Engineering Work Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads Sunday 18 September

[whole diary]

[phile]

I notice that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have again taken the easy way out in regard to passengers who would normally be travelling on the Cardiff to Portsmouth route.    It would appear that because there are existing services by which they could travel that is good enough.    The planned means of travelling is by South Wales to Paddington services to Bristol Parkway thence by bus to Bristol temple Meads to connect with onward train to Portsmouth Hbr/Brighton.
There seems to be no consideration made about accomodating passengers in what is in effect squeezing  passengers for 2 trains into 1.  Many of these services are already hevily loaded.     I recall Engineering Work at Newport during the Xmas/NewYear 2009/2011 period when passengers were transported to Newport by bus and advised to connect into forward services to Cardiff where 1 FGW instead of 4 an hour were operating.   Needless trains were running full and standing.
Just going off FGW for a moment, I recall when Central Trains operated the Cardiff to Nottingham services when the route was closed on a Saturday north of Gloucester and passengers who had travelled by bus to Gloucester wre advised to catch ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) sercices beyond to South Wales because there was no Central Unit or Traincrew on the Gloucester side of the occupation .     Passengers also joined their trains at Lydney and Chepstow for example to travel to South Wales.    This occurred one Saturday when there was a Rugby International in  Cardiff.    Now, XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) do cover these services between Gloucester and Cardiff in similar circumstances.
This FGW situation continues on Sundays until 23rd October and I feel TOCs should take their services into account throughout their normal journey and, surely, could have arranged for an approppriate number of 158s to be available on the Cardiff siide of the occupation.

[Ollie]

Running Cardiff - Bristol with a unit would hardly be a good use of resources.

Unless you had a better plan for what these extra units the Wales side of the blockade could do? Obviously taking into account what the drivers and guards will sign in terms of route knowledge.

[grahame]

Not commenting on the detail, but to add to the efficiency comment. 

It's interesting to note that the Portsmouth - Cardiff service is running (i.e. between terminals) 86.4% of the time in regular daily service - that's 415 minute running out of 480 per 'cycle' of a unit.   By contrast, another FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service (SWI^» (Swindon - next trains) - CNM^» (Cheltenham Spa - next trains)) on a 240 minute cycle only manages to be on the line between terminals for 134 minutes, and spends 106 minutes sitting in the platform or parked in a siding - running 55.8% of the time, and that strikes me as a bit of an underutilised resource when perhaps the units involved could be earning farebox money 

Both services mentioned have an intermediate reversal, and I have INCLUDED the time stopped for that in my "running time".  Also included in running time are those extra minutes that seem to get added to the last leg of a trip.  8 minutes from leaving Portsmouth and Southsea to arriving at Portsmouth Harbour is quite generous, when in the other direction you may leave Southsea just 4 minutes after leaving Harbour on many services.

[phile]

Running Cardiff - Bristol with a unit would hardly be a good use of resources.

Unless you had a better plan for what these extra units the Wales side of the blockade could do? Obviously taking into account what the drivers and guards will sign in terms of route knowledge.

I am thinkimg of sufficient capacity to carry passengers.  A train to run between Cardiff and Bristol Parkway in lieu of the
Portsmouths.   There should be no problem with route know;edge.