelty traction the trains are going to be full of enthusiasts everyday which I don't think really achieves the goal of trying to run a train service for Joe Public! There is a noticeable number of people out and about for the XC HST in the Swindon area, I can only imagine how that might be amplified if there were steam engines, 37s and other novelty traction!

A concession would need to be granted to run no PRM compliant stock on the network (such concessions existed for GWR 143s until Dec '20, EMR HSTs have one at the moment for slam door stock) - that's for any HSTs borrowed or hired in from someone else (I think EMR's stock would be the only ones). Or this potential additional 2+4 with slam doors at Laira. For sliding door modified stock like XC's and GWR's 2+4s only an amendment to the GWR safety paperwork which has assessed things like stepping distances to platforms and doesn't cover anywhere that GWR 2+4s currently run in service. If you borrow stock from elsewhere it probably won't be able to go to Paddington as it won't be ATP fitted (I'm thinking borrowed in HSTs again.)

Yes it was 800014 that failed. It depends what we define as a 'planned visit'. 1L18 was not originally planned to terminate at BPW and it should have worked 1B17 back out of Reading. Unfortunately 800014 is carrying a diesel only restriction at the moment and would not have been able to complete the diagram without running out of fuel. 1L18 was terminated at Bristol Parkway and slung onto Stoke Gifford for fuel. After fuelling it required a prep and during this a technician found cracks that they were not happy with and that was game over for '014. Planned that it was known at 0500 that it wouldn't have enough fuel for the day and the trip to depot was arranged but unplanned in that any passengers travelling would have expected 1L18 to run through to Reading! Whilst I know nothing concrete, the arrival of some mk3 HST stock and all Exeter and Plymouth crews being asked if they still signed HST slam door stock (as they are treated as different traction for crew knowledge purposes) it might be a fair assumption that a new 2+4 might be created to create another resource in Devon and Cornwall where there is now little to no room for failure amongst the GWR fleet. Perhaps 2+2 does equal 2+4? There are indeed some 387s on their way from C2C, 387301-306 are the numbers being bounced around. There was a hope that they could run under their own power onto the GWML today but I believe this is not possible because of a section of North Pole depot that they would have to traverse isn't energised. (My geography of track in London is poor though so I cannot verify that). Allegedly ROG have no 57s available to go and collect them and it may require GWR and 57306 to make a collection from East Ham. This would push their arrival back by a day or so and it isn't expected to see them in service before Thursday at the earliest. There are 3x short formed diagrams in the Thames Valley today to release enough units for 3x 12 car formations working an hourly SWI-DID-RDG-PAD service which started today. Interestingly the GWR paperwork that signed them off to work to Swindon appears to say they are approved for use through to Cardiff for the next few months. As for the XC HST - it is still on the SWI-BRI circuit today, it was expected to be swapped out so that the set that was at Neville Hill could end at Laira for powercar maintenance. I believe Neville Hill kindly did the exam so it may be the HST stays on the Swindon circuit all week. The 1030 BRI-SWI HST was well loaded this morning and it would be uncomfortable on a Voyager so I hope the HST stays. The yaw damper cracks and the lifting point cracks are two separate things. A number of units were stopped for yaw damper cracks over the last few weeks and the public wouldn't have really noticed (there was the odd shortformed service because of it) but the lifting point cracks are the pandemic that has shut the rest of the fleet down. But both sets of cracks are causing chaos together - there were 5 units cleared for traffic on Sunday that didn't have lifting point cracks, 2 were then stood down for yaw damper cracks. The situation is still incredibly fluid and one moment there's a suggestion there will be 47 units with a dispensation tomorrow and then it's 8 and then it's back to just '006 and '009 chugging around. The units that are abandoned at Exeter, Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford and Oxford are to be inspected over the next few days and a decision on where they can move and how fast they can go.

I don't know when the rhetoric will change but it probably ought to at some point. I suspect that PR will be last to hear about a lot of the plans as they keep changing. The plan and the route forward seems to change with every hour as new information emerges or another 800 is failed. There are now only two units on the Reading - Newport circuits, 800006 and 009. It is suggested each unit will take days to fix. If the fix can only be completed at heavy maintenance depots - North Pole and Stoke Gifford then that could clearly take a very long time to fix. I'm inclined to agree although I think there is probably some middle ground between saying that there will be disruption for a few days which gives a false impression that everything will be right by the weekend and saying that it is the end of the world and don't bother getting a train this side of Christmas.

There have been no 80X movements beyond the three units that are working RDG-NWP today. Nothing is cleared to move beyond the three units I mentioned last night. The services that have run have been 2+4s. 1A80 0815 Penzance - 'Paddington' ran to Plymouth with GW15 (2+4). All of the units that outstabled on Friday night at Oxford, Hereford, Exeter NY, Penzance, Gloucester* and two at Worcester are still stranded in those locations until a concession can be granted for one move to a depot. This might be at 5mph only(!) There is no clear answer as to what a fix is going to be or how long it will take. Worst case estimates suggest this might be going on for a very long time. Clearly it is still a very fluid situation, one moment GWR might have 47 units tomorrow and the next 8 and then the next it might just be the three that are chugging around at the moment. 387s can be seen doing training between Didcot and Swindon today and it is hoped that when a service can be run with these that it will be 12 car formations. Yaw Damper cracks are clearly still a problem, on Friday (when Joe Public wouldn't have been any the wiser) there were about half a dozen units stopped for yaw damper reps. When I last reported that GWR had five units this was subsequently dropped to three because of yaw damper cracks. To rub salt in the wounds one of those three units has a diesel only restriction and it will need to make a brief fuel stop today before coming back into traffic. Dark times and a very murky road ahead for all on the Western. *800021 was in service when the decision was made to stop the fleet and terminated at Gloucester pending inspection - which it failed.

GWR are now down to 3 out of 93 units; 800006/009/014. They will be deployed on Reading - Newport services tomorrow. Any further 80X coming good will be deployed ad hoc, ideally restoring some kind of service on the Berks & Hants (where there are no planned long distance services tomorrow). Additional 387s running Paddington - Didcot, guards are now being trained to run these to Swindon but this will not be before Tuesday and may slip to Wednesday at the earliest. Turbos on the North Cots running Oxford - Worcester shuttles. Turbo shuttle Swindon - Cheltenham. XC are running Bristol - Swindon shuttles to connect that corridor up. There's not a perfect pattern to it, starts as nearly two hourly, then hourly during the middle of the day. 387s to Newbury and a turbo shuttle between Newbury - Bedwyn. West of England operated by units/2+4s, same as today. Scotrail - Last I heard they had stopped a single 385/0 and a 385/1 with similar cracking concerns. A wider fleet inspection now due (this information is probably 20hrs old now). ************** As for the suggestion of 345s? The whole railway industry is aware of the plight of TOCs with 80X stock and particularly that of GWR. I am sure that conversations will have been had with MTR, or MTR have offered their assistance. As the current plans are workable with the number of 387s GWR have I am not sure how much use it would be covering GWR fast/semi fast services with 345s. Training up guards to work 387s to Swindon is a mammoth enough task without even thinking about where else you could feasibly run them to!

There won't be any novelty 2+4 workings for anyone to get excited about, certainly not tomorrow anyway. There is a plan written around something as small as about 10 80X units in traffic with services Paddington - Swansea, Paddington - Exeter, Swindon - Bristol shuttle. 2+4s will take the strain in Devon and Cornwall, 387s in the Thames Valley, Turbos on North Cots and West fleet Turbos/158s no doubt scattered about filling in where they can. I don't think a serious plan has even been assessed for the week, it has all been about figuring out what can and can't run with these cracks and then tearing apart the timetable for tomorrow. I have heard crackpot theories about 57s running everywhere, 2+4s running everywhere and LSL running trains all over the GWML. I have heard none of that seriously from internal sources. Clearly the sectional appendix might tell you 2+4s can run virtually anywhere but the Statement of Compatibility will tell you otherwise, they're cleared where they already run and virtually no further. Could 387s run beyond Didcot? Well there was one rumours about them being used as special event reliefs as far west as Cardiff so clearly the idea has been considered although you'd have to rush through a new method of working for those (as eluded - guard's on them etc). As for the 57s? Simply not enough crew to start running them all over the network plus they still have slam door stock which is regarded as the work of the devil these days and someone would presumably have to grant emergency dispensation for them to suddenly start running passenger services. I may well be proven wrong with a little bit of the theories above but I think at the moment suggestions these things are happening is little more than speculation! Resources et al are scrambling around desperately as it is to rehash crew to cover any amended plans without trying to plan up new and exotic solutions.

The last update I heard for the GWR units the problem was across both the 800 and 802 fleets and a really high percentage of units checked had issues. There were still over a dozen units still to be inspected. I'm not sure what time overnight the wider problem became apparent, certainly at 1900 there were no reports of the latest cracks and the fleet position was looking fairly settled for tomorrow with half a dozen sets stopped awaiting yaw damper reps. To get through today any 800s that have come good have been deployed to Swansea's, 802s to the West of England with some diverting via the likes of Swindon to provide some kind of a service and the odd service on the Pad/Bristol corridor thrown in too. Clearly there is going to be an impact well into next week as there are going to be a lot of sets to fix. There have been extra 387s out to cover as far as Didcot, turbos for the North Cots and a 158 doing Swindon - Cheltenham shuttles. XC have chipped in with an additional HST that ran/is running Plymouth to Bristol Parkway and back. Avanti have apparently been stuffed to the gunnels out of Euston but they're not running beyond Carlisle because of engineering work! As previously mentioned there seem to have been very few passengers around today which, compared to the reservation figures, suggests some people have (wisely) heeded the advice not to travel.

Whilst not impossible it's certainly a lot harder than it used to be to do the bit on the Great Western! Even a year ago a number of services between Bristol and Deon/Cornwall were units but most are now short HSTs or IETs. The difficulty is Taunton - Exeter. The Bristol 'local' services only cover as far as Taunton and to get you down to Exeter it's usually IETs/Voyagers. Today, for example, you could only have done it on two services; 2C07 0644 Bristol TM - Penzance (so you could clearly do it all the way on this) which was a pair of 158s and 2C97 23:06 Bristol TM - Exeter SD which is a turbo. Whilst there will be more services from the May TT I think most are short HSTs on the longer runs as the 150s are confined to branchlines and the 158s primarily running in Devon & Cornwall with moves up to Bristol really for exams and cycling of the fleet. Sorry, a bit off topic but I thought I'd chuck my two penneth into the theoretical challenge!

Admittedly I am still awaiting my pair so I cannot comment first hand on the speaker quality. I was considering purchasing a speaker upgrade but after watching several videos on the factory speaker to try and get an idea of its quality I actually thought it sounded like one of the best factory fitted speakers out there. But shouldn't the 20 in comparison sound a bit feeble? The EM2 is great for that deep bass-y rumble on a 37 and (to me) 20s don't have that at all, it's much more high pitch and - I can't think of the right word here - airy/feeble. I agree that I am expecting even more from that company's 37s but I am hoping I won't be disappointed with the Bachmann speaker! Al

A Western in Foster Yeoman?! I find other people's 'what ifs' fascinating - in a good way! The creativity and inspiration. Really looking forward to seeing how it turns out, it looks magnificent so far. Al