FGW's other Salisbury - Southampton services

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

Just having a browse through the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) the other day, I happened to look again at their suggestions for Portsmouth - Cardiff, one of which AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) is that some peak services be speeded up, with additional trains to run as reliefs to pick up the short hops between local stations, maybe as far as Warminster?

This got me thinking again about just what is the current point of those few odd workings to Southampton, that since the handover of Dean and Mottisfont to SWT^▸ (South West Trains), seem to run just ahead or just behind other services.  Should these services be curtailed at Salisbury?

I have thought for a while that the Brighton extensions are past their sell by date in view of the current SN service pattern - indeed I have responded to the Sussex RUS consultation with a suggestion that these trips be cut back to Southampton, albeit coincident with SNs addition of an hourly service to Southampton on Sundays, which is planned for Dec 2010.  But should these also be cut back to Salisbury?

I know when I've mentioned this before people have pointed out the usefulness of that once a day Bristol - Brighton service, and its two returns - but I think the 'greater good' is served by using the units in FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s home area.  Is the optimum service pattern to only run the Cardiff - Portsmouth across Salisbury, and have any other FGW services - including from Swindon perhaps - running into Platform 5 at Salisbury, mirroring SWT's locals, ideally running from Platform 6?

Maybe there is a feasible scheme whereby there can be a stopper between Westbury and Salisbury in most hours?

Is the above completely out of step with the general 'coffee shop' point of view?

Paul   

[ReWind]

I think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should only run as far as Southampton, with a connecting service operated by Southern running to Portsmouth/Brighton, as these destinations aren't really "western".

Southampton, however, being the major interchange station on the south coast ( i.e for Bournemouth/Poole/Eastleigh/Portsmouth/Brighton etc. ) should then benefit with a half hourly service to Westbury.  One service per hour then continuing to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains)/CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) and the other service continuing to SWI^» (Swindon - next trains)/GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains).  This then provides Melksham with a train service too. 

If all PHB - CDF services were to become Southampton - CDF services, there would then be the units and crew to provide this service, as this should free at least 2 units up, and these 2 units could then become 2 car 158's instead of the current 3 car 158's, therefore providing 3 units for the GCR/SWI - Southampton trips, as well as the one unit currently operating the daily service that currently exists. ( 153 I think ).

The only problem I see with this is what to do with Fratton FGW crew.  Sorry guys, but your relocating to Southampton. 

Its still early, and Im not fully generated yet, so please ridicule this scenario. 

[paul7575]

I think there's too much reduction in journey opportunities there. Portsmouth - Cardiff should remain an hourly through service, it does provide the only fast Portsmouth - Southampton after all.

Paul

[Tim]

I think the Brighton through trains are useful and have used them a handful of times.  You can get to Brighton from Bath quicker if you go via London, but no everyone is willing or able to struggle on the underground. 

[devon_metro]

I think the Brighton through trains are useful and have used them a handful of times.  You can get to Brighton from Bath quicker if you go via London, but no everyone is willing or able to struggle on the underground. 

Or get ripped off in the process of it!!

I should add, one improvement to the line would be speeding up between Southampton and Bristol, it really is a drag doing that journey.

[Brucey]

Something I'd like to see is some competition on the Portsmouth-Cardiff route.  There isn't really one existing operator who suits the entire route, so why not let several operate the route and let passengers choose which train they take.  SWT^▸ (South West Trains) already have services between Bristol and Salisbury, so these could be increased in frequency and extended to either Southampton or Portsmouth.  Alternatively, a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) like Wessex Trains would be most suited to the route.

In addition, why should FGW^▸ (First Great Western) operate the only Brighton-Salisbury-Bath-Bristol service?  Surely a service operated by Southern (perhaps extending one of their Brighton-Southampton services) would increase competition and service on the route?

[John R]

Presumably the Brighton - Soton services are emu, so operationally that might be a bit of a challenge.

[moonrakerz]

I should add, one improvement to the line would be speeding up between Southampton and Bristol, it really is a drag doing that journey.

The real drag is after Warminster where the train stops at every second lamp post !

[grahame]

There are some interesting and quote wide-ranging options floating around.

I'm going to describe here what's no more than personal thoughts.

a) A service that runs just twice a day, outside remote areas / long journeys (e.g. the Ghan) isn't going to be responisble in its own right for satisfying a flow, unless that flow is only at a specific time of day that it matches. 

b) A service that provides occasional extra trains between others that are regular and reasonably frequent  sn't going to be responisble in its own right for satisfying a flow, unless some of the occasions are very specific.

a) + b) together mean that I'm questioning "The Brightons" and the other services south of Salisbury whcih run in addition to the Cardiff / Portsmouth.   I'm aware that the 08:09 arrival into Southampton and the 17:00 departure from Brighton are busy ... and that passengers don't want to wait at Brighton for thr 17:02  . I'm also told that payments made to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) for these trains, based on ORCATS^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services), help them to get significantly increased income out of proportion to the number of passengers carried - money that would otherwise go to the competitive operators on the routes.

So - there is sense in exploring the southern sections of these routes and saying "could better use be made ... could the system as a whole meet more needs / carry more people IF ....".

Hypothysis ... continue to run the Cardiff -> Portsmouth as is.  It ain't bust - don't fix it!   But terminate the Brightons back at Salisbury, and look to cutting back some of the extra Southamptons to Salisbury too.  That's going to free up some resources

Now ... there's also resource that sits in a bay platform at Swindon for one hour in every two through the day - the extra Stroud Valley trains between the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

What to do with that resource?  Two things that can be sorted out in true FGW territory - firstly, two trains an hour from Westbury to Salisbury (and - please - keep them about 30 minutes apart and have one stop at DMH^» (Dilton Marsh - next trains) every hour), and the TransWilts.   How?   Extend the Stroud Valley trains to Salisbury, and plug the need for the extra train with the unit that's east of Southampton overnight until about 11 a.m. anf from about 2 p.m. until late in the day.   Alternate stoppers from Bristol to Westbury already extend to Weymouth ... and the others sometimes to Warminster.   Have all those others extend to Salisbury.   With the Cheltenham -> Salisbury via Swindon and the Bristol -> Weymouth in the same hour, you can also set up good connections from Swindon -> Weymouth, etc.

In total passengers carried by rail ... I can't see how this can fail to result in a significant increase.  I don't see any additional staffing needs.   So I see more money into the rail industry 'pool'.  On the downside, though, FGW could loose financially - firstly because of a loss of orcats money south of Salisbury which would go to other operators, and secondly because of elements of subsidy for the Brighton and extra Southampton services in the franchise which they would loose.




 

[Henry]

 From a passenger perspective, some prefer direct services i.e. elderly, disabled.

[Tim]

 From a passenger perspective, some prefer direct services i.e. elderly, disabled.

Quite right and not just them.  Also people with pushchairs and people who get worried about changing and people who want to book a seat and stay sat at it working all the way.  I think it would be wrong to disregard these people especially on routes that provide non-London journey oportunties as I suspect that ter are quite a few of them and they are mainly descretionary travellers.

I kinda follow grahame's logic but until connections are better in the timetable I would resist withdrawal of the occassional thru train.  It is the extra few minutes that are saved by not having to change that make the flow competive with other routes.  Ie withdraw the Bristol-Brighton direct and changing at Salisbury adds say 10 -15 minutes to your journey and the route no longer competes with the via London route (perhaps to the extent that it no loner shows up on Online timetables).  If I can give another personal example, there used to be a Wessex Bath-Manchester direct train at (i think) 1726.  It got me to Manchester after work in good time.  When it was withdrawn the route still existed (change at Newport) but with the extra time needed for the connection and the fact that you need to change, the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) route became more attractIve despite having to change at BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) and BNS^▸ (Barnes (not Birmingham New Street)) so I switched.  Is it really in the network's best interests to increase the number of people changing trains in London and Birmingham?  Because although Grahame's proposal (and the general idea of concentrating units onto regular services onto core routes) invisages changes at places like Salisbury, it you are not careful the policy will result in more pressure being placed on a few overcrowded main interchanges.   

[Lee]

I think FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should only run as far as Southampton, with a connecting service operated by Southern running to Portsmouth/Brighton, as these destinations aren't really "western".

Southampton, however, being the major interchange station on the south coast ( i.e for Bournemouth/Poole/Eastleigh/Portsmouth/Brighton etc. ) should then benefit with a half hourly service to Westbury.  One service per hour then continuing to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains)/CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) and the other service continuing to SWI^» (Swindon - next trains)/GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains).  This then provides Melksham with a train service too. 

If all PHB - CDF services were to become Southampton - CDF services, there would then be the units and crew to provide this service, as this should free at least 2 units up, and these 2 units could then become 2 car 158's instead of the current 3 car 158's, therefore providing 3 units for the GCR/SWI - Southampton trips, as well as the one unit currently operating the daily service that currently exists. ( 153 I think ).

The only problem I see with this is what to do with Fratton FGW crew.  Sorry guys, but your relocating to Southampton. 

Its still early, and Im not fully generated yet, so please ridicule this scenario. 

Ok, here's how I see it.

Cutting back Portsmouth-Cardiff and Brighton services would release three 3-coach Class 158 units, as the proposed Southampton-Cardiff services would require six 3-coach Class 158 units.

Because of the need to viably path through the various sections of route, including the single-track Melksham line and the Chippenham-Swindon main line, the proposed hourly Southampton-Swindon services would require 5 units.

This could be done as follows:

Split two of the spare 3-coach Class 158 units into three 2-coach Class 158 units.

Swap the remaining spare 3-coach Class 158 unit with an existing FGW 2-coach Class 158 unit diagram. This would have the added advantage of providing more seating capacity on said diagram.

Insert calls at Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge in the proposed hourly Southampton-Swindon services. Divert the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) Romsey-Southampton-Salisbury services to Totton instead, just as they used to be. As well as making Denis and the SHRUG folks very happy indeed, this would free up a further 2-coach Class 158 unit, which could then be transferred to FGW.

You now have your 5 Southampton-Swindon units, all of which are 2-coach Class 158's.

This is where the problems start:

PLAN A

Cardiff Central xx30 ^ Newport xx44 ^ Filton Abbey Wood xx09 ^ Bristol Temple Meads arr xx18, dep xx22 ^ Bath Spa xx36 ^ Bradford-on-Avon xx47 ^ Trowbridge xx53 ^ Westbury arr xx00, dep xx01 ^ Warminster xx08 ^ Salisbury xx32 ^ Romsey xx50 ^ Southampton Central xx04. Then forms:

Southampton Central xx10 ^ Romsey xx21 ^ Salisbury xx41 ^ Warminster xx01 ^ Westbury arr xx07, dep xx08 ^ Trowbridge xx14 ^ Bradford-onAvon xx20 ^ Bath Spa xx35 ^ Bristol Temple Meads arr xx47, dep xx54 ^ Filton Abbey Wood xx01 ^ Newport xx25 ^ Cardiff Central xx43.

Swindon xx45 ^ Chippenham xx01 ^ Melksham xx11 ^ Trowbridge xx20 ^ Westbury arr xx27, dep xx40 ^ Dilton Marsh xx42 ^ Warminster xx49 ^ Salisbury xx12 ^ Dean xx24 ^ Mottisfont & Dunbridge xx30 ^ Romsey xx35 ^ Southampton Central xx46. Then forms:

Southampton Central xx27 ^ Romsey xx38 ^ Mottisfont & Dunbridge xx43 ^ Dean xx49 ^ Salisbury xx04 ^ Warminster xx25 ^ Dilton Marsh xx29 ^ Westbury xx33 ^ Trowbridge xx39 ^ Melksham xx50 ^ Chippenham xx01 ^ Swindon xx18.

The problem with this is the turnaround time at Southampton of the services from/to Cardiff ^ 6 minutes is a complete no-no for a regional service.

In general terms, the merest hint of a tight turnaround time will see a timetable proposal rejected these days, especially if the powers that be dont like the overall idea anyway. Personally, I've given up even bothering to submit any to them. Banging ones head against a brick wall loses its appeal after a while.

Therefore, its time to look at...

PLAN B

Cardiff Central xx30 ^ Newport xx44 ^ Filton Abbey Wood xx09 ^ Bristol Temple Meads arr xx18, dep xx22 ^ Bath Spa xx36 ^ Bradford-on-Avon xx47 ^ Trowbridge xx53 ^ Westbury arr xx00, dep xx01 ^ Warminster xx08 ^ Salisbury xx32 ^ Romsey xx50 ^ Southampton Central xx04. Then forms:

Southampton Central xx27 ^ Romsey xx 38 ^ Mottisfont & Dunbridge xx43 ^ Dean xx49 ^ Salisbury xx04 ^ Warminster xx25 ^ Dilton Marsh xx29 ^ Westbury xx33 ^ Trowbridge xx39 ^ Melksham xx50 ^ Chippenham xx01 ^ Swindon xx18.

Swindon xx45 ^ Chippenham xx01 ^ Melksham xx11 ^ Trowbridge xx20 ^ Westbury arr xx27, dep xx40 ^ Dilton Marsh xx42 ^ Warminster xx49 ^ Salisbury xx12 ^ Dean xx24 ^ Mottisfont & Dunbridge xx30 ^ Romsey xx35 ^ Southampton Central xx46. Then forms:

Southampton Central xx10 ^ Romsey xx21 ^ Salisbury xx41 ^ Warminster xx01 ^ Westbury arr xx07, dep xx08 ^ Trowbridge xx14 ^ Bradford-onAvon xx20 ^ Bath Spa xx35 ^ Bristol Temple Meads arr xx47, dep xx54 ^ Filton Abbey Wood xx01 ^ Newport xx25 ^ Cardiff Central xx43.

Plan B solves the Southampton turnaround problem, but would result in some Southampton-Cardiff services being formed of 2-coach Class 158 units. Recent history teaches us that this would not be a wise move.

Time for...

PLAN C

This is more radical, as it involves removing the calls at Romsey and Warminster in the Southampton-Cardiff services, in order to improve journey times, in turn giving a more robust turnaround time at Southampton Central.

Cardiff Central xx30 ^ Newport xx44 ^ Filton Abbey Wood xx09 ^ Bristol Temple Meads arr xx18, dep xx22 ^ Bath Spa xx36 ^ Bradford-on-Avon xx47 ^ Trowbridge xx53 ^ Westbury arr xx00, dep xx01 ^ Salisbury xx30 ^ Southampton Central xx59. Then forms:

Southampton Central xx15 ^ Salisbury xx43 ^ Westbury arr xx07, dep xx08 ^ Trowbridge xx14 ^ Bradford-onAvon xx20 ^ Bath Spa xx35 ^ Bristol Temple Meads arr xx47, dep xx54 ^ Filton Abbey Wood xx01 ^ Newport xx25 ^ Cardiff Central xx43.

Swindon xx45 ^ Chippenham xx01 ^ Melksham xx11 ^ Trowbridge xx20 ^ Westbury arr xx27, dep xx40 ^ Dilton Marsh xx42 ^ Warminster xx49 ^ Salisbury xx12 ^ Dean xx24 ^ Mottisfont & Dunbridge xx30 ^ Romsey xx35 ^ Southampton Central xx46. Then forms:

Southampton Central xx27 ^ Romsey xx 38 ^ Mottisfont & Dunbridge xx43 ^ Dean xx49 ^ Salisbury xx04 ^ Warminster xx25 ^ Dilton Marsh xx29 ^ Westbury xx33 ^ Trowbridge xx39 ^ Melksham xx50 ^ Chippenham xx01 ^ Swindon xx18.

Though not impossible, 16 minutes is still rather short to turnaround a regional service every hour. Also, Romsey and Warminster passengers are likely to cry foul at being disenfranchised, and the resulting negative publicity would probably not be worth the hassle. Same applies with any other "lamposts" one might wish to take out instead.

A further option would be to do a total network recast, and see where your chips fall then. However, I see no great appetite existing for this, especially if the ^Emerging Strategy^ section of the GW^▸ (Great Western) RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) is anything to go by.

However, lets say you get round all this somehow. You then have the following further obstacles to overcome:

-   The SW RUS was pretty clear in its opposition to further terminating services at Southampton Central. I can see their point. It would not be outlandish to foresee several terminating trains causing congestion chaos, and that aint no way to run a railway in such a location.

-   The reason that the FGW Brighton services continue to exist is because the financial and economic case for their removal simply doesnt stack up. They arrive and depart in Brighton at high peak, thus maximising ORCATS^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) revenue and providing extra capacity along the Brighton-Havant ^ Southampton corridor during these periods.

It is also worth looking at it from my perspective as a passenger.

You will mainly find me travelling on Portsmouth-Cardiff services between Cosham-Westbury or Cosham-Bristol, depending on where I am ultimately heading. At the moment I can do these journeys direct, with a reasonable chance of a good choice of seats. In short, I can start my day in a relaxed, pleasant and convenient manner.

Why would I, and my fellow passengers from the Portsmouth/Fareham end want to swap this for changing and joining the Southampton travelling massive in an enlarged scrum for seats? Indeed, why should we have to, when our end of the journey generates a perfectly good level of revenue, justifying our inclusion in the service?

More generally though, I dont agree with those who advocate radical change to Brighton/Portsmouth-Cardiff corridor services. The chaos of December 2006 and its aftermath excepted, they are by and large a success story, which points to evolution, rather than revolution, being the way forward.

What actually needs to be done is to introduce a proper Westbury-Swindon service asap, and take an incremental approach to introducing additional capacity/services on the Portsmouth-Cardiff corridor as and when they are required.

Lets fix what is broken, rather than what actually works.

[devon_metro]

Hypothysis ... continue to run the Cardiff -> Portsmouth as is.  It ain't bust - don't fix it!   But terminate the Brightons back at Salisbury, and look to cutting back some of the extra Southamptons to Salisbury too.  That's going to free up some resources

 

Funny you should say that, I was recently looking at travelling from Devon to Southampton and was fairly shocked to see that one option involves an hours wait at Westbury for connection train, or alternatively I can leave Devon 70 minutes later and arrive only 15 minutes after the other option. Almost wanted me to ask for more services to Southampton!