Great Western Coffee Shop

I attended a meeting last week where some of the detail of the blockade at Bath next April was outlined.  Although the work is confined to the Bath area it will an impact on services on the TransWilts.

Posting here because some of the details have yet to be given to local councillors and the like and also the delay announced in the electrification programme may involve more changes, although I understand the blockade will be going ahead.

Work will be carried out between 8th and 23rd April.

There will be no trains through Bath on 8th/9th April, 14th/17th April (Easter Weekend) and 22nd/23rd April.

Due to the listed nature of the station the overhead will be suspended from single columns erected through the centre of the station.  The two tracks will then be slewed to run adjacent to the columns and the platforms built out to meet the tracks.  In doing so the levels will be altered to reduce the current step down from trains and iron out some of the curve.

To achieve this between Monday 10th and Thursday 14th only the current London bound platform will be open for trains in both directions.  The following week (Tuesday 18th to Friday 21st) the down platform will be open for all trains.

The plan is to run three trains an hour in each direction serving Bristol, London, Westbury/Weymouth, Gloucester and South Wales.  There may be extras on Maundy Thursday.

Rail Replacement Buses will operate to Bristol, Chippenham, Trowbridge, Westbury and Frome.  A direct bus will run between Bristol and Castle Cary and services from Bradford-on Avon to stations in the Avon Valley.  There are some concerns that planned roadworks at Temple Gate in Bristol might affect the rail replacement buses heading for Temple Meads.

The usual Cardiff to Portsmouth services will be replaced by a Swindon to Portsmouth service.  This will run hourly with, as a general rule, alternate ones calling at Melksham.

Car parking at the station will be restricted throughout April with workers' compounds being set up at the rear of the station.  Arrangements are being made for car park season ticket holders to park at the Southgate Car Park.

Given today's announcement, I would have thought that there will be a very negative reaction from the travelling public if this work goes ahead. Though I for one hope it does, as it would demonstrate a commitment to finish the route through to Bristol.

BBC Points West reported tonight that Network Rail has confirmed that it will be going ahead.

Had confirmation this morning from the project team itself that the work will indeed be going ahead.  The trackworks are needed to allow the IEPs to run through Bath whether on diesel or electric power.

Yes, that makes sense:


What Brunel would have thought about any such 'ironing out of his curves' is sadly academic now.  ::)

Sadly it is academic as he passed away in 1859.  If both tracks end up in the centre ... he might have thought:

a) "Do we need something to keep the customers dry in that gap between canopy and train?"

b) "What a pity we'll remove the possibility of a middle platform with a single track and a turn back towards Bristol - we'll have to extend the new services to a bay at Chippenham"

I will see if I can get an answer to question a at the next meeting.

Attended another meeting last night and the answer is "no".  It is thought that, except at the very busiest of times, people will be able to wait under the existing canopies and only venture out when the train arrives.

It also seems the Cardiff-Portsmouth trains will only be diverted to run from Swindon on the weekends of the 7th/8th April, Good Friday to Easter Monday, and 21st/22nd April.  At other times they will run through Bath using whichever platform is open.

On point b) I think the idea for a service turning back for Bristol at Bath is part of the Bristol Metro scheme and as I understand it the turning back services would wait in the siding at Bathampton junction.

But your point about Chippenham is well made, that station has substantial flows into Bath and Bristol and yet only a 2tph service to those stations.  Whilst 2tph is fine for a longer distance service (ie to London) for a short, busy commuter flow it could do with being improved.  Bath-Bristol is much better served (and due to get better still) and there is an argument (essentially based on the idea of spreading wealth outwards from the cities) that the Chippenham-Bath service frequency should be comparable.   A turnback at Chippenham might help, although there is of course the countering argument that such a turn back should be used for transwiltshire services and also that that the turnback ought to be at Swindon, Didcot, Oxford (as it was previously) or Reading.   

Tim your mention of Chippenham reminded me of something else that was mentioned last night I hadn't heard before.

Once the IEPs are in and there are four trains an hour between Bristol and London the proposal is one of the extras will run via Hullavington (which we knew) the other will call at Bath Spa and Chippenham and then fast to London. That was news to me.

If so, will that reduce the journey time by more than the small reductions expected from Bath/Chippenham or is it to counteract the IET diesel effect?

It was said last night that Hitachi are running tests to get some data on what the diesel engines can provide.

Clearly they cannot run any tests through Bath until the gauge clearance work has been completed.

Eh?   Kinda gives a problem for Chippenham - Swindon traffic - reduces it to hourly.   I can see that being popular.   But a good help in getting TransWilts up to hourly ;-)

And presumably the same reduction in service between Bath and Swindon?  Which is not resolved with an enhanced TransWilts service!

I'm confused? The extra service via Bath is only in peak times and will run fast from Chippenham, in addition to the 2tph that will normally operate on that route.

The other 'fast' service during the peak is first stop Bristol Parkway before continuing on to Cardiff, with none of the (extra) IEPs operating between Bristol Parkway and Bristol TM during the peak hours.

Swindon - Chippenham - Bath will still have 2tph, all throughout the day, (with a 3rd between Chippenham and Bath in the peaks)

Concur.   What you describe is shown in diagrammatic form on page 7 of that GW direct award brief for the 2018 IEP timetable. (If anyone still has a copy downloaded.)   In the peaks the 2 tph that would normally go via Bristol Parkway to/from Temple Meads are altered and the paths are used for a third train via Bath and a third train to South Wales instead.

Paul

Four trains an hour

1 via Hullavington
2 via Box (as now)
1 via Box but non stop after Chippenham (eastbound).  I take Paul's point this may be peak only - although that wasn't stated.

Thanks for the clarifications.   In the few minutes I had on the forum earlier, I misread Bob's post and added it to what was (it now sounds) a previous plan ...

Previous plan was 2 an hour via Hullavington with minimal stops east of Parkway and 2 an hour via Chippenham ... and I read it that one of the Chippenham trains was now non-stop from there to somewhere very much more to the east.  Hadn't realised that it was one of the via Hullavington services re-directed via Bath.  Sorry for any panic caused.

I hadn't realised there had been an alteration to the 2 via Box and two via Parkway original plan, so thanks for that update.

If the plan has changed (which would deem electrifying Parkway to Temple Meads a bit pointless) then it would appear Chippenham - Bath - Bristol would in fact have 3tph throughout the day improving the level of service along this route (which is why we went off topic in the first place)

It would make it harder to timetable an even spread of services, but would certainly allow Chippenham and Bath passengers a quicker alternative to London throughout the day.

The problem I have with service pattern definitions, is that I can easily understand the nice simple coloured lines in the direct award brief. 

But when I go to the SLC3a and SLC 3b documents on the DfT website, and try and make sense of the service patterns the way they define them there, it seems utterly confusing.   
???  Which I suppose is what you'd expect once lawyers get involved...

Paul