No concrete evidence for this but I suspect cases of short forms will be more prevalent away from the London Bristol route over the next two and a half weeks as every effort is made to ensure maximum capacity for Bath Christmas market which started today. 

 

Gobsmacked - was that schedule to be an IET?   No reason why not, of course, as far as Westbury but the idea of holding a hand out to stop an IET at Dilton Marsh is surreal

 
I hope you meant "...badly needs replacing."?

 
I have been reminded of my original post, on another topic here - simply because of its ongoing topicality. Those major infrastructure problems won't go away with Great British Railways, nor any of Rachel Reeves' Budget announcements :


This is clearly an area of concern (understatement?) to our members and readers of the Coffee Shop forum, in terms of their experiences of travelling on the railways in our wider area.

While starting this topic (in preparation), may I also reassure all of our members that their ongoing contributions to this, and indeed any other topic, will continue to be very welcome.

Chris from Nailsea.

 

Same problem from last month's discussion

 

I understand that according to Colin Maggs' 1975 book 'The Bristol Port Railway and Pier', the line was indeed built to standard guage, rather than broad. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the structures weren't built to accommodate broad guage track... and the viaduct does look to be generously-porportioned. But it seems likely that it would need to be refurbished if the line were to be redoubled.

This isn't really the point though; the question is whether the line could be redoubled without the need to acquire land. The answer to that is probably, for the most part, 'yes' - with the exception being around stations which would, as you say, need to be rebuilt to be accessible with two platforms.

The WECA plan to make Narroways Jct a double lead junction would allow a 3 tph service on the Severn Beach line. Questions have been asked about how resilient a service this would allow, however. But for a true metro-style service, 4 tph is required - and it's hard to see that being achieved without doubling all the way from Narroways to Clifton Down.

This would require reinstating second platforms at Redland and Montpelier. At Redland this may be achievable without costly lifts; Montpelier on its hillside site could be a harder nut to crack.


Yes, the state of Sea Mills Viaduct appears, to the layman's eye, shocking - rusty bits of it are falling into the mud!

 
Delays to services between London Paddington and Reading

Due to a safety inspection of the track between London Paddington and Reading trains have to run at reduced speed on some lines.

Train services running to and from these stations may be delayed by up to 15 minutes. Disruption is expected until 18:00 27/11.

 
As well as the previous noted items, the bridge over the port entrance at Sea Mills needs replacing badly.

 

The reports (from last month) say it's run time from new, so the whole fleet is potentially affected. The cure is simple enough - replace every fuel pump. But it's not quick, as the GU has to be dropped for access, so only a few can be done per day. The other issue is that if a pump's innards disintegrate before the replacement happens, bits can end up in places in the engine where they cause further damage.

 
Administrator explanation:

Several subsequent posts on this topic went off at a bit of a tangent, discussing the possibility of redoubling the Cheltenham Road Viaduct in Bristol.

Those posts have been split off and moved to our 'Bristol (WECA) Commuters' board, to form their own topic, at https://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=31161.0

Hope this helps, in the interests of clarity. CfN.

 
27.11.2025



Is there a GW service that fails to reach it's intended end of journey as often as 1W02?

 
Any suggestions why it's happening now - what's changed?

 
Reports appearing that GWR IETs are having problems with the fuel pumps on the Generating Units.
This is affecting numerous units

https://x.com/cmpd_date/status/1993100923288404229?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

https://x.com/gordondudman/status/1994021321836032219?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

https://x.com/chimewhistle/status/1993707713839485201?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

 

Apologies too for thread drift. AFAIK Cheltenham Road Viaduct is double-track as-built (standard not broad gauge). Assuming it's structurally sound, the problem is that if you redouble, you have to rebuild Montpelier and Redland stations which will mean lifts etc. and I suspect £10m+ each by the time you are done (not to mention they are tight sites very close to housing). IIRC, there is a plan being progressed by WECA and NR to redouble up to (St Andrews?) tunnel east of Montpelier Station with a revised junction onto the mainline which would give a significant capacity uplift for less money and minimal disruption.

 

If so, let's hope TFW looked after them better than the 175s. Or are they coming for cannibalising for spares?

 

It probably does: I'll look into that this afternoon. CfN.

 

No


No


No - none of the above.  For all my negative responses, good serious discussions with GWR 10 days ago on how to deal with these circumstances.  I do agree that cancellations shouldn't happen in the first place.   If on-the-day announced cancellations including "false" ones could be reduced from the 14% they were early this month prior to the GWR meeting,  the problem would be far less.   Better to treat the disease rather than the symptoms, though the worst effects of the symptoms need to be looked after.

 

I would guess it would be cheaper to reopen half the platform, as a bay facing Melksham, than create a loop.

Wouldn't be as flexible as three platforms where centre one is used for reversing trains, or as a long reversible freight loop.

At the moment the crossovers at Thingley Junction don't allow trains to depart for Melksham and Bath as parallel moves (actually it can be done, but I think the mainline train needs to continue wrong normal line to Bathampton currently, so can only happen if nothing is coming from Bath for about 15 minutes)

 

Five cars, according to RTT.  As I type this, the train is approaching its Oxford stop.  Hopefully, the passenger load will thin out a bit, and the journey over The Cotswolds will be less uncomfortable

Crowded with people fleeing Rachel's budget?

 
15 150s in use today. There's no spares although talk of TFW 150s coming.
Strangely on the Devon metro today there are no 158s. Seven turbos (one 2 car) operating. One two car 150 cancelled from Paignton. Two 150s being used on the busiest train from Barnstaple.

 
What's your suggestion then? Don't cancel it until being sure around an hour from time of service?

Don't mention it at all (until it doesn't set off from origin, just to be ultra-sure?

(Don't cancel it in the first place would be obvious suggestion, but sometimes it has to happen)

 
Modern Railways says that the Castles are definitely finished, and any lack of 175s will be made up with 150s

 
With apologies for continuing the thread drift (does this warrant its own topic? Not sure...) Cheltenham Road Viaduct does look to be reasonably capacious (see Google Maps image). Clause 18 of The Great Western and Midland Railways (Clifton and Bristol) Act of 1871 implies that part or all of the line was originally built to broad guage, so I suspect they at least allowed for this - even though the iron spans of the bridge were cast in Derby, which suggests the contract may have been let by the Midland.

 
Comments on Twitter/X about the 175s

https://x.com/chimewhistle/status/1993967812826518010?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

https://x.com/chimewhistle/status/1993964158002274622?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

https://x.com/chimewhistle/status/1993810490515190092?s=61&t=VlafMC5gF9tidw36b1Y8JQ

 
Excellent meeting and networking last night


Slide set shared for members at https://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/GWR_Transport_Integration_WWRUG_261125.pdf

 
Last night I travelled on the 21:22 from Trowbridge to Melksham after the West Wiltshire Rail User Group meeting.    That was the same train that I caught home from the previous meeting which was in September, but that night the train had been  announced as cancelled on JourneyCheck and other systems and only re-instated late on.    15 passengers when we left Trowbridge last night - not a lot, but three times the five passengers on that day in September.   So evidence confirming that JourneyCheck and the various electronic systems do reach people and send them away, and that phantom cancellations really do damage the customer base.  I understand that trains cancelled and re-instated do not show up on industry stats so presumably the TOC is not sanctioned for poor performance in any way.