Great Western Coffee Shop

The South Western Stakeholder consultation is underway ... document (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/477307/south-western-stakeholder-consultation.pdf) ... and runs until 9th February.   

From a TransWilts perspective, what happens at and beyond Salisbury, and with Waterloo services via Warminster too, merits some thought and potential input and I would be interested to learn thoughts / views to help inform answers.

You may note that TravelWatch SouthWest is holding a CrossCounty extension to its AGM next week, at which that subject and the refranchise / extension will be discussed - somewhat informed  ;) by inputs in frequent posters.  There is a likelihood of similar meetings and inputs on the South Western franchise too - indeed I've seen some background activity - and I'm going to ask members to post / share their thoughts so that inputs can be put in a similar manner.

Responses here, and to me for TransWilts and TWSW no way reduce the ability of you / your group to input via other routes - indeed the sharing of user's thoughts and ideas and their input from multiple informed sources adds strength to cases and suggestions.  I would ask for initial thoughts within the next 10 days simply to have a bit of direction idea before the TWSW AGM, and also to inform prior to any December meetings.

No questions regarding franchise remapping in the consultation? I seem to recall there were such questions in the Great Western, Northern and TransPennineExpress consultations. Means I can't raise (again, probably) my suggestion of transfering the Southampton - Romsey service to GWR and buying new bi-mode equivalents to replace the 158s and 159s on Waterloo-Exeter services (cascading them to Wales & Borders, GWR and/or Northern). I only very briefly skimmed the document, was there anything about possibly replacing the DMUs?

Why would anyone seriously propose that, and what problem would it solve?  It only just changed the other way, primarily to provide the remaining GW stations between Romsey and Salisbury a much better all day service.  Seven of the stations called at are on the SWML either side of and including Southampton Central.

If anything the consultation ought to re-state transferring the three GW stations to the SW franchise.

Paul

Romsey - Southampton is an interesting route in that trains have a 65 minute run time, meaning that 3 units are required for a service every 2 hours - only around 73% utilisation.   There's an extra 10 minutes or so in one direction at Southampton Central due, I believe, to pathing issues, and perhaps the need for more slack in this service than many as it has to thread it's way through at the right time.  As it stands, the service turns back very quickly at Romsey, and the result is a long turn back at Salisbury, leaving a Romsey train sitting in Platform 6 more often than not.

Currently it seems the long dwell at Southampton is only there in the morning peak Mon - Sat, and then again once in the afternoon when the SWT service needs to run ahead of the secondary GW service to Brighton.  I suspect it is to connect with the xx30 Waterloo service rather than pathing as such.

It is slightly different on Sundays though, when all up direction trains wait at Southampton Central for about 10 mins, I think to connect with the Poole - Waterloo service.

Of course my previous post would not be applicable if there was ever a serious indication in a franchise spec or route strategy to link this across Salisbury to the Swindon - Westbury service.

Paul

From the Mid Devon Gazette (http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Waterloo-West-rail-links-backed/story-28184842-detail/story.html?) ...


Article headed by a picture of an HST ... not sure if the paper is suggesting we ask for HSTs into Waterloo!

Details can be found here (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/south-western-rail-franchise) - including the 64 page document & how to respond.

I agree both comments to a degree.  A Salisbury - Romsey via Southampton service naturally runs from the Salisbury depot, and the transfer / improvement of services on the route from a patchy service in Wales and West / Wessex Trains days to a regular and much more frequent one under South West trains.  Passenger numbers (ticketed journeys) 1998, 2003, 2008 and 2013:
Dean - 6215, 8810, 11487, 24616
Dunbridge - 9637, 10640, 12941, 25986
and compare the to Dilton Marsh, north of Salisbury and without such a significant service improvement:
Dilton Marsh - 10144, 10484, 10063, 16796

Only agree to a degree, though .... there is a "chicken and egg" here in that strategies are somewhat set by what people want / ask for - not only how and where people travel, but also where they let it be known they wish to travel, and the sentiment gathered behind that.  So if there is a serious groundswell / set of requests for through travel and linking up routes, and it seems to make operational sense to do so too, then the input stating that should be made without waiting for it to appear in official study and policy - for where all things are equal, policy is informed if not made by such inputs.

With a linked service, covering Swindon to Westbury, Westbury to Salisbury and Salisbury to Romsey via Southampton, you have something that makes great sense from a journey / traveller viewpoint, and operationally too provided that you can get the service robustly through Salisbury and Westbury at the join points. And you have a bit of a commercial nightmare in terms of deciding who runs it.  At the southern end, you're clearly in SW territory and at the northern end clearly in GW territory ... and I recall sadly being told at Swindon when travelling to Melksham in around 2005 to catch the First train to Chippenham and the First bus from there to Melksham by a member of First staff, when a non-First direct train was sitting in the bay and leaving in about 15 minutes.  My goodness things have changed over the years, but this stresses the need to come up with a commercial solution that encourages the development of traffic right along the combined route to the mutual advantage of all players and passengers.

DMU allocation. SWT only have regional express type DMUs (158s and 159s) since the vast majority of their diesel services are the Waterloo-Exeter route, for which regional express stock is required. GWR on the other hand will (by 2020, we hope) have a fairly large number of outer-suburban networker turbos becoming available. As it stands, we're going to end up with another* unit role inversion, where the long-distance (semi)fast service (Cardiff-Portsmouth) becomes suburban DMUs while the shorter-distance local stopper (the Southampton-Romsey/Salisbury service) remains worked by regional express stock!

Of course it would perhaps be better to install 3rd rail between Eastleigh and Romsey and have SWT use 450s on Romsey - Eastleigh - Southampton services (which could extend towards Bournemouth if turnback capacity at Southampton is a problem) with GWR only taking over Salisbury - Southampton leg with networker turbos.

* There's something similar between Cardiff and Gloucester/Cheltenham, where the long-distance (XC) service uses outer-suburban Turbostars which would be more appropriate on ATW's Cardiff-Cheltenham stoppers, while some of the ATW services are 158s (not many of them though, most are the dreadful 150s and Pacers, and one of the 158s is a long-distance working anyway, which should be a 158).

Interestingly, if you look at GWR's current plans for Swindon - Westbury, they're 153 until May 2017, then 158 until December 2018, then 16x.  That route is 5 stations (so 4 intermediate runs) which takes around 48 minutes, so an average of 12 minutes per stop.   Contrast many other services where stops are more frequent.   But also note that joining up, stock wise, can end up being units of the same class even if the operator and base were to differ during the day.  [[P.S.  You'll find a 158 on services like the 17:11 Westbury to Warminster too, already ... not sure how often; I don't have a full analysis ]]

Proposing solutions that rely on part electrification is premature surely, and well outside the currently intended short franchise as well.  I can see little or no evidence that they would electrify Eastleigh to Romsey independently of Redbridge to Romsey and Salisbury anyway; if it were electrified it would have to be be as part of a wider network and probably the freight network - Southampton to Basingstoke via Laverstock, including both routes to Romsey.

Paul

That suggestion would be for the next HLOS report, surely? And they don't often consult on these.

That is a really depressing thought, Paul ... except that I thing (hope) you mean any SW area electrification.

I would hope that within the running period of the next SW franchise, some GW electrification will become live, releasing additional stock to strengthen services such as Portsmouth to Southampton, and Southampton to Salisbury.  And that would in turn have an effect on the overall capacity of these routes.

I think Paul was referring to SW area electrification (to go in the SW-area consult?)

Yes - specifically it requires a decision on the future of the 'electric spine' stuff between Basingstoke and Southampton.   

One of the problems with this franchise consultation is interpreting it in the light of the earlier Wessex route study.  Seems to me that none of the many service pattern changes that are detailed in the route study are even mentioned in the franchise consultation.   Is this intentional because it seems pretty pointless if people are going to go off on complete tangents to NR's proposals. 

Paul