Great Western Coffee Shop

I'm wondering if any of the railway staff we have around here can help me solve a misunderstanding ...

I was under the impressions that until last December, longer trains could only stop at shorter platforms where there was a history of them doing so - "Grandfather rights", but with the introduction of selective door opening, longer trains with operations could now stop at shorter platforms, thus removing the problem and allowing a 125 to call, as necessary, at any station it passes through. But I now have received an email that talks about "getting a platform passed for SDO".

If a platform is regularly served by units of class 143, 150/1, 150/2, 153 and 158, which when running in 4 car combinations already require only some doors to be opened as the platform I'm thinking about is quite short, what is the further passing issue involved?

Remember that HST doors are at the very end of the carriage - whereas 158s have an area to the right/left, likewise with 150s/153s/143s/142s which all have a cab. It is therefore needed for the platform to be inspected to see how much of an HST will safely fit in, give or take a short runover/underrun.

I think it means that any new stations at which a HST say, has not called at before needs to have a risk assesment. How many carriages etc that are platformed needs to clarified beforhand.

Ah - that makes sense, thanks.  Doesn't sound like too big a job when you put it like that, and yet I'm still awaiting an answer from over a month ago on one particular station (you can guess which, I'm sure!).

Bradford-on-Avon is passed for HST, right?

Yes - hence one stopped there!

A possible solution for Melksham could be to run a London - <somewhere in Devon or Cornwall> via Transwilts service. :)

How long is Melksham's platform, and is there any scope for lengthening.

Devon and Cornwall folk don't want that already long journey running via some shack* in Wiltshire ;)

*in comparison to passenger numbers from other stations on the journey...

If it gives you some idea, a 143 has to be "Local door only"...................

And no, they can't extend it either way

That possible solution for Melksham is more unlikely than the sun imploding in the next 5 minutes.

I'll say once and I'll say again - the best way to provide a morning service would be to divert one of the 0630 or 0640 Bristol TM to London services to run from Castle Cary, Frome, Westbury, Trowbridge, Melksham, Chippenham, Swindon then London.

Ok, just to Taunton. I'm not talking about re-routing the Cornish Riviera!

And does not one HST run London to Painton via Bristol? ???

That's a good idea, although D/M argument may be applicable here!

the 1000 PAD-PGN does indeed run vis Bristol although allows people from Swindon, Bath and Bristol to enjoy the English Riviera, it also calls at Weston which will drop many bucket and spade brigade off!

The Taunton HST is a short extension of the London to Bedwyn shuttle required by the SLC2.

It cannot divert via Melksham as it services the Berks & Hants local stations.

In the May to September timetable, the Devon and Cornwall Sunday trains are already scheduled to run via the TransWilts and indeed are shown in the TransWilts timetable.   The question was asked about stopping a single service each way on one or two Sundays to provide a "day out in London" to help us promote the line. No suggestions have been made (to my knowledge) concerning any addition rerouting of service scheduled to run from London  via Bristol, or via Salisbury, or via Newbury to Devon and Cornwall

Graham, bear in mind that these trains are only running via Melksham due an engineering blockade on the Berks & Hants route. Inserting stops into high speed services running via the Melksham route could potentially set a precedent for more calls at Melksham at the weekends using HST stock which of course is pretty much impossible due to the high amount of paths used on Sundays to allow for TTR in the London area, and of course HST availability being diagrammed for maintenance on a lot of sets on Sundays.

The chances of a stop being inserted on any is highly unlikely - and is going to stay that way in the forseeable future in any timetable.

Because there is SDO with 3 or 4 coaches on the platform, then there is local door only!


Face it, it doesn't really need a HST service to London........How about Avoncliff.........

Nah Jim, how about Gainsborough Central. Really high usage that one...

For those not familiar with the situation at Gainsborough Central, see link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gainsborough_Central_railway_station

The hourly service is all good, if the trial happens, but what a fuss will be kicked up when not many people use it and it gets put back to current level....

I would put it more as "if not many people use it and it gets put back to current level...."

A lot depends on how much effort is made to publicise/get people on to new services. Lets take the upcoming Severn Beach Line extra services as an example. I'm a realist, and I accept that there is a possibility that the trial could fail. However, many groups, organisations, and individuals (myself included) will be doing everything they possibly can to let people know about/get people onto those trains and make it a success.

A bit of an aside to answer queries raised

Comparisons are bound to be drawn at times, as they give a good reference point and balance.  And I have drawn many comparisons with regard to traffic levels that should be on offer between Melksham station, currently with a truely dreadful service, and other stations within 20 miles or so.   The closest comparison turns out to be to Frome, which has a population that's just 5% higher than Melksham and a station that is not right in the town centre. Other useful comparisons in the local area can be made to Warminster and to Bradford-on-Avon, but both of those have a significantly lower population.   I decline to compare to Westbury - that has a significantly lower population, but is a special case in that it's a major junction and changing point with a significant proportion of people changing trains, and a significant attraction potential as a park and ride for services headed off in six different directions rather than the two directions of each of the other stations mentioned.  Current traffic level comparisions are dangerous, as they tend to enshrine any weaknesses of current service and distortions into future plans. 

The TransWilts has its current service because of 2002 figures, which were distorted because of an excellent increase in service in 2001 which had not been allowed to "bed in" before the surveys were taken, and a false assumption of virtually no (0.8% per annum) growth.  Compare that to 10% compound growth (county council figures) or 35% compound growth (ORR figures, measured on Melksham ticket sales which are somewhat misleading too).

A future service based on current ridership NOW would also be false.  From an (estimated) traffic of 60,000 journeys per annum at around 2002, traffic rose to 120,000 journeys per annum accouring to First at the time they took over.  My current estimate is - being generous - around a tenth of that. 

Future provision needs to be based on future use, and I'm very glad to see Wiltshire County Council and First both looking at that, and coming up with a far more positive picture than a simple continuance of either 2002 or 2007 figures.

Future use is based on things like (a) Population served by the railhead, (b) the potential growth in that population, (c) the need or desire for that population to travel, (d) the availability or otherwise of other practical alternatives as well as (e) the frequency, reliability, speed, timing and price of the service offered.  To base it on current data alone would enshrine the faults in the current system.

Back on subject

The question asked is based on a request for a stop just once or twice in a year (thus the B-o-A comparison, with no regular HST calls to my knoweldge) and a statement by FGW's local managers that it would be possible to stop HSTs at Melksham after December 2007, once SDO was available on all units on the fleet.  In hindsight, we may have been intentionally mislead with a double negative, in other words We can't stop HSTs until December 2007 might have been said, omitting and we can't stop them afterwards either.   Not the first time we have been caught like that, either ...