Thanks for sight of this interesting piece. It makes much sense. A few comments, though:
We must acknowledge that there is tremendous Treasury pressure to rein back on the level of support - an extra £12 billion, so far - that has gone to the railways during the pandemic. I think we must also accept that the pandemic has accelerated some behavioural trends (working from home, greater use of on-line services for shopping and for access to services (notably health) and possible acceptance that not all the travel that we used to take for granted (especially face-to-face business meetings) is necessary/desirable) although it is difficult to predict, accurately either the medium of the long-term outcome.
The sector's costs generally are too high, but it is doubtful that these can be reduced significantly by snipping at marginal services. More likely, overall revenue will be increased by developing additional services to pick up potential demand: a comprehensive network (and integration with other public transport networks where possible) enables modal shift, providing a practical alternative to car dependence for many. Improved asset use usually reduces unit costs, although it may bring forward the date for replacement where the effluxion of time is not the main cause - but that itself may trigger an opportunity for economy through replacement as the Swiss railways are arguing in increasing service frequencies and routes as part of their fight-back from Covid-19. My judgement is that rail's excess costs can be attributed principally to the lengthy asset life (and consequent lack of flexibility/adaptability) of much of the equipment; the relative failure (compared to the airline sector, for example) to exploit the potential of digitalisation for traffic management, operation and control, for asset maintenance and back-office functions; the resistance - often on hypothetical safety grounds - to the introduction of lighter weight vehicles and equipment (cheaper to build, cheaper to operate); archaic industrial relations and work practices (viz the resistance to obligatory Sunday working that led to the rash of cancellations coincident with the Euros last night) and the time-consuming and labour-intensive culture of railway decision making to name but some of the cost drivers.
Which leads me to doubt the logic of curtailing the
SWR» services via Westbury, especially as those via Yeovil Pen Mill make use of long-standing diversionary route familiarisation slots for SWR drivers which have to be run with or without passengers. I would also take a punt to query whether the cutting back to Salisbury the through services to and from Bristol would release rolling-stock for those parts of the Waterloo-Exeter route at times when it is needed - e.g. peak school hours into Exeter in the morning. We shouldn't accept service cuts too readily where there are genuine actual or potential flows (accepting that the Chris Loder-inspired services via Pen Mill may have yet to find significant passenger use but recalling that he might be a powerful ally in the Commons should we want to get some public debate on their retention).
Concerning the limited through service to and from Brighton. Here is what we told the
DfT» at the time its continuance was last the subject of consultation in 2018:
"This issue was examined by Passenger Focus in research undertaken in connection with the aborted planned renewal in 2013 of the Great Western Franchise. It showed an aggregate of 31% of passengers surveyed whilst using inter-regional services would have been unlikely to make the journey if there had been no direct services and if they had to change trains. Resistance on this service was highest amongst business travellers, occasional travellers and, particularly, those aged 65+. While this level of consumer resistance might be mitigated overall by carefully planned cross or same platform connections and the assistance of suitably trained staff, we consider that the particular (often elderly) market served by this service placed particular value of being able to make the journey without a change. Indeed, we believe that, additionally, there is a good case for reintroduction of a daily through service between Brighton and Plymouth via Salisbury. There may be scope for improving (and rationalising) the service currently operated by Great Western on the corridor to Brighton. Existing trains arrive at Brighton at 0815 (Saturday)/0817 (Monday to Friday) and 1612 (Monday to Friday)/1615 (Saturday), departing Brighton at 0859 (Monday to Friday)/0900 (Saturday) and 1700 (Saturday)/1702 (Monday to Friday). Passenger needs might be met better by a single return journey, departing Bristol Temple Meads after the morning peak and returning in time for the rolling stock to be used on local services originating in the Bristol area in the evening peak."
The (then) Passenger Focus figure of 31% of passengers being deterred by having to make an intermediate change of train is significant. It approximately coincides with research that I came across when working on a project with KTH - the Royal Institute for Technology - in Sweden almost ten years ago and confirmed recently in conversations that I have had with ProBahn in Germany in the context of the
TEE▸ 2.0 proposal. As hinted in the 2018 DfT consultation, there may not be a case for a clock-face pattern of longer-distance through trains to remoter destinations but there is certainly a case for at least one through service at an older-passenger-friendly time on established 'visiting friends and relatives' flows.
More broadly, it is usually worth emphasising that the Trowbridge-Melksham-Westbury-Warminster agglomeration is due to have a population exceeding that of significant existing nodes like Exeter. People unfamiliar with the area seem to think that Westbury is probably best represented by Eric Ravilious' picture of the White Horse seen through the window of a third-class compartment:
((here))Because through services often aren't a practical option, we need to focus on connections. I liked your conceptual list, but I think it needs to be complemented by some reference to the importance and potential of services connecting with one another, particularly N-S with E-W, notably at Salisbury, Southampton, Bristol, Taunton/Exeter, and Newbury. I mention the latter because - given sufficient platform capacity - I think that a good connection there with the electric service to Paddington would obviate the need for additional calls at Theale and Thatcham of the sort you moot. If the majority of through Far South West services are to be spared the time cost of a Westbury call, and if Devizes Gateway gets the go-ahead, and if the Taunton/Exeter semi-fasts are to have Bedwyn, Hungerford and Kintbury added to their calls, we should acknowledge that Thatcham and Theale may be the calls that make the overall journey time intolerable. (I have been pushing the importance in the Network Rail Wessex Dorset Connectivity Strategic Study of E-W connections at Castle Cary for services off the WEY-BST route, with much support from David Northey, the Taunton-located, Western Route Strategic Planner.)
Why would one want to run a scheduled service over the Rhubarb loop? Is there a potential flow of which I have never heard between Avoncliff and Lawrence Hill which would make it worth not running a train through Temple Meads?
