Great Western Coffee Shop

The latest GWML RUS (draft for consultation stage) has been published today:

http://tinyurl.com/mlndok (http://tinyurl.com/mlndok)

I won't attempt to summarise it here...

Paul

192 pages !

Some very interesting stuff in there ... I have (naturally) been having a look at it from the viewpoint of the part of the South West in which I live - just scanning the diagrams and charts ... and no doubt will be posting further in due course.

Consultation closes, mid November, by the way.

I am not impressed with this report at all.

It doesn't mention about tackling rail issues in South West.


The Time it takes to travel from Large City such as Penzance, Plymouth, Exeter and Taunton to London.

Alternative to Route between Exeter and Plymouth to increase the number of people be able to have access to the rail network.

Re-opening some of the old Station Closed by Beaching.

Sorry, but much of what you mention simply isn't within the remit of Network Rail or the RUS - that's why it's not in the document - reopenings are the job of local authorities and government - Network Rail's is to run and enhance the existing network, which is what the document addresses, pretty thoroughly, from a rough skim read of it all.

And any alternative route between Plymouth and Exeter would be about avoiding the problem of the sea wall - nothing else. Going inland via Heathfield would cut off people from rail services at the likes of Dawlish and Teignmouth, while going round Dartmoor on the old Southern route doesn't exactly touch upon Devon's most heavily populated areas.

Electrification, the IEP and, perhaps most important of all, the capacity enhancements proposed throughout the GWML area all offer the prospect of cutting journey times - but the report makes it clear that they looked at the journey time issue and in many cases, the small time gains could not justify the level of expenditure that would be needed. Speeding up West Country services by providing another set of trains to cover the stations between Reading and Taunton is also suggested as a long-term strategy.

It also makes clear they have looked at other things, such as changing stopping patterns, eg taking out some Didcot stops by South Wales expresses - presumably with the proposed third Oxford-London IEP fast service nipping in and out of Didcot to keep up the service frequency there. They have also looked at the calling pattern west of Plymouth.

Mmmm... I've only had time to have a brief look through those 192 pages.

A few interesting things that caught my attention though:

* Of the two services per hour between London and Cardiff/Swansea, one will be running non-stop between Reading and Bristol Parkway.    Good call!

* an additional service per hour between London Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads, via Bristol Parkway.

Doesn't say if the stopping pattern of the normal services to London Paddington-Bristol Temple Meads will change.    Maybe the additional service per hour via Parkway will be limited stop(non-stop through Reading rather than Swindon would be the better option) to create true London-Bristol Temple Meads express services.

I was just watching the report on HTV West(sorry West Country Tonight) News.  And one of the passengers commented "I heard that years back trains were faster than they are now.   So that should be something that needs looking into.".

Also spotted in that report:

* An hourly Bristol-Bath shuttle service, calling all stations.  With some services departing/termination Clifton Down.

* some peak morning and evening Cardiff-Portsmouth running limited stop between Bristol Temple Meads and Westbury.




Anyway in the meantime, bit of a (very) long wait till any of these interesting changes takes place.

I can't really see that Exeter or Taunton need a faster service to London - 2h5 or 1h40 seem reasonable to me. Any additional work to raise line speeds would be very expensive and probably knock off about 10 minutes at the very most. BR also used to managed Paddington-Exeter in 1h55 (back in the 80s when speed limits were more liberally interpreted). It does get a lot slower west of Newton Abbot though.

The main route from Exeter to Plymouth will always swing south of the moor given that Newton Abbot and Torbay are that side along with other towns, compared to Okehampton and Tavvy to the north. It would be nice if the whole route ever reopened as it would be a useful diversionary route, particularly for freight when the seawall is blocked but that's not the remit of the RUS and it would only ever be a very long-term goal.

1006/1206 Paddington - Exeter often do the journey in sub 2 hours.

1006 did it in 1hr56 mins today
1206 did it in 1h58

I may have missed it, but I can't see any suggestion that there will be non-stop running from Reading to Bristol Parkway.

Reading to Swindon non-stop, yes, by taking out the Didcot stops on South Wales services and presumably transferring them to a third Oxford-London fast train that is included in the draft IEP timetable, but this is a few years off, although one peak train to London and one back in the evening will miss Didcot from this December, to just creep under the 3-hour timing for Swansea-London.

As for skipping Reading... we're in 2009, not autumn 1976 and the first HST timetable. You are not going to miss one of the key interchange stations on the national network and a major employment centre. Remember, electrification is coming, with quicker journeys by those means.

I am referring to Page 143, section 6.9.13.2, Change in calling patterns Reading to Swindon.

They must be cutting some slack then, as currently the 1745 Paddington - Carmarthen does London - Swansea in 3h4 and doesn't call Didcot.

Well I'm sure I read that some South Wales services will run non-stop between Reading and Bristol Parkway.  But I can't seem to find it now.  It certainly says that they are considering reducing the calling points anyway.

As for the service that does NOT stop at Reading.   I was suggesting that the best service this could be would be the additional London Paddington-Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway services.    London Paddington>Swindon>Bristol Parkway>Bristol Temple Meads.   To enable a proper fast express service again between London and Bristol(Temple Meads).   Any passengers wanting to travel between Reading and Swindon or the two Bristol stops would be able to travel on one of the other regular services anyway.    It would certainly make sense if these additional services were the ONLY services which dont call at Reading.   These services would be primarily aimed at passengers travelling between London and Bristol, rather than the intermediate stops in between as well.

Anyway, just have to wait and see.  Someone wake me up when it's time.....

The planned December change, pages 82-83 in the RUS, is for the 05.59 from Swansea to reach paddington at 8.55 and the 16.45 from London will skip Didcot.

It is a chewie document to digest, but it does make it clear that there are some major bottle necks along the GWML, nothing we all didn't know already but this document list them along with some solutions like 14 full length platforms at Paddington this fascinates me as all the years I have been associated with Paddington the platforms have been shortened.  The RUS also alludes to what else will need to be done much further into the future to increase capacity.  I can see the day that 4 tracking between Didcot and Swindon will be included in a RUS.

I have now found it.  It's on page 84....

4.3.5.3 Main Line Services (Interurban)

On the core London Paddington/Bristol/South Wales corridor IEP trains will continue to provide half hourly services, with some South Wales services accelerated to run non-stop between Reading and Bristol Parkway.   A fifth train per hour is currently proposed between London Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway to cater for more growth generally.  Swindon and Didcot Parkway will be served by alternate high speed services which will include some services starting from these stations.  The existing two hourly through service from London Paddington to Cheltenham will potentially increase to hourly.

Hmm. 'Some' doesn't exactly sound like a lot and reading between the lines, it would depend heavily on that beefing-up of the Cheltenham service and provision of services running London-Swindon only to ensure you have the right capacity on offer from Swindon to be able do it.

As for quad-tracking Didcot-Swindon, expect a rapid rethink if RWE npower decides to cough up for flue gas desulphurisation at Didcot power station, as the strategy seems to assume the pesky coal trains won't be in the way after 2015. If they still are running, you won't be fitting in any extra Bristol-London trains any time soon.

It was nice to see some interest point like Page 141, 6.9.12

Hourly Service from Exeter St James Park to Barnstable
Half Hourly Service from Exmouth to Paignton
Aspirational Half Hourly Service from Exeter to Axminster

Three possible Options for extending long distant services to Exeter or Plymouth Via Bristol Temple Meads

Not until 2018 though.

The RUS is setting out the stall for the foreseeable future throughout the South West ... "rather significant" might be a bit of an understatement.  So I have added a poll at the top of "Across the West" asking our members to tell us what they would like us to do (if anything) in terms of responding or helping them respond.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5271.0

I'll confine my thoughts to infrastructure proposals.

The 4th platform at Bristol Parkway is dismissed as too expensive and is very unlikely to happen. For a scheme which I thought had committed funding such an about face is remarkable.

The Weston - Worle enhancements, which were recently put back to 2011 are now also dismissed. The reason for the delay to 20111 was that performance improvements meant the single line was no longer the problem it was. Now, the proposed service enhancement to Weston is ruled out because the dualling is too expensive. Meanwhile, the line runs at 100% capacity for both peak periods.

However, in from left field comes 4 tracking Bedminster to Parson St. This is one of my favourite schemes as I've passed the disused track most days for the last 6 years, and I've often wondered why it hasn't been proposed before to reinstate the line. This scheme is recommended, due to the reduction in delay minutes it will bring.

Another scheme appearing from nowhere is 125mph Bristol to Bridgwater, saving 3 minutes on journey times which XC will use to pad their recovery allowances even further.

Filton Bank appears to be causing some problems, as the schemes they've looked at are too expensive, but they recognise that something needs to be done. With an additional IEP service from Bristol TM to London via Parkway proposed and anticipated increases in freight traffic it certainly does.

Finally the report continues the recent theme that Swindon - Kemble will be done, and later even talks about grade separating Standish junction (or dualling it - strange, I thought it was a double junction). I would have thought Westerleigh grade separation was more urgent than Standish.

Oh, and finally, finally, Nailsea is listed as an unstaffed station. Hope Jacob doesn't read it, as he might get a bit worried about his job.   

 

Agree with all John R's comments re infrastructure.

4th Platform at Bristol Parkway gives opportunites for cross platform interchange to and from between Bristol TM (and SWest) /Birmingham and S Wales / London services.

it could also be used for overtaking. instead of teh via Parkway from TM London Service being fast, It could run Swindon Didcot Reading whilst the S.Wales overtook it and went fast to Reading. S. Wales passengers for intermediate stops could do a cross platform change.

This would mean That there would have to be one fast an hour non stop Reading Bath, this could be the Weston/Taunton train. Need to think about this but a 4th paltform at Parkway does give such opportunities.

Weston Worle, essential to improve Weston Service and give resilience to Bristol Taunton.

4 tracks Bedminister Parsons Street definitely.

125 Bristol Bridgwater, if Networkrail has to replace track then making it 125 makes sense after all Western Region fettled up Padd to Bristol both routes too 125 in a year or so prior to introduction of HST's. Also HST's don't need signalling changes as they are designed to stop in the same distance as loco hauled at 90.

Filton Bank definite problem will become a bottle neck especialy if Portishead opens and trains run through to Parkway or Yate. 

I'm going to use John R's post as a basis for my reaction to the RUS proposals for the Bristol area, as it saves me having to organise my thoughts! Overall I'm happy to see that Network Rail have considered so many schemes thoroughly, even if I don't always agree with their conclusions, it gives a lot of material for the politicians and pressure groups to work on.

I think we all need to bear in mind that the RUS is about what NR can achieve given the current situation, that is to say they can't put anything in the plans that has no chance of happening without new funding being made available from somewhere. Therefore they can only propose a development off their own bat if they can make a solid business case that it will bring financial gains over a 60 year period. This does not mean that they are against any proposals which they are not currently supporting, just that they are not in a position to make them happen themselves.

I'm wondering if they're making a point here about the hypothetical "Greater Bristol Metro". Which is to say, it can't possibly be justified on commercial grounds, therefore if the various local and national government bodies and quangos want it to happen, don't look to Network Rail for a contribution. (Although the 4th platform at Parkway has clear benefits for freight and HST services too.)

In this respect we could also add to your list the Yate turnback which they say should be funded by a housing development.... pity no-one thought of that a couple of years ago when the housing market was still strong.

I'm surprised to see this too, not really sure if it's needed unless Portishead happens, as the current layout enables fast trains to pass slow trains around Bedminster in both directions. If it does ever happen, I like their idea of separating the tracks into a pair of relief lines on the north side and a pair of fast lines on the south side.

;D Which rather destroys their business case built on the value per minute saved...

They're clearly looking for government support for this one, which they won't get -- too big a scheme for the westcountry.

Yes I find it amazing that although somewhere in the document they mention the stress on Westerleigh - Parkway, and talk of increasing freight and passenger services in the area, yet they have no proposals to alleviate it (apart from the now abandoned Parkway 4th platform). Ideally the stretch should be 4 track but obviously there's no chance if Filton Bank is too expensive with the track bed already there.

Other than John R's points above, I like the proposed hourly service from Clifton Down to Bath, although FOSBR will be up in arms about the idea of the service beyond Clifton reverting to hourly. Personally though I think half hourly to Clifton and hourly beyond would be better than the current sort-of-40-minutely service, especially considering that the vast majority of passengers travel inward from Clifton. I've read that Bath is the most popular destination for Severn Beach line passengers beyond Temple Meads, and I think Keynsham and Oldfield Park really need a half hourly service.

The proposed map of the Bristol area is bizarre, it seems to show some services terminating at Bedminster, which seems a bit random.

Last paragraph page 164, it  apppears that this is still on the cards if a business case can be made?

Good to hear that some Bristol/Wales longer distance InterCity trains will be dropping some stops. Although the report only says "some", I expect that this will mean peak trains only will have the stops removed, where there is the demand for shorter journey times.

Shame they can't cut some stops on the Plymouth and Cornwall trains.

There are much fewer stops at Newbury now and calls at Pewsey, Castle Cary and Westbury have also been reduced.  There are more stops at Tiverton Parkway though.

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me that it is really only tinkering. Remove stops here add stops there increase frequency here reduce it there.

How about a radicle rethink of how we provide a train servvice to all staions with an appropriate frequency and indentify the obstacles to providing such a service.

I would like to propose the stopper/fast concept for all lines with nodal staions where the fast overtakes and has a connection with the stopper which then follows the fast to the next node.

Possible example but only posible if Westbury has 4 platforms?

Down Southampton stopper arrives from Bristol, followed by on the other platform down Portsmouth fast which has only stopped at Bath and Trowbridge? Stopper waits Portsmouth departs next stop Warminister? Salisbury. As soon as Portsmouth leaves Down West of England arrives and departs.
You could add a stopper from London whcih termoinates or goes through to Penzance  as the first train in sequence which arrives empties and departs after fast West of England. The Bristol stopper could be a combined Southampton/Weymouth train which splits at Westbury.

Same in the Up West of England stoper Southampton/Weymouth stopper combines Cardiff fast overtakes and leaves. London fast train followed by Bristol London stoppers.

If we could run trains exactly to time this could be done in ten minutes given cross platform interchange. Of course it means having three trains in one platform and splitting and combining trains which we seem to lost the art of just a few years ago. After all this was how the Southern timetable worked for years, I'm not sure at how staions they split trains at but I can think of 5 off hand and some every half hour in both directions.

Other nodal points with possible overtaking Plymouth Newton Abbot Exeter Taunton Bristol Parkway for both London Birmingham etc.

There do seem to be some more 'radical' elements in the RUS - but it's really about providing the track and infrastructure (it's an NR document) rather than exactly how those service should connect (DfT / TOC spec).   Having said which, it needs to consider the service pattern that TOCs / the DfT / local transport authority would like, as well as the service numbers.

There ARE some interesting things that are radical in the RUS around the Westbury area ... but more on stopping patterns and frequencies rather than - for somewhere like Westbury - the vital connection issue.

Our poll of "what d'you want us to do on the RUS" has just concluded ... I'll be looking at that / the results over the next 24 hours.

I'm a little bit lost here. The RUS is Network Rail document which is about providing track and infrastructure but only "considers" service patterns that the DFT/TOC/Local Authority may like to run. Isn't that the wrong way round or am I being naive?

Surely it should start form what services do we (collectively) want to run what are the obstacles to running these services at the frequency, speed (timing), stopping pattern required and these are the possible  infrastructure solutions required and their cost.

At the moment it seems to be saying if we tweek this bit of the railway or change the frequency or stopping patterns we can run an extra train an hour on this part of the route irrespective of whether  it's actually needed and more importantly if it actually meets the travel needs of potential passengers..

I don't actually think it is - there's a lot of cost / benefit stuff in there which is based on calculations of how much benefit a service would be to the area served.   So it IS taking a look at what other stakeholders want.  Those other stakeholders should be the travelling public and wannabe travellers, but they're represented to a greater or lesser extent by people like the DfT, Passenger Focus, local transport authorities, TOCs, who are deemed to know more about train services and their precticality and overall impolications that individual passengers do.  So there's a degree of separation there - and I don't know if there's an easy solution; I know that we have not felt that the DfT, FGW and Wiltshire Council have in the past truely represented the needs of travellers in our parts, and with a lot of the RUS base being from them ...

But the RUS is at consultation, and we have a chance to make inputs.

Who should be making those inputs on behalf of the passenger? I'm not sure that I see Passenger Focus co-ordinating passenger responses although their name says they should be.   I don't see the FGW customer panel doing much. TWSW has very useful meeting to help groups co-ordinate twice a year, but doesn't cover the whole area and it's beyond its remit.  RailFuture has headlines that it should be, but I can't see any mention on their web site of the RUS.

I hate to be presumtive, stand up and suggest that our little bunch should make strong inputs, but I look at the other options and I sense a bit of a vacuum.


There's a bit of "chicken and egg" here. We should indeed say "what services do we want to run or to have run for us", but then also be sure that we're looking at services which can be run. And that's where the CBR stuff comes in.

The RUS is not a set in stone document it is NR's view on how it sees the most efficient use of the asset, the ToC's n FoC's through pressure of their customers may have a different view mix all this in with what DfT want who provide much of the (tax payers) money to run the services and providing / maintaining the infrastructure all will alter the service patterns no doubt will suit some and mostly not others

Sounds good - don't see how it could be impossible.

Hopefully Chiltern can start overtaking if any quad track is ever installed in the Ruslip area.

Can someone explain the issues with Filton Bank to me? I don't get it. You've got a major junction with lots of services serving Bristol from both South Wales and The Midlands, these two lines combine into a single pair at Filton. There is trackbed all the way to Bristol not currently doing anything apart from providing a home to rabbits. How can laying the track and separating out these services not be a cost effective thing to do? It's not even that far! It's got to be less mileage than the Cotswold line redoubling but the current traffic density is an order of magnitude higher than that example.

Confused...

It seems to be the exhorbitant cost of adding signalling to existing layouts that causes the most problems with schemes like this which rules them out until they can be incorporated in the complete resignalling of the area.

Another cost could be the amount of ground work need on the disused trackbed to bring it up to a suitable standard after the rabbits have finished digging.

Track laying itself  is relatively cheap.

"We've got 4 platforms, let's close one and save money"
"That platform we've closed: let's re-lay the track a bit further away from it"
"That platform we've closed: let's build a new fence"
"That platform we've closed: let's re-number the ones that are left"

"That platform we've closed: let's re-open it" !!!!


Meanwhile - at Salisbury

"We've got 6 platforms, let's close one and save money"

I won't go on............... at least they didn't re-number the survivors !

Joined up thinking ? I think not   ??? ???

Elements of it may be more joined up than you think.   The cost of keeping extra infrastructure in use / maintained for the last 30 - 40 years would probably have been higher than the cost of retaining it, and could have meant further significant losses in the past.  Some of the cuts (Bradford North Curve) should never have happened others are more understandable and justifiable.

I'll add Taunton, Temple Meads and Chippehham to your list, if I may  :D

Salisbury is somewhat different, I was just being a bit facetious there, a quick brush up and turn the lights back on and they're in business. Westbury has long bemused (amused ?) me with what they have done there, as I said - was it really necessary to re-number the platforms ??  They seem to have gone out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to re-open it for those pesky "customers".
Of course, at Westbury the "Delay Attribution Office" may not have had a home in the mean time  ;D

Under BR there were political considerations too.  If you remove spare capacity (even if its retention would have been very cheap) you demonstrate to the politcos that you are running a lean network.  If the amount of capital tied up in infrastructure fell each year the government were pleased.

In a similar vein, BR made many of its stations "open" (removing the barriers).  Even if the increase in ticketless travel made no economic sense (ie the barriers and their staff more than paid for themselves), the open stations made political sense becasue BR could point to year on year reductions in headcount as evidence of agressive cost cutting.

Now under NR, the huge debt of NR is secured (essentially mortgaged) against the value of the infrastructure assets, so the incentive to reduce the value of the infratructure needed to run the railway is reversed. 

Shame these could not be mothballed. You save the money of destruction gangs...

Indeed Salisbury Platform 1 is already down to be reopened, it should happen this year according to NR's current 'Wessex route plan'. So a quick brush up is about all they've time for now...

I did hear the idea was that it would only be used for trains coming into service off the depot in the morning, so the lack of facilities for waiting pax wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Paul

BR was directed by DfT at the time to reduce maintenance costs by reduce over capacity as a way of showing efficiencies it is easy today with increasing passenger numbers and fright tonnage to question now why did they do that, in the 70's and 80's BR did not have the funding to maintain all of its system, its also the reason why so many bits that would be oh so useful today were sold off

It would be a fairly large project: the junction at Filton Abbey Wood would need to be remodelled and a new platform built for Wales-bound trains, the existing tracks between Filton and Stapleton Road cross from one side to the other so all 4 would need re-laying, no doubt work would be needed on the cuttings through Horfield and the bridges and embankments over Narroways Rd and Muller road, Stapleton Road station would need a new footbridge, and on top of that I think it would require a brand new double track bridge over Stapleton Road and the M32, as the abandoned one looks beyond repair.