South Western Railways Waterloo - Bristol services axed

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Typos (so far) corrected and uploaded. Thanks

[Mark A]

Taxpayer to continue to underwrite the Heathrow to Newquay (Cornwall) route. Wonder if the aircraft as it passes West Wiltshire, is in range of a camera.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1462799121413246983

(Delighted to announce we have reached an agreement to keep funding direct flights from London to @Newquay_Airport – part of maintaining crucial regional transport links which help to level up the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) )

[broadgage]

Well that will certainly help to level up the carbon emissions

If the railway was better, then demand for domestic air travel would be reduced.

[grahame]

And at https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1462799123648815104

Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP^▸ (Member of Parliament)
@grantshapps

12h
In another boost for regional connectivity, I have also committed another two years funding for the London-Dundee route Airplane departure

! could not resist a reply:

And in another example of levelling down regional connectivity, you are AXING the London to Trowbridge and beyond railway route,  @grantshapps - see https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/598397

[TaplowGreen]

Taxpayer to continue to underwrite the Heathrow to Newquay (Cornwall) route. Wonder if the aircraft as it passes West Wiltshire, is in range of a camera.

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1462799121413246983

(Delighted to announce we have reached an agreement to keep funding direct flights from London to @Newquay_Airport – part of maintaining crucial regional transport links which help to level up the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) )

To be fair (and a far more relevant comparison in this context), the taxpayer has been underwriting the Night Riviera sleeper for years.

[broadgage]

I dont mind government subsidy for the Night Riveria, or indeed trains in general. The sleeper is almost certainly greener* than flying or driving.

I am opposed to subsidy for airlines, airports, and related goods or services, unless there is some truly exceptional reason. I would reluctantly accept subsidy for air services to remote islands not otherwise accessible for example. but to Aberdeen, Newquay, or other places on the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) mainland, no way.

If we are serious about climate change then we need to fly a LOT less, and should NOT be offering subsidies that encourage more flying.

*As regards the sleeper in particular, rather than trains in general, then the sleeper presumably uses more fuel per passenger  than does a daytime train since a given length and weight of train conveys fewer passengers, this being only partially offset by the lower speed.
That however does not tell the whole story. Air travel often involves a night in an airport hotel as well as the flight.
So the fuel used by the sleeper should be compared with the jet fuel AND the fuel used by the hotel.

Also the train will get greener as electrification spreads, eventually.

[Lee]

I dont mind government subsidy for the Night Riveria, or indeed trains in general. The sleeper is almost certainly greener* than flying or driving.

I think also that it shouldn't be forgotten that when the government of the day tried to axe the Night Riviera in 2005/2006, there was a huge groundswell of opposition, to an extent rarely seen in rail consultations (remember those?), and it does appear to be one of those rail services that the public not only want to retain, but they have a genuine affection for as well.

[TaplowGreen]

I dont mind government subsidy for the Night Riveria, or indeed trains in general. The sleeper is almost certainly greener* than flying or driving.

I think also that it shouldn't be forgotten that when the government of the day tried to axe the Night Riviera in 2005/2006, there was a huge groundswell of opposition, to an extent rarely seen in rail consultations (remember those?), and it does appear to be one of those rail services that the public not only want to retain, but they have a genuine affection for as well.

I'm sure the case can be made for the Night Riviera subsidy and similarly I can't imagine that the good people of Cornwall (or their MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)) would exactly be turning cartwheels of joy if they were to lose their air links to London either, particularly post Brexit.

[Timmer]

Sorry to be the harbinger of doom. Here’s the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) Waterloo to Exeter December timetable with a part missing 
https://www.southwesternrailway.com/plan-my-journey/~/media/e10a740ad24d42a0bb38e693050fcd03.ashx

[broadgage]

I'm sure the case can be made for the Night Riviera subsidy and similarly I can't imagine that the good people of Cornwall (or their MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)) would exactly be turning cartwheels of joy if they were to lose their air links to London either, particularly post Brexit.

Yes of course those who use the air service would like it to continue, but the wider picture needs to be considered, not just the users.
Air travel is very polluting and should be minimised and discouraged, not subidised  to encourage greater use.

And this is not self interest since I use neither the sleeper nor the air route. But would support subsidy for the sleeper and not for the air route.

[grahame]

Sorry to be the harbinger of doom. Here’s the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) Waterloo to Exeter December timetable with a part missing 
https://www.southwesternrailway.com/plan-my-journey/~/media/e10a740ad24d42a0bb38e693050fcd03.ashx

Not sure if "harbinger of doom" is quite the wording.  The storm clouds were already there when we noticed them at the end of July and they're just getting closer.   SWR [knew/had every reason] to plan for the scaling back three months earlier, so timetable planning, graphics are, number and training of crew and various other miscellanea were going ahead on the basis of services ending in December at a time they knew but their customers didn't.   So no surprise what so ever at the publication ... IF anything gets changed, as it should, there will be a gnashing of teeth and grumbles about the difficulty of changing and supporting, in order for them to simply carry on what they've been doing for years.

[Trowres]

It also shows train services between:
l Bristol Temple Meads, Bath Spa, Yeovil Pen Mill and
London Waterloo - see timetable 20A

Except that 20A shows white space against Bristol-Trowbridge.

Too ashamed to show connections?

[grahame]

The SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) Stakeholder Conference was today. In the slides not one mention of Bristol or Exeter.  Salisbury is there four times ...

It also shows train services between:
l Bristol Temple Meads, Bath Spa, Yeovil Pen Mill and
London Waterloo - see timetable 20A

Except that 20A shows white space against Bristol-Trowbridge.

Too ashamed to show connections?

Space for an easy edit then 

[grahame]

The SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) Stakeholder Conference was today. In the slides not one mention of Bristol or Exeter.  Salisbury is there four times ...

Further feedback from people who attended the forum ...

The rest of the day was inward looking and lacked transparency on the Salisbury-Bristol-Waterloo issue.  Emphasis was placed on the 20 passengers they recorded using the route and estimated 12 who make the change there.

And we still question just when the recording was done^(%), how complete it was, and how the numbers who change might increase dramatically if there wasn't usually a 49 minute^(*) wait one way and 59 minute wait the other.

Ongoing analysis of the timetable consultation responses and working with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to agree next steps meant SWR were unwilling to say much.  I felt they made a bit of a mess of explaining the withdrawal of the Waterloo Bristol services even with two goes at it.  They did, however,  say they are working with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) on connections which prompted [redacted] to ask why they aren’t working with local authorities and STBs as well.

It's very hard to explain the withdrawal if you don't admit it's a screw-up.  Perhaps if they told us the whole truth, or at confirmed that it was wrong and looked to correct the situation instead of kicking in into the long grass, hiding it in a haystack, and hoping that it times out they might be better received.

^(%) - I would look for reassurance that the measurements were not taken during the prolonged industrial unrest at SWR, nor during a lockdown of recommended "no-travel" time, or between Christmas and the new year.  Do they relate to on-train observations (which at times are difficult as it's hard to get through the train - and just HOW do you count through passengers as they pile off and on at the same time), or to ticket sales with specific routing only?   Was it done on one particular train of the day - perhaps not the busiest one  . Are the numbers per carriage, per train, or per day?

^(*) - Previously I wrote "59 minutes one way and about 50 the other" and on at least one occasion I failed to add the word "about".   My error, no intent to confuse.  It's usually 59 minutes one way and 49 the other - personally I don't feel the one minute makes a huge difference, but one of the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) involved has written to me asking for clarification because "I have tried, and failed, to find these" ... and I have responded with examples:

1F14 leaves for CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) at 11:42
1L25 arrives from WAT at 11:43
1F16 leaves for CDF at 12:42
1L29 arrives from WAT at 12:43

and

1F11 arrives from CDF ar 11:32
1L40 leaves for WAT at 12:21

1F13 arrives from CDF at 12:32
1L44 leaves for WAT at 13:21

No acknowledgement of my response ... perhaps too busy letting time pass?

[Mark A]

On 49 - 60 minute connections... "They have tried and failed to find these" ??