Great Western Coffee Shop

For me, Question 20 has the potential to be one of the most pivotal debates of the entire refranchising process:


Leaving aside the Brightons (as far as is practical) which have their own question and topic (see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10047.msg104193#msg104193 ) what are the views of forum members on this specific key question?

I think the Cardiff - Portsmouth Harbour service should remain a through route however in the case of the Great Malvern - Bristol - Weymouth route perhaps this should be split at Bristol TM.

However if the Portishead branch is re-opened perhaps Great Malvern trains could run to/from Portishead.

I thought the context of that question was more along the lines of keeping the through long distance service, but removing minor stops and transferring them to a local stopper - this is the basis of the proposals for the Portsmouth Cardiff route shown in the current GWML RUS, section 6.9.6 and 6.9.13:


Paul

Paul - Imagine the DfT/TOCs/NR gave you a blank sheet of paper. What would you personally do with the relevant services?

My view is that the Weston SM - Bristol PW service and the Weymouth - Gloucester/Worcester services are swapped at Bristol TM to provide, Weymouth - Bristol PW and Weston SM - Gloucester - Worcester.

These services are only 5 minutes apart in a Parkway bound direction but would require retiming west of Bristol in order to reach Bristol TM for a xx41 departure.

This would provide a more robust service on the Yate/Cam stretch which is only hourly and allows that in the event of any late running that the Gloucester part is protected and any late running could be recouped on the more frequent Weston SM section.

FC

When travelling from Worcester to the south coast, I have never seen the attraction of the direct service to Weymouth or to Southampton/Brighton for two reasons:

• You go outside the NSE zone, which you don't if you change at Reading or travel through London.
• The facilities on the direct trains through Bristol are nowhere near as good.  There's a significant chance of travelling on a 150 which is awful.  Although the 158s are comfortable, they don't have mains power sockets (to my knowledge).  On the Cotswold line, it is possible to plan around the Turbos.

I would happily spend an hour longer, maybe two, for a much cheaper ticket to travel on trains with better facilities.

A direct seaside destination may be a good selling point in Malvern...

The bigger priority should be getting an hourly service to Worcester.

Where the trains go doesn't really matter so long as reliability isn't affected and stock is utilised efficiently. Why? Because most folks will be commuting from Worcester to Cheltenham/Gloucester, or taking a trip to/connecting at Bristol.

My responce to that question in my work-in-progress responce to the consultation is currently:

"The south Wales to the south-coast service (currently Cardiff ^ Portsmouth) is an important through route. Ideally however local services would be run alongside this to serve smaller stations more frequently.

Also remember that the Cardiff ^ Portsmouth is a regional express service. As such, suburban-style rolling stock (such as class 150 and 166/165, both of which have doors located part way along the carriages rather than in vestibules at each end (the later also has a 2+3 seating layout)) are unsuitable."

Note that I am currently unaware of the frequency of local services on the route at present, I need to research that (or you can tell me) as it might effect my first paragraph there. Also I say "The south Wales to the south-coast service (currently Cardiff ^ Portsmouth)" because I suggest elsewhere in the consultation extensions to Swansea or Fishguard and changing all the Portsmouths to go to Brighton instead (basicly my answer to the Brighton question was there should be an hourly service either to Portsmouth or Brighton, with the other getting no Great Western trains).

I haven't a personal view on the Gloucester/Weymouth axis - I only ever really use the Portsmouth service, and that's nearly always south of Salisbury.  I do think the few FGW services that run only to Southampton are a duplication of SWT's stopper, and completely unnecessary. 

OTOH my view on the Brighton extensions remains exactly as provided to DfT a few years ago, and could actually form the basis of their related question...

Paul

Question 6 asks


And there would appear to be a logic in transferring Dean and Mottisfont stations into the South West franchise (who already provide all the trains that call there) and perhaps Romsey too (which becomes something of a GW station outpost after that other transfer).  There may also be a logic in transferring all local trains south of Salisbury into the SW franchise, rather that the current GW / SW split, and running them all with SWT units based at Salisbury rather than having Westbury -> Southampton stoppers run with units based in Bristol. 

Net effect is that south of Salisbury, the GW franchise is running just hourly regional services to Portsmouth and (perhaps, other topic) once a day to Brighton and twice a day from Brighton.  The SW franchise ups the service from Salisbury to Southampton to half hourly. That is a service which did not exist when the last GW franchise was let but rather was broken off and then greatly enhanced from the GW franchise in around 2007.

Why does it matter that you go outside NSE?

Why should it matter that you go outside NSE?

NSE was a creature of the 1980's

Well, its legacy continues... the 1/3-off NSE railcard very much still exists!  Bizarre as it may seem, you can get 1/3 off on Worcester-Weymouth via Reading but not when taking the more direct route via Bristol.

Interesting how fashions change. There have been various cycles over the years when Weymouth services have 1. terminated at Bristol, or 2. continued northwards. The usual reason given for separate services (when they have reverted to that format) is simpler/reliable operating which seems logical (apart perhaps from occupying more platform space at Bristol). The opposite type of reason is provided when they become through services. I doubt (stand to be corrected) that there are many cross-Bristol journeys (except perhaps from Filton or Parkway) so providing there are reasonable connections, each option is fine.

Indeed not so far back, all/most Weymouth services did not venture north of Westbury. Onward with a Class 33 and Mk1s (side corridor too) towards Cardiff.

Portsmouth to Cardiff has long been regarded as a "trunk route," (except perhaps when the 3Hs were in charge) and will no doubt be kept as such. Interesting to ask the proportion of cross Bristol journeys there actually are though?   

 

If you split services into 2, you reduce the number of through journeys available.
Also, you would have to have another train available for the continuation and this after knock on effects, could result in a requirement for additional resources.
Central, at the time, split Nottinghams to Hereford at Birmingham at the instigation of the DFT as an alleged move to improve timekeeping.

Maybe it's time that services are split wheras in reality the train would continue to Weymouth, Gloucester etc. with timetables and destination displays saying Bristol Temple Meads (For Weymouth) for example with the train continuing to Weymouth apart from times of disruption when services can be be started at Temple Meads without any reprecussions for the TOC and it's performance measures (which are important nowadays whether we like it or not). These trains can be advertised as "change of train may be required to get from Gloucester to Weymouth". This seems to work with many bus services that now are two services with two route numbers despite using same bus and driver due to driving regulations but casuses few problems as people are aware that possible change of bus may be required but more often than not they can remain on the bus. Through services not really lost but people are aware of the possibility of the requirement to change train so possibly an idea that could be further looked into by any future franchise holder.

All of the local services, with the exception of the Severn Beach branch, were made cross-Bristol a few years ago in order to reduce congestion at Temple Meads.  This was designed to reduce delays but of course the longer-distance services such as Weymouth - Gloucester / Great Malvern now have many more opportunities to get delayed, especially on the single line section between Castle Cary and Dorchester, plus negotiating a number of complex areas with lots of conflicting movements, such as Westbury, Bristol, Gloucester and Worcester.  The advantage for me is it opens up through journey opportunities, such as Gloucester to Bath or Salisbury.

Of course, most of the services are run with Class 150s (a Class 158 if you're lucky), which are most unsuitable for a long journey of several hours and there is no catering on route either!

From a Gloucester perspective, the biggest loss when Cross Country stopped serving the city, apart from the Nottingham to Cardiffs, was the through trains to / from the South West of England.  There was a stopping service to Taunton for a while, but now no regular service south of Bristol TM.  I'd like to see a semi-fast service Gloucester, Bristol Parkway, TM, Weston, Bridgwater, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway, Exeter St D, Exeter Central.

And so would I, Deltic! Gloucester - Bristol is badly served these days. I know I'm not the only one to have to make the journey regularly. I usually end up on a single car class 153(?), stopping at every station each way. There's one an hour, and they are always full. When I first moved to Bristol, and had to go up North every month, most intercity trains called at Gloucester on the way, although there was a bit of a wait for the loco to be run around. And why do the Bristol trains from Gloucester use the distant and exposed platform 1, instead of carrying on to the station entrance?

I gave up trying to fathom the reasoning behind the routes years ago. Worcester to Portsmouth, Gloucester to Weymouth and the like all mean Abbey Wood or Parkway to Temple Meads to me. I can see the easy ones, like Severn Beach to Portishead will take just short of an hour, as will SB to Bath, but beyond that, I'm stumped.

LM recently tried a service between Gloucester and Worcester (153 worked)  but later withdrawn as not considered viable.

The London Midland Worcester - Gloucester service used a 2 carriage class 170 I never saw a class 153 used.

I do admit it was pretty much empty the majority of the time in fact I was the only passenger on a few occasions where I used it.

Perhaps the service would have been better used if it either ran beyond Gloucester to Bristol or connected better with the Gloucester - Bristol trains at Gloucester.

mY MISTAKE, SORRY.   i BELIEVE IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A 153 BUT WHEN IT ACTUALLY STARTED BECAME A 170

An interesting discussion.

I've never noticed any obvious problems with running the trains direct from Cardiff from Portsmouth, in fact, it's very good to have a reasonably fast cross-country service, which is hourly.

Another question, is where would you split these services, Cardiff to Bristol seems a bit short for a train of the 158's calibre, and 150's are not "prestige" enough for a semi fast service connecting 2 of the UK's major cities.

But going on to the point about Gloucester, this is an important settlement not to have any "proper" trains stopping there, in fact I was looking at a Network timetable from 1994 the other day, and most of the services now operated by XC stopped at Gloucester.

Not good, although this is of course XC's problem and not FGW's.

Gloucester does have bi-hourly HSTs to and from London Paddington. There also remains a token XC service once a day, late evening, in each direction on a Edinburgh-Bristol TM service and a Bristol TM-Birmingham NS service.

Virgin XC decided to stop serving Gloucester due to the time penalty of the reversing and problems of pathing when services were late running. Arriva XC inherited the calling pattern and I doubt they see not serving Gloucester as a problem. Operationally it is probably a boon not to have to reverse there.

Of course if the line to Gloucester Eastgate had survived 1970s rationalisation then cross country services could have continued to serve Gloucester without the need to reverse. Local opposition to the road traffic problems caused at 4 level crossings in the city is often cited as the reason for the closure of the Tuffley Loop.

Yep, I should've researched that post before I posted really  ::)

South Wales to Portsmouth is a very important route, it shouldn't be split anywhere in my opinion. Ideally I'd like to see it extended further into Wales (to Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen, via the Swansea district line), perhaps with 2x 158 (a 4-car train) between Portsmouth and Cardiff, with one unit (2 coaches) heading west.

As for Worcester/Gloucester to Weymouth, I've never used it but what to do with it depends on electrification. I'd like to see the Taunton - Cardiff service extended to Swansea to provide a third fast train each hour between Cardiff and Swansea (though it would have a stop at Pyle, meaning none of the ATW Manchester trains would need to call there). If the whole Taunton - Swansea is electrified, that's all good. If Swansea - Bristol is electrified but not Bristol - Taunton however then I'd suggest splitting it at Bristol to provide a Swansea - Bristol electric service (with something like a 377). In that case then it might be a good idea to take the diesel Taunton - Bristol service and combine it with Worcester/Gloucester to Bristol, leaving Bristol - Weymouth as a stand-alone service.

Extending Portsmouth and Taunton services west of Cardiff would be an enormous bureaucratic exercise involvong ORR and DFT and which would take years to resolve at the speed things move these days.    They would have to replace HSTs (or electrics ?) or ATW services as there would be a pathing problem.  FGW would not have enough resources to cover.   It would be as popular as West Wales to Manchester perhaps, but it wont happen that easily.    There was a Milford Haven to Portsmouth service in Wales and West days  before the formation of Wessex Trains in 2001 and the resulting re-franchising whereby Weeex trains stopped at Cardiff.

So you want Pompeys extended to Swansea and beyond, Tauntons extended to Swansea, elswhere yo go on about loco dragged electrics to Swansea and beyond?

Have I got that right? Anything else to Swansea? CrossCountry from Nottingham?

Where are all the paths to be found between Cardiff and Swansea for these pie-in-the-sky services?

Extending the Tuanton - Cardiff trains to Swansea could be done if they are interworked with the Cardiff - Swansea swanline services which would all have to be cut back to Swansea instead of some selected services continuing on to west wales.

This may require some retiming on the Milford Haven - Manchester routes in the east/northbound services from Milford Haven

No, not Nottinghams to Swansea. Here's what I would like to have heading eastwards out of Swansea.

• 1tph Intercity 225 Great Western electric service to London (existing service, different stock)
• 1tph diesel service to Manchester (existing service, stops between Cardiff and Swansea would always be Neath, Port Talbot and Bridgend only, these could continue to come from further west)
• 1tph electric service to Bristol/Taunton (stops between Cardiff and Swansea would be Neath, Port Talbot, Pyle and Bridgend. It would also be the train that serves any new stations opened on route)
• 1tph Swanline electric (existing service, but electrified and doubled to hourly), prefrablly extending to Cheltenham with the Maesteg trains combined with Ebbw Vale ones instead

That's it. The westwards extension of the Portsmouth - Cardiff would be an express service to Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen, with stops at Bridgend and Port Talbot ONLY on the section in question (it would run via the Swansea District Line and the only calling point between Port Talbot and Carmarthen would be Llanelli). And yes, it couldn't happen until 158s are released from elsewhere (Edinbrough - Glasgow electrification looks like the first opertunity). Given that the other extra services would be electric, they are long-term asperations also.

I would agree there is no case for splitting Cardiff - Portsmouth services, however there is no case for extending them beyond Cardiff into the area which is primarily the remit of ATW to provide services. Too many single line sections and not enough people requiring through services in my opinion.

There is also the question of subsidy. As 'West'services are subsidised to varying degrees I would be be somewhat peturbed if my taxes were being used to provide services within Wales that the Welsh taxpayers should be funding. Arguably this already occurs on the Cardiff - Newport - STJ section but there is no case for further extending that principle. Services beyond Swansea are properly the remit of the Welsh Assembly and ATW to sort out..

The argument came up previously from a different perspective some time ago after Wales and West was split into two buisness units.  Which is why ATW were told by WAG to stop running through 'Wales and Borders' services to Penzance and use the resources to bolster services in Wales. And quite rightly too. The Greater Western franchise has got a finite number on units and the idea that these should be used to provide journey opportunities within Wales is therefore unrealistic.

I agree that there isn't a case for the extension of Cardiff-South West services to Swansea although the argument about subsidy is a silly one. The units should be used where it is most effective. So if there is spare units if the Great Western franchise, and overcrowding on others, such as Northern. And vice versa. The units should move to where the demand is and where the greatest benefits are, we should all be trying to get the best out of the rail network, not argue about them being our resources so exclusively for our use, as happens to often.



Edited to fix quote. bgnosemac

Which is why the FGW units should be left to do what they are doing now. There is sufficient to cover the services as things stand without them being sent away to Northern or being used to move Mrs Pugh and her cat to Pembroke etc. There are no spare diesel units on FGW. Anyway Northern got some nice useable 142's back they should be gratefull for that.

The aregument about subsidy might sound silly to you but to my mind where we are entering the world of increased regional devolvement for transport provision it becomes to my mind a lot more relevant than previously. As already mentioned it was used as a lever to remove Wales and Borders / ATW services from Penzance however some of the units were chivvied out of the W&B franchise in order to maintain service levels / capacity.

If the WAG is successful in its bid to get the Valley Lines electrified (which should happen in my view) then that will free up a lot of 15x units which can be used for increasing services to / from and beyond Swansea using ATW crews and resources. The 14x can then make its way into the scrapyard in plenty of time to beats the DiPtac requirements post 2020.

I also disagree that reasons of local subsidy should prevent an operator from running through trains. Trains should run where there is demand for services. If there is demand for a Swansea to South Coast service, an operator is willing to provide it, there is rolling stock and paths available, then just because one part of the route is subsidised shouldn't prevent an operator from running the extended service on a commercial basis.

That said, I don't think there is a demand or commercial imperative to extend Cardiff-South Coast services to start back from Swansea.

Certainly not to the extent where you'd want FGW 158's moving Mrs Pugh etc from Pembroke to Cardiff on a local journey ATW should be providing while someone else stands rammed into a vestibule / toilet between Cardiff and Bath due to the abscence of the FGW 158's.

WAG told W&B / ATW that they were not in the buisness of providing local services in Cornwall hence the removal of the W&B through Manchester / Cardiff - Penzance services. The same logic unfortunately applies here I'm afraid. You have to look after your core areas first.

Just picking up on the lack of services between Worcester and Gloucester. There are no direct bus links either ! I have asked both County Councils  why 2 major cities 25 miles apart do not even have a bus service. No answer. Its Stagecoach to Tewkesbury and then Astons if you're lucky. I was a student at Worcester in the 70's ...when I was allowed to sit next to the  driver in the local DMU rattling its way to Cheltnum to connect with the Paignton- Leeds corridor coach train. Things seem to be hardly any better now.

The point is when there is severe overcrowding, which I believe Great Western has some of the biggest problems for this. Is sending a unit to Worcester a good idea. it may be that there is latent demand for it, which I think there is. But does that outweigh strengthening an overcrowded suburban service.

And thats sticking to the 'core' funded area. Applying this across the country, you'd redesign the fleets with the transfer of the adelantes to cross country most notable.

However this would probably dis benefit rural services

Most of the overcrowding issues are on LTV 16x operated services into and out of Paddington, hence 150001/2 and the various Addled-Aunties being draughted to bolster services in that area. The 'West' services are rather less rammed overall but to be honest you wouldn't want to take capacity away from Bristol / Exeter local services to stick additional services on round Worcester. Quite simply there aren't the units do do it.