Great Western Coffee Shop

Available now on opentraintimes:

Weekdays:  http://www.opentraintimes.com/location/MKM/2013-12-16/0000-2359

Shows 16 trains per day - was that expected to happen this December?

Saturday:  http://www.opentraintimes.com/location/MKM/2013-12-20/2355-2354

Sunday:  http://www.opentraintimes.com/location/MKM/2013-12-21/2354-2353

Paul

Not entirely unexpected, Paul.  There has been a lot of activity in recent months - big-time cooperation between various parties with a view to something like this.  You'll note CRP activity building up, for example.  I'm remaining quietly optimistic as various clues emerge, but at the same time I'm remaining cautious as I'm aware that remembering that planned things can and have changed with as little as two weeks notice in the past.

Encouraging though? 

Although the now abandoned GW ITT did mention in the Priced Options section that they hoped for a Dec 13 start if it could be resourced, I thought there'd be extra rolling stock needed for the service, and that would be the excuse not to start as proposed.

Paul 

Very encouraging indeed ;) ... there are indications that the various elements needed to run a successful service (in addition to the timetable slots) have indeed been taken properly into account.  There's some joined up thinking going on. I'm very positive indeed, but just not counting chickens for fear of breaking eggs by doing that counting.  I considered moving this thread to "The Rumour Mill", but that wouldn't be appropriate with the multiple independent sources pointing in a similar direction.

A true celebration would be at 10:46 on Sunday, 8th December, as the first train on the enhanced service draws in.   Before that, we have the busiest of Autumns in getting ready at / via the CRP and I'm really looking forward to it. We're working closely with technical experts at the council and the TOC.

Certainly I am pleased to things are moving. Lets hope this improved service will be another sucess story like many others before it. Congratulations to all parties for getting things this far.

As for the rolling stock required. I wonder if perhaps the suggestion that FGW may return loco hauled trains to the Cardiff - Taunton route this autumn rather than in 2014 may be true after all

Has the relevant variation to the Track Access agreement been applied for yet?

And if it does start in December, will it have to be curtailed for a few weeks sometime in 14 or 15 when the route via Box is closed for wiring work?

I believe that the Open Train Times web site takes its data feed from Network Rail, and I am aware that the issue of major engineering works coming up is something that the parties involved are fully concerned with.  The thinking is all being joined up ...  :D

I do hope to visit the line on the 1st monday the new services start running if everything goes to plan.

Certainly the improved service makes it easier for me and everyone else to visit the area. Certainly I think many will be celebrating   on the 1st day of the improved service.

Lets hope the reliability issu'e are sorted out however as although it is reliable most of the time you only need one or two events to put some people off using the train which will be a great shame considering how much many have put into getting this imrpoved service.

It looks like congratulations are due to all those who have and still are campaigning for a decent service to Melksham.  I had to visit by car last time.  Next summer I will be able to arrive by train for my cream tea at a particularly well-coming establishment  ;D.

(Other establishments are available)

Following up my own post here ... quoting a rail forums thread:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87702&page=2
and

I believe we're in that stage of news gathering where it's clear that there is news, but that the news may yet come up with twists and turns before there's cast iron authority in it.  Open Train Times shows a very very marketable service. There are a couple of "WIBNIF"s in there ("Wouldn't it be nice if ..."); tweaks and fine tunes that could make it even better, but may very well not work for operational reasons I'm not aware of, or may break something else that we hadn't noticed.  But then that applies to any and every service.   Let's support the service as proposed, but not consider it cast in stone just yet through we would endorse it if that were the case.

Excellent news!

Slightly worrying piece in the latest issue of RAIL Magazine.

It has a small story on page 21 suggesting the ORR is "aware of FGW's aspirations" regarding Westbury-Swindon but has "yet to receive a formal track access application".

What is the deadline for such things....

Well, given that their deadline for submissions is 21 days before the date of publication (in this case, 04/09/13), I'd suggest that "things have moved on some" since that was written.

I certainly hope so.

However my post was slightly ambiguous, the deadline I intended to refer to was the one required by the ORR to allow a service to start in December.

AIUI there is only a straightforward application to NR required, because the main route (ie Swindon - Westbury) is already allowed at 2 tph each way per day in the existing Track Access Contract (TAC).  So it's a 'change to quantum' only, and will probably only need a rubber stamping exercise.   I also believe that additional services on already existing routes have a short term provision for increases anyway, albeit only around 90 days.

I've seen similar precedents for these sort of timescales, IIRC the XC extensions (south of Reading) only appeared as a TAA when they were already in the public online planners...

Thought I'd just add that the vast majority of consultations are now fully delegated to NR.  ORR apparently only deals with contentious decisions.

Paul

Subscribers receive Rail magazine the Saturday before it hits the shops. So by the time you buy a copy in the shops the magazine is probably a week old already!

Oh I wish we still did, since they moved away from Royal Mail handling the distribution end to end it now arrives on the day it hits the shops if you are lucky...  But yes the point is valid - the electronic edition comes out over the previous weekend.

The First Great Western booking engine now provides information and sells seats up until 13th December.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/mkmpadmf2013_12.jpg)

with some brief comments from me (and Sunday times) {here} (http://www.wellho.net/mouth/4168_Travelling-to-and-from-courses-much-easier-from-December-2013.html)

I'll be there!

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/mkmtkt.jpg)

My plan is to catch the first train from Westbury on Sunday 8th December, have a stroll around Melksham and then  lunch somewhere and return mid afternoon.

I'm planning my schedule to be around and about on 8th December and hope to bump into you. However, a word of caution is required in that significant service level changes go through a long process which can take up to surprisingly close to the date of service change to be 100% sure.   I'm not aware that First are even signed up fully to run trains in the SW beyond mid October yet ... and after that's all agreed between the DfT and First, or the Direct Operated Railways alternative is announced instead, there will remain the matter of local extension agreements to be completed as well.  Everyone is very much committed to making this happen from what I'm aware of, but we can't rule out the possibility of a curved ball, or indeed one or two of the other balls I already know about, changing things.

Grahame is right to be cautious. A few years ago Southern's 4th train per hour between London Victoria and Brighton was knocked on the head at the 11th hour by the ORR, by which time timetables had already been printed showing the non-existent extra services. OK, so the Brighton services were more contentious than the Melksham ones are, but perhaps it is wise to wait for a Track Access application to get the nod first before getting too carried away.

This is good news and I hope everything falls into place for a successful launch. I think the challenge for FGW, the community rail partnership and other stakeholders will be to promote the service sufficiently to attract decent off peak usage and ensure that the service remains a sustainable proposition. I sometimes used the 14xx from Swindon to Westbury when it was running eight or nine years ago, and was surprised on a couple of occasions to be the only passenger between Chippenham and Trowbridge. The late evening service (22xx from Swindon) was rather better used, however I notice that no late evening service is planned at present. No doubt the service pattern can be refined over time. I wonder what build up of demand is expected by the funders of this service, and how quickly they expect the passenger numbers to grow?

I am very tempted to launch into a long post here ... but it's probably better for me to give you a few headline thoughts.

There is good information, much of it first hand, about the 2001 to 2006 service, and experience to be learned from. As it was, the decision for the current franchise was a very close call, even with some of the very general statistics (such as future growth rate) dramatically underestimated - remember how 3 cars were cut to 2, "More train less strain", dreadful performance - that was the effect on other lines. On the TransWilts, the last 17:35 Swindon to Westbury left Chippenham as a very busy 150, and with a very brave Andrew Griffiths from First taking the wrath of passengers who had only just learned that they would have to wait 70 minutes longer for there evening train from the following Monday, and leave home 30 minutes earlier in the morning too. 

Every service has its quiet trains (try the 19:00 Cheltenham Spa to Paddington or the 15:53 Bristol Parkway to Bath, or the 20:55 Chippenham to Paddington) but few people are on them so most people report busy services and have a far rosier picture than's really the case.   Yes - Community Rail is particularly useful in helping to pick those up and promote them.  And we do have targets / projections.

We learn from the past, but we make sure it's all joined up for the future.   I started to write a list of differences and I came up with Publicity, Community, Opportunities offered, Operator, Reliability, Sustainable agenda and PCness of using public transport, Population, Information Systems, Associated support, Integration, Awareness and thoroughness.  Take those 12 changes, each of which will have a positive nudge or shove to it, and apply it to a previously arguable / borderline case, and you may guess the result we're looking to achieve.

Thanks for a very comprehensive reply to a relatively casual observation  :)

It sounds as though there will be lots going to generate momentum, which is good news.

It's great to be tested - and better now to check we've thought of everything than later on when we say "oops, we missed xxx".

An interesting point about the anticipated enhanced service is that it offers a much better service frequency from Melksham to Bath and Bristol than might be expected of a 2 hourly service. So as an example there are 4 possible peak departures from Bristol between 1700 and 1900, all with very reasonable journey times. And in the other direction 3 arrivals before 0900. This is due to the two possible routings via Chippenham or Trowbridge.

 ;D ;D

Try also Melksham to Filton Abbey Wood, and Melksham to Taunton.

The beauty is that these are quite frequent journeys, and we're already looking at timetable information provision to help people coming back from these places to know where it's best to change.

As has often been said it is not just Melksham which benefits.

Swindon to Westbury becomes much easier - from where you can connect into services to the South West and South Coast.  It is amazing how important a length of line just over eight miles long is to so many journeys!

I have used two sources for the information below - The original Wiltshire Council LSTF application (http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/lstf-application-form.pdf) and a subsequent report to Wiltshire Council Cabinet. (http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/documents/s50530/Delivering%20the%20Local%20Sustainable%20Transport%20Fund%20Project%20-%20Improving%20Wiltshires%20Rail%20Offer.pdf)


As part of the LSTF bid, FGW identified the following three year subsidy requirement if the train service commenced in May 2013 (November 2011 prices):

2013/14 ^0.572m

2014/15 ^0.603m

2015/16 ^0.159m

Obviously, the service is now almost certain (touch wood) to commence in December 2013, and that shift in dates should be bourne in mind when assessing the figures.


Interestingly, although I cant provide a link as the Save The Train blog archive (http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/isay.html) is no longer available, the fully costed report on a Westbury-Swindon service at similar frequency levels to the forthcoming service that STT published and was promoting between 2006-2008 also showed a very similar move towards "break-even" in the first years, along with little or no subsidy being required after that.

Although that was unfortunately rejected back then thus setting us back a few years, perhaps it is better that we are moving forward together now with a proposal that all involved from WC, FGW through to the CRP and local groups such as MRDG, WWRUG, Westbury Train Watch and others, backed by key figures such as MPs Duncan Hames and his collegues, can agree should grow, succeed and are incentivised to help ensure that it does.

There has been a long and intensive campaign since 2006 and thanks are due to all involved.   By consistently putting the pressure on, it told FGW and DFT that the matter was not going to go away.

Now Taunton is close to my heart, and anything that improves journey opportunities to and from the jewel of Somerset gets my vote!  :P ;) ;D

The improved TransWilts service offers up an alternative route from Taunton and further west to/from Chippenham and Swindon, and in the December 2013 timetable there are a few options that are on a par time-wise versus travelling via Bristol.

Now, direct trains are always going to be the most attractive, so can I start the campaign now for a Taunton - Swindon service, calling at a new Taunton Parkway station with access to J25 of the M5, either at Bathpool on the Taunton side of the M5 or between Ruishton and Creech St Michael (reinstate four tracks to Cogload Junction), then re-opened stations at Langport and Somerton (with one or both having platforms on loop lines if possible), followed by calls at Castle Cary, Bruton, Frome, Westbury, Trowbridge, Melksham, Chippenham and Swindon. Should be able to slot in a DMU service (cascaded Class 165/166s?) between the high speed service to/from the West of England.

Direct trains are indeed attractive - the figures of 40% and 46% traffic loss have been quoted for commuter and irregular traffic loss if you replace a long standing direct train with one that involves a change along the way - the data is quoted by the folks looking west from Newbury when looking at the option of diesel shuttle from there westward, though I'm not sure of their source;  I would be interested in Ormskirk - Preston metrics after Ormskirk became double terminus.  And indeed the SLC document for the current franchise says "may be joined to route xxxx" in a number of places including the TransWilts.

I can't help feeling that joining Westbury - Warminster shuttles onto something coming into Westbury from the north would provide a boost for both services - however, to do so on the current timetable would result in significant retiming of infrequent trains, and result in serious short-term disturbance of arrival and departure opportunities prior to longer term gains, and the ripple effects could (and perhaps should) go wider.  Alas, the opportunity and invitation to look 15 years ahead at service patterns has been replaced by one that's a 3 year holding term.

Beyond the three years, who knows?  Some longer distance linkages seem to come and go (Crewe to Skegness) and others remain or change (Waterloo to Manchester, Maesteg and Milford Haven; Brighton to Great Malvern), but with these there are / should be checks made to understand the level of through traffic at intermediate hubs such as Bristol.   I sometimes note "running later - this train will be terminated and restarted at Bristol Temple Meads" which means "we can't delay shorter distance services around Gloucester because of an earlier signal failure at Barnham; through people are a lower priority to us".

I can speculate beyond three years - and indeed we are and must continue to think to that future; there are opportunities for looking at services which come into both ends of a station and turn back there and saying "should they be though";  you're looking at timing, frequency, robustness, train length, stock type (75 mph / 125 mph) factors.    And where you add a new service onto an existing one, you're looking at co-ordinating growth rates, avoiding the tail wagging the dog, and avoiding an embryonic service leaching effectiveness from its better established host section (one hopes / tries to make it feed better life into its host).

Mixed message there, I think ... and a more serious answer than was solicited to an idea that perhaps had an element of jest in it.  But look back at what we're talking about in 2063, and I suspect we could find that some of the ideas that "will never happen" have done - and indeed are backbones of the then-current system.
 

Thanks very much for this detailed information. To sense check for my own benefit, some very crude back-of-the-envelope scrawling suggests that 120,000 passengers per annum in year five would look like a broad average of around 20 passengers per train, although clearly there will be wide variations by time of day and day of week. Is this new traffic to the railway, or does it include passengers who reassign to Transwilts from other services? If the journey opportunities are well marketed, this level of demand seems well within the realms of possibility. If the year 5 targets are met, am I right in thinking that the service would be close to becoming profitable (subsidy free)?

There will be some straight reassignments - passengers from Westbury / Trowbridge to Chippenham / Swindon who presently dogleg via Bath.   There will be new traffic, which will build up slower as people learn of and try the service and others move homes and change / take jobs that make use of it.  That's from just about any station on the line to any other, as there are major employment areas and major residential areas in all the towns along the way.

But then it gets more complex. You'll get journeys which will be extended along the TransWilts - people who live in Chippenham, Malmesbury and Melksham and presently drive to Bradford-on-Avon or Westbury to go south, and who live in the west Wiltshire towns and drive to Chippenham for London, but who now have a better option from their local station.   And there will undoubtedly be some traffic from Melksham station (specifically Melksham in this case) to the Bristol area which currently drives to Chippenham or Bradford-on-Avon.


add:
^  - and the service runs reliably


The simple answer is "yes" .. the complex answer is ... complex / "based on current accounting methods and assuming no unexpected changes in the cost of providing and running rail services"

I don't think I have ever seen an fGW TAA before the deadline for my TRUK article - usually I have to search for a copy of the fGW poster and then get the article edited! 
;
In fact the whole track access procedure is to my mind total nonsense - CrossCountry only got round to matching the track access contract to the service they ran from the start of the franchise in August this year, and the additional GC KX-Bradford which went to the disputes panel who decided (or didn't according to East Coast's interpretation) that they must be given the 16.08 KX-Newark's path now turns out to just require the latter to run one minute later!   
'
Incidentally the platform working shown in RTT at Swindon doesn't work - unless both these and the Gloucester locals are going to be 153s.

? ... Can you explain further?   There are platform considerations at both Swindon and Westbury, but my understanding is that the Swindon bay has 3 a car capacity, and that - at least at the times I looked at on RTT (I didn't check right through all three different day patterns), services typically arrive from Cheltenham, then from Westbury, then leave for Westbury and finally leave for Cheltenham.   In practise, there's quite a quick turn around at Swindon on many of the TransWilts sevices, so a reversal on one or other side of the main island shouldn't normally be a huge headache at times that trains are running out of pattern.

Does that mean the Trans Wilts service is going to be restricted to a Cl 153?  Though Quail states capacity for 4 coaches, although whether that's the case when a second train is called on I'm not sure.

Things don't and won't stand still on the railways, even though we feel that things change very slowly at times; any "what traffic levels can we expect?" questions really have to be followed with "at the following date" with the tremendous growth seen in West of England / Wiltshire rail use:
http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=BS
http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=SN
http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=BA
But note that the changes aren't instant when a service improvement is put into place. There's also operational experience gained in the year or two after a service is introduced, allowing what was specified as minimalist and robust to be modified in the light of experience.

There have been a number of TransWilts studies and surveys and all of them have come very firmly out in favour of at least the improvements proposed, based on a minimum length train.  There's a very strong chance it will work well and grow, but just how well and how much growth over what time period depends on many factors and is pretty hard to predict.   The good news is that this difficulty is accepted, acknowledged, and will be monitored. Come December 2014, a timetable change to make use of redoubled Swindon to Kemble can come into effect. Two years later, you're looking at IEP coming into service and it's my understanding that will release the bay at Swindon, and four 150 / 158 carriages off than line alone. Finally, I suspect I should have said "at least" a 3 car capacity in the bay at Swindon; Quail is probably correct, and if it says 4 ...

From memory I thought a 158 only just fitted platform 2, but having looked at photos  a 153 would fit on top.  The SA says 80 metres so you cannot accommodate anything other than a 153 on top of a Cl.158.
;
 

A 4-car 20m train can't be fitted within the signal overlap in Swindon bay, so up to 3 carriages of 20-23m is the most that can be accommodated.

Thanks - that's what my educated guess would have thought.

For the record - nominal carriage lengths and carriages per set:
143 - 15 metres per carriage / 2 per set
150 - 20 metres per carriage / usually 2 occasionally 3 per set
153 - 23 metres / single carriage set
158 - 23 metres per carriage / 2 or 3 per set

Advance Purchase fares from Melksham to numerous destinations for Monday 9th December 2013 are now in online retail systems. Good to see.

Booking horizon is currently 11th December for AP.

I saw the 3-car 158 in a bay platform at Swindon the other day. So, assuming Swindon has only one bay, it can definately take at least 3-car.

How much does journey time competitiveness matter in comparison? One of my concerns is through services at Swansea station. The much lower population west of Swansea appears to cause the use of short trains on the much busier east side (though this is probably due to lack of rolling stock too). Also, the journey time of a through service from Carmarthen to Cardiff via Swansea is quite a bit slower than the road journey time (except in the peak perhaps). Because of this last fact, I suspect the vast majority of passengers making through journeys from west of Swansea to east of Swansea by train have strong reasons for using the train (since the tedious diversion in and out of Swansea hasn't put them off) and would not be put off if they had to change at Swansea. Are my assumptions wrong there or can a service which is not time-competitive stand the addition of having to change trains without a significant drop in patronage?

This Document may interest some of you especially as it concerns the additional Westbury - Swindon Servies as well as the extra services between Torquay and Newton Abbott.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225394/fgw-franchise-letter.pdf

Seems the DFT/FGW  are going to use a class 153 on these extra services.
I do hope the loco hauled option comes off as well especially on the Cardiff - Taunton route

Linked letter also suggests the two 153s needed will be released by hiring a SWT 158. Is that a 2nd SWT 158 they are planning to hire or is the current one already leaving two 153s spare? If it is a 2nd hired 158, does that mean SWT have found an EMU to work the Lymington branch to free the 158 or are they so good at maintaining 158s they can push the availability in order to hire one out to FirstGW?

SWT may well have less need for DMUs following the forthcoming EMU cascade, but there's nothing expected imminently, ie by December this year.

However the Lymington 158 isn't necessarily the likeliest to be replaced, there are a number of other 158 and 159 diagrams that operate in the electrified area that could also be replaced by EMUs.

RTT still shows weekday DMU and Sat/Sun EMU beyond the timetable change as well...

Paul

Thanks for that link, Anthony ... it's a letter dated 25th June 2013 and judging by the blackouts may been published from an FOI request.    I've attached the TransWilts services it agreed in principle.    Note says that summer first train may operate up to an hour later.

The timetable has been tuned in the three months since;  I'm particularly glad to see trains running up to Swindon at hourly intervals now on a Saturday morning rather than just 15 minutes apart.

Having looked at the timetable in more detail, some of the connections are a touch unfortunate. For example, the 1730 Bristol to Chippenham will be approaching Chip'm just as the Transwilts is pulling out, meaning that commuters will have to leave 30 minutes earlier.

Whilst the overall journey time is still not bad, 25 minutes wait every day will put a lot of people off. Hopefully in due course some of these timings might be tweaked, although I don't underestimate the problems of moving timings by even a couple of minutes as has previously been discussed on the forum. And who knows, maybe the train will be full anyway?

Indeed ...


and


both from ... http://atrebatia.info/twr_briefing.pdf

If you look back at the June 2013 letter from the DfT to FGW you'll note that there already have been some positive adjustments - the most noticeable being two Westbury to Swindon trains on a Saturday morning that were originally followed each other at minimum headway that are now scheduled to run an hour apart giving Saturday morning trains at 07:32, 08:22 and 09:32 rather that 07:32, 09:15 and 09:30.

Not unusual ... a hotel guest (we run a hotel) phones in or emails to ask about reaching us by public transport, the final few miles.  I was answering one this evening and mused as to what I might write from December


Currently, I went on:


From December, I might be able to say this instead:

Hi All,

And mentioned on BBC web site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-24608177

Wiil try and use this line next year for a trip or two to Melksham

Basset

Just for ease of reference, here is the article linked to in the previous post.

I was chatting to somebody today, who lives in Melksham,  whose husband commutes from Chippenham to London, and she didn't know about the new timetable. :o

FGW have put up an announcement on their website (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/Media-centre/Improved-Trans-Wilts-Rail-Service-is-on-track).

There's a major informational job to be done, and it's planned and largely prepared. First, Wiltshire Council and the Community working on this.   As First and WC have rather more reach that the CRP, you'll probably hear most from them with the CRP filling in and with local knowledge.  I've said "wow" at some of the stuff that's coming  ;D  

Bear in mind that the final hurdle is only just cleared, and the service doesn't start until the month after next. There's an element of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" in timing ... yes, people should be informed as far in advance as possible.  But you don't want people turning up for trains that don't yet run either.

Teamsaint, I'm pretty sure that existing commuters from Chippenham won't be able to help but notice ... the much harder task is reaching people who go from suburban home to car and then from car into office in Swindon / Reading.

So if, as the FGW Press Release says, the DfT funding is for three years, why is there talk of the service ceasing at the franchise expiry if passenger numbers do not grow quickly enough?

Just as it take time to bring a service in, so it takes time to do the reverse and the real results need to be seen in 2014 / perhaps early into 2015.  Bear in mind that you have franchise end, and duration / time limits on LSTF expenditure too which must be taken into account.

As well as the build up, the whole 2015 (Autumn), 2016, and beyond was brought up and discussed on Saturday - the "regain and retain" is the agenda and that means submissions for post-electrification franchises.  What happenes to the 07:04 and 19:35 off Westbury when they no longer are parts of through trains to Cheltenham Spa because it's an IEP beyond Swindon.