Westbury-Southampton Locals, Brighton summer services

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

The following comment is from someone who read the article in last week's Bath Chronicle about the service provided by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in the Bath area. It does ask a very important question for passengers who use the local stoppers between Westbury-Southampton, particularly those who travel to/from Dilton Marsh and Warminister:

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163490&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163316&contentPK=17135670&folderPk=89126&pNodeId=163047

What about local trains between Salisbury and Westbury? My family uses these services on a regular basis but they are due to be cut from December. We should join forces with Melksham passengers with whom our service used to be joined and oppose this blatant attempt at spin by First Great Western. Don Foster should not fall for this either.

My question is does anyone know what FGW intend to do with the local stopping service between Westbury-Southampton once SWT^▸ (South West Trains) take over the route between Salisbury and Southampton in December? Will SWT run some trains onto Westbury to fill the gap left by FGW?

I suspect it will be axed as FGW lose even more rolling stock to Northern come December but this will mean that Warminster will lose these local stopping services leaving it with just one two car train an hour. Dilton Marsh will have virtually no trains at all unless Cardiff-Portsmouth services stop there making this service even more of a local stopper than it already is. Was a time when under the Express branding that it was quite a fast service between Cardiff and the South Coast.

Slightly off topic but on this route nonetheless. FGW have posted the new Summer timetables on their website which shows that they have axed the two extra summer Saturday services between Cardiff/Bristol and Brighton - 07:00 ex Cardiff, 10:40 ex Bristol and 11:57, 14:57 ex Brighton to Bristol. This leaves just the same weekday service pattern of one departure from Cardiff and two from Brighton. Surely there was demand for these services??? Upto now not a lot has been said about this as its been kept fairly quiet. Im sure FGW will say they need the stock that ran these services to boost the Cardiff Portsmouth/Weymouth services now they are all two car again.

[whistleblower]

You make some interesting points there about both routes, Timmer. I have no inside information about plans for the routes but I work on them regularly and can make informed observations.  I imagine the draft timetable will reveal the plans but may well be adapted before finalisation.

My personal feeling is that a stopping service South of Salisbury is a luxury that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) cannot afford with limited rolling stock.  We carry a lot of people between Warminster/Dilton Marsh and Salisbury but then most leave and the train fills up with a fresh load for Dean, Dunbridge, Romsey and Southampton.  This is really SWT^▸ (South West Trains) territory and SWT should be serving those stations.  In fact it is Southern Region South of Warminster but the natural overlap is to Salisbury.  Personally I would like to see hourly stopping Salisbury-Bristol services to replace the Cardiff-Southampton.  That would make more sense and free up a couple of units.

The Brighton is a similar problem and ties up more units duplicating Southern Region services.  Cardiff-Brighton-Cardiff ties up one unit for 9 hours so it's a big investment.  To Cosham it runs the same route as the Cardiff-Portsmouth and then along the West Coastway (Portsmouth-Brighton) which is already very well served by new 10 coach electric trains - far better than our 2 coach diesels.  So the only market we're serving is through-passengers who don't fancy changing trains.  They make up about 15 to 20% of the total number and are generally travelling on cheap leisure tickets so not generating much profit.  The profit is generated by local traffic on this route which is shared with SWT and Southern.  Apart from tying up a train for most of the day, the FGW service is a class 1 express with limited stops but most of the trains around its slot are stoppers.  It only takes one to be delayed and the FGW service has to follow it through all the stops for miles and miles and it is quite common to be delayed up to half an hour by the time it turns off.  And you have still only covered a third of your journey!

If the Brighton was dropped altogether it would release several units to strengthen the Portsmouths, release traincrew and the only inconvenience for those few passengers would be to change at Fareham. Same platform so not much hassle.  I suspect that the only reason we run to Brighton is for the shared revenue, but the hassle and use of the units must make it finely balanced.

[Timmer]

Yes I agree Whistleblower, an hourly Salisbury-Bristol service would be the ideal even two hourly as it roughly is at present, alternating with the Weymouths at Westbury then going through to Bristol/Cardiff. Who knows thats maybe what is being planned which would mean any passengers going onto to stations to Southampton could change onto a SWT^▸ (South West Trains) stopper at Salisbury. A sensible solution one would hope will happen.

Regards the extra summer saturday Brighton services, I concede running them was a luxury on a route which as you say is already well catered for by Southern. I have done Brighton to Bath changing at Fareham and it works fine, again as you say same platform so if you are a holidaymaker heading to Brighton no need to carry luggage up and down flights of stairs to another platform. AND if it means extra coaches on busy summer Saturday Weymouth and Portsmouth services then that is a good thing.

Did I see somewhere once that SWT are planning to run extra services between Bristol-Waterloo from the December timetable? I could be wrong.

[Jim]

The profit is generated by local traffic on this route which is shared with SWT^▸ (South West Trains) and Southern.  Apart from tying up a train for most of the day, the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service is a class 1 express with limited stops but most of the trains around its slot are stoppers.  It only takes one to be delayed and the FGW service has to follow it through all the stops for miles and miles and it is quite common to be delayed up to half an hour by the time it turns off.  And you have still only covered a third of your journey!

If the Brighton was dropped altogether it would release several units to strengthen the Portsmouths, release traincrew and the only inconvenience for those few passengers would be to change at Fareham. Same platform so not much hassle.  I suspect that the only reason we run to Brighton is for the shared revenue, but the hassle and use of the units must make it finely balanced.

I remember on the 31s, we allways used to get held up by a stopper all the way to Havent then normally lost our path at Soton!

Correct (well you should know ) the Passenger flow from Brighton who pay 'normal fares' do normally get off by Soton, or Salisbury at the very least

[Lee]

Here is a summary of some of the relevant service options that were considered by the technical advisers who assisted the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) with drawing up the Greater Western Franchise specification. To read the full reports click on the links below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103

http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/bristolroute

From the Outline Business Case Report :

RPC Proposals

The Rail Passengers^ Council (West of England) has recently undertaken a study to inform their aspirations for the Cardiff to Portsmouth and Weymouth route. We have translated the full RPC proposals into a timetable specification for evaluation. These include:

^ Hourly limited stop service between Cardiff and Portsmouth
^ Hourly semi fast service between Bristol and Southampton
^ Hourly stopping service Bristol to Frome, extended two hourly to Weymouth
^ Two hourly Swindon to Westbury shuttle.

The package of service improvements encapsulated in this proposal would lead to a substantial user and non-user benefit (^24 million NPV). However this option would require two additional 2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) units, and an increase in train miles, this leads to a substantial increase in costs over the base case. The benefits of this option are not sufficient to outweigh this high cost.

Recommendation

Reject

Combine Cardiff ^ Portsmouth and Bristol ^ Southampton Trains

In this proposal the Bristol and Westbury to Southampton off-peak local services are withdrawn. The service at Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge is then provided by Cardiff to Portsmouth services making additional calls.

The adoption of this option would leads to a drop in revenue that is almost equivalent to the cost saving which could be achieved. Therefore the small financial gain this option would provide is not sufficient to counter balance the loss of benefits accruing to users of Bristol and Westbury to Southampton off-peak local services

Recommendation

Reject

Withdraw Lightly Used Station^s train provision

Our analysis has revealed very low usage at Melksham, Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge. The specification reduces calls at these stations to become peak only. This has enabled some reduction in train mileage.

Although analysis has shown very low usage at Melksham, Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge the reduction of calls at these stations to become peak only leads to a fairly substantial drop in user benefits. (^10 million NPV). This option enables some reduction in train mileage but makes no resource savings as unit are still required to provide a peak service. The combination of these factors leads to a slight worsening in economic terms resulting from this option.

Recommendation

Progress to next stage of development/ evaluation: It was agreed that a ^blank sheet^ approach should be taken to optimising the services on the more lightly used stations on the Portsmouth and Weymouth lines

Withdraw Lightly Used station^s train provision

As a further test, in this option we remove calls from Dilton Marsh, Dean and Dunbridge (with the exception of one ^parliamentary service^) and speed up trains. On the Swindon to Westbury / Southampton axis all train services are withdrawn with the exception of one peak return trip between Westbury and Swindon.

Compared to 6.2.1a above the cost reduction and the revenue, user and non-user disbenefits of this scheme all decrease. The scheme still presents a negative economic case (-^1.4m) and the cost: benefit ratio at 1.2 is broadly similar to 6.2.1a.

Recommendation

Progress to next stage of development/ evaluation As 6.2.1a

Withdraw Brighton Services

In this option the through services between Bristol and Brighton are withdrawn and train mileage saved.

Although this option saves 1 class 158 diagram, half of this cost saving is negated by a significant drop in revenue following the withdrawal of through services between Bristol Brighton. This option also leads to a significant drop in user benefits (-^13 million annual NPV) and non-user benefits (-^3 million NPV).

Recommendation

Reject

Additional Services to Brighton

One additional service will operate to Brighton operated as a portion of a Cardiff to Portsmouth train.

The addition of these two services (One additional service to Brighton operated as a portion of a Cardiff to Portsmouth train and an additional Brighton ^ Portsmouth & Southsea) requires no additional resources this coupled with only a modest increase in train miles leads to a low overall cost. The user and non-user benefits outweigh this small cost. However this proposal is not operationally feasible without significant retiming of Southern and SWT^▸ (South West Trains) service. Given the improvement in economic terms is only slight it is not recommended that this option is pursued due to the operational difficulties.

Recommendation

Progress to next stage of development/ evaluation

Extension of 2tpd Bristol ^ Southampton Local Services to Bournemouth

The specification calls for the extension of two Southampton terminating services to Bournemouth to test the market for new through services.

Owing to a combination of existing train services and long signalling sections, there is only one spare throughout path available between Southampton and Bournemouth. The Bristol to Southampton paths do not meet with this available path and therefore it is the Swindon trains that have been extended.

Due to operational constraints Swindon-Southampton trains were extended to Bournemouth for this option. The demand for a service of this type is modest and very low user and non-user benefits result from this option.

Recommendation

Reject

Melksham Service Reduced to 1 Train Per Day

The Melksham route service is operated primarily for the peak flow between West Wiltshire and Swindon. This market is served by one round trip daily and this is the historic level of service provided as required by the PSR^▸ (Permanent Speed Restriction). In this option the Melksham services that operate over and above this level are withdrawn including the extensions towards Southampton where those extensions are above the PSR.

No units are saved by this service change and therefore the cost saving from this option is provided by a decrease in vehicle hours and miles. There is an annual loss of revenue of ^2 million and a relatively significant drop in user benefits overall these factors outweigh the modest potential cost saving to result in an worsening in economic terms.

Financial gain (NPV +^3m) and economic loss (NPV -^2m) Benefit cost ratio of retention 1.38. Conclusion: Progress to next stage. Potential gain to efficiencies through interworking with Stroud line to be evaluated (this is effectively what happened in December 2006 , with massively inconvenient timings as a result.)

Swindon ^ Westbury ^ Southampton Frequency Increased to Two-Hourly

Without a complete re-cast of the Bristol / Swindon timetable it is not possible to create a strict two-hourly timetable. In this option we have therefore added two round trips between Swindon and Southampton that close the principal gaps in the service pattern.

Although the level of service tested in this option requires only one additional class 153 diagram this is not counterbalanced by the benefits resulting from this option which are low due to low demand for the services provided.

Recommendation

Reject

[Lee]

From the detailed evaluation report :

Option B1a Cardiff - Southampton services cut back to Westbury

This option tests the value of the Cardiff to Southampton services on the section south of Westbury where demand is known to be lightest. All GW^▸ (Great Western) services are cut back to Westbury with Dilton Marsh continuing to be served by certain Cardiff to Portsmouth trains. Dunbridge and Dean are then served by the extension of SWT^▸ (South West Trains) Totton - Romsey trains in alternate hours to Salisbury and calling at these stations. This extension also provides a new direct link between Salisbury and Eastleigh / Southampton Airport offering new through journey opportunities (a version of this will be implemented south of Salisbury from December 2007.)

This option provides a material economic net disbenefit, with a similar reduction in subsidy requirement from mileage reduction albeit there would be no reduction in rolling stock resources. The option is therefore rejected as inferior to option B1d.

Option B1b. As Option B1a but with SWT extended to Salisbury 3 times only in each direction

This option is as Option B1a but tests a reduced quantum of SWT extensions to Salisbury.

This option provides a material economic net disbenefit, with a better saving in subsidy that option B1a but again there would be no reduction in rolling stock resources which limits the financial savings available. The option is therefore rejected as inferior to option B1d.

B1c. Most Cardiff - Southampton services are cut back to run between Cardiff and Westbury only

This option tests running three Cardiff to Southampton return trips without extension of any SWT services beyond Romsey.

Option B1d. Most Cardiff - Southampton services are cut back to run between Cardiff and Westbury only. 0700 Cardiff ^ Southampton withdrawn to save one diagram

This builds on option B1c with the withdrawal of the remaining Cardiff to Westbury portion of the 0700 Cardiff Central to Southampton saving one class 150 diagram. The additional changes beyond this are required to maintain reasonable service frequencies at Severn Tunnel Jn, Patchway and Bradford-On-Avon

This option outperforms the other B1 options considered. It delivers a positive economic case and substation subsidy reduction as a result of enabling the escapement of one Class 150 unit diagram. This option is recommended for progression.

B2 options: provision of through services to Brighton

Three options have been developed and assessed and the recommendation is to implement none of these i.e. to retain the existing through service provision.

Option B2a. All Cardiff / Bristol - Brighton services withdrawn

This option tests the value of operating through services between Cardiff, Bristol and Brighton by withdrawing the services.

The case for retaining through Brighton services from Bristol would appear to be relatively strong (BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) 2.56). We recommend rejection of this option.

Option B2b. All Cardiff / Bristol - Brighton services withdrawn and replaced by portions off Cardiff to Portsmouth services

This option reduces the costs of the through Brighton services by their operation as portions of Cardiff to Portsmouth trains detached / attached at Fareham.

This option has been rejected on operational feasibility grounds, as no suitable paths exist on the route between Havant and Brighton.

Option B2c. All Cardiff / Bristol - Brighton services withdrawn and replaced by a Swindon to Brighton service operating in marginal time

This option provides a significant economic net disbenefit, and is rejected on economic grounds (BCR of retention 2.35).

Some off-peak Westbury - Swindon trains run in marginal time

This option tests re-instating an off-peak train service over the Melksham route which is assumed withdrawn in the Straw Man by operating services as far south as Westbury only and in marginal time using the peak unit diagram.

This option is recommended for inclusion in the timetable specification (but wasnt.)

B10 options: retiming evening Melksham line service

These two options explore whether retiming the evening peak Melksham line train from Swindon either earlier or later to enable an additional evening peak service to operate from Bristol Temple Meads on the Westbury line. Neither option is recommended.

Option B10a. Additional evening peak train between Bristol and Warminster provided by retiming Swindon - Westbury train earlier

This option tests the value of operating an additional evening peak train from Bristol to Warminster in marginal time by retiming the evening train from Swindon to Westbury earlier.

We do not recommend that this option be progressed.

Option B10b. Additional evening peak train between Bristol and Frome provided by retiming Swindon - Westbury train later

This option tests the value of operating an additional evening peak train from Bristol to Frome in marginal time by retiming later the afternoon train from Swindon to Westbury.

We do not recommend that this option be progressed.

Question from me to Peter West (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) on the Dilton Marsh specification from December 2007 :

"In effect , you are saying that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will be obligated to provide five  services each way on Monday - Fridays (plus the service from Portsmouth  Harbour specified in paragraph 2.1(e) of section F1) ,  five services each way on Saturdays and four services each way on Sundays that call at Dilton Marsh from December 2007 (a substansially cut service from now.)

Why is the Saturday service specification being reduced?"

Reply :

"The reason is that the Saturday increase for the one year compared to the original number of services in the SLC2 was a consequence of the way in which increased Dean/Dunbridge services were defined in drafting terms by colleagues who wrote the revised SLC2 drafting."

This leads me to conclude that the following analysis by Graham Ellis may well be correct (link below.)
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2074.msg4939#msg4939

"Further cuts come this December in Wiltshire. The service level from Westbury to Salisbury has been somewhat above the service level specification this year due to a last-minute add on for the year.  When that goes, Dilton Marsh looses most of its service and it WOULD go below specification ... except that (as I understand it) a couple of Bristol to Westbury trains will be extended to Warminster to ensure that the specification is met. "Where there's a train that has a layover in Westbury" was what my contact said, so I expect that the extra trains will be timed to meet the specification at the operator's convenience rather than when the customers want them.  I hope to be proven wrong."

[grahame]

From the detailed evaluation report :

Some off-peak Westbury - Swindon trains run in marginal time

This option tests re-instating an off-peak train service over the Melksham route which is assumed withdrawn in the Straw Man by operating services as far south as Westbury only and in marginal time using the peak unit diagram.

This option is recommended for inclusion in the timetable specification (but wasnt.)

[snip]

Option B10b. Additional evening peak train between Bristol and Frome provided by retiming Swindon - Westbury train later

This option tests the value of operating an additional evening peak train from Bristol to Frome in marginal time by retiming later the afternoon train from Swindon to Westbury.

We do not recommend that this option be progressed.

"This option is recommended for inclusion" but it wasn't

"We do not recommend that this option be progressed" but it was

Two decisions to go against what a pessimistic expert's report recommended, both to the serious detriment of the Swindon to West Wilts service.  One has to wonder if there was some sort of ulterior motive behind these reversals .... why pay for an expert's report if you're going to go against it, and why go against it in this patterned way. Did someone want to provide a service that was vestigial and would fail?

[tramway]

Without wishing to prempt my comments to the Chronicle article, surely the Jacobs report is in complete contradiction to the WSP report given to the Government Office for the South West, who also used the NATA and GOMMMS methodology on their proposals and with a conclusion in section 6 of the report which states..."However the study acknowledges that measures must also be promoted that combat the environmental damage being caused by cars and HGVs within the study area and to assist with more sustainable transpost solutions. Measures must therefore encourage and influence travel by other modes."

Two different consultants and two different conclusions. So where are the differences in approach, were Jacobs unduly constrained by a rigid application of the assessment methodologies, (or asked not to look at scope for growth as NEG had done admirably) DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) get the answer they payed for.

Interesting comment under their growth calculations.

"Specifically each option has been mapped to the appropriate Origin-Destination growth rates (weighted by 2002/3 volumes) in the table to arrive at a suitable annual growth figure for each option. Note that for Peak service options, season ticket growth was used rather than overall growth."

I take it it's this comment that you refer to Graham re using old figures. From my own observations season tickets I don't believe are that predominant at peak times, and I'm unsure as to how that might be a real indicator to passenger growth in the Wessex region, especialy given the increase in housing in the foreseable future. How many Melksham passengers were season ticket holders during the past 2 years?

[Lee]

You make some interesting points there about both routes, Timmer. I have no inside information about plans for the routes but I work on them regularly and can make informed observations.  I imagine the draft timetable will reveal the plans but may well be adapted before finalisation.

My personal feeling is that a stopping service South of Salisbury is a luxury that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) cannot afford with limited rolling stock.  We carry a lot of people between Warminster/Dilton Marsh and Salisbury but then most leave and the train fills up with a fresh load for Dean, Dunbridge, Romsey and Southampton.

Whistleblower - Can you give us a rough idea of passenger numbers on these trains?

[Jim]

I still think it was ludicrous that they replaced the Cardiff - W-s-M/Taunton/Devon/Cornwalls with another Wiltshire service! I & others think they only did this so they get less passengers on most the route. As by Trowbridge the Portsmouth bound service has made up 23 mins from the 30 min difference from Cardiff, so everyone would normally get on the faster service, however most of the stoppers are well loaded as far as far as Westbury, where the fast overtakes (or in most cases provides a direct service) then the Portsmouths will naturally win over passengers. In the old timetable, the services were about 30 mins apart for the whole journey, which meant they were well loaded & generally you did get nearly a 153 loading, which wasn't bad.

Another good thing about the old timetable, was if say Westbury went up the spout, Cardiff would not loose all it's Bath services, I also think it is ridiculous letting a unit sit at 'B442' (Filton Reversing Siding basically) waiting to go to W-s-M. I do think the old setup was a lot better. The other good thing was when Swindons ran, they ran when Weymouths ran, so there were normally connections at Westbury & they were always held! R.I.P the Wessex Timetable!

[tramway]

Sorry Jim but things have to move on, yes NEG had built up a workable schedule based on what they had, but it was no basis for going forward.

It was holding point at best and as the reports recognised there was going to have to be a fundamnetal shift in the area if things were to progress. As far as I can tell Jacobs were employed to rubbish all prospect of future growth for rail in the West of England, which they seem to have done spectacularly well.

No 11 seem to have no interest in anything but the bottom line, never mind what the talking heads say about green issues, and access to all modes of transport. But buy the petrol, and pay the tax is all Gordon's interested in for those of us who don't stand for 70 mins going into London.

[Jim]

Sorry Jim but things have to move on, yes NEG had built up a workable schedule based on what they had, but it was no basis for going forward.

Very true! Hopefully December will bring some changes for the good, although it does look like FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have tried with the new May timetable.

[Lee]

It was holding point at best and as the reports recognised there was going to have to be a fundamnetal shift in the area if things were to progress. As far as I can tell Jacobs were employed to rubbish all prospect of future growth for rail in the West of England, which they seem to have done spectacularly well.

Did you know that the person who reviewed and approved the Jacobs reports , David Bradshaw , used to work for Great Western? (link below.)
http://www.jacobsconsultancy.co.uk/key_staff_DBradshaw.shtml

As you can see from the link above , he has been involved in several other rather interesting Jacobs projects as well.

[whistleblower]

You make some interesting points there about both routes, Timmer. I have no inside information about plans for the routes but I work on them regularly and can make informed observations.  I imagine the draft timetable will reveal the plans but may well be adapted before finalisation.

My personal feeling is that a stopping service South of Salisbury is a luxury that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) cannot afford with limited rolling stock.  We carry a lot of people between Warminster/Dilton Marsh and Salisbury but then most leave and the train fills up with a fresh load for Dean, Dunbridge, Romsey and Southampton.

Whistleblower - Can you give us a rough idea of passenger numbers on these trains?

Sorry Lee, I've only just spotted your question.  It's difficult to give figures because at the moment there are so many trains serving Warminster - Salisbury with both the Southamptons and Portsmouths covering the route.  The only difference is Dilton Marsh on the stoppers.  During peak hours you might get four or five getting on (or off) each train at Dilton going to Bath, Bristol or Salisbury, but off peak it's 50/50 whether you get anybody at all.  Off peak travellers will often be short distance - to Warminster or Westbury with the occasional Bath or Salisbury cheap day return.

Peak hour trains probably each pick up an average of 40 or 50 travelling from Warminster to Salisbury and then back in the evening.  Then there is a later evening rush southbound with leisure travellers having a night out in Salisbury.  Probably 50 on a Friday or Saturday.  About half of them come back on the train, the rest by taxi.  As there is virtually no difference between a single and a cheap day return, that makes no difference to the revenue.  I would say that the route shows a good profit.

The other big time is weekends with dozens of shoppers from Warminster divided between going north to Bath or south to Salisbury.  Hope this helps.

[Lee]

Thanks for that. You mention specifics regarding Dilton Marsh , what about Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge?

Also , you may be interested in the link below.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2157.msg5057#msg5057

"Yesterday evening I arrived at Southampton Central to go home on the 22.22 only to find that the platform indicated was "bus."  This train also takes in Dunbridge and Dean on the way.  The bus turned up, took a circumlocutous route to Romsey, missed out D & D and arrived in Salisbury about 23.20.  No one at Southampton knew the reason - does anyone know?"