Cardiff-Portsmouth & Worcester/Gloucester to Weymouth - Keep or Split?

[whole diary]

[Deltic]

All of the local services, with the exception of the Severn Beach branch, were made cross-Bristol a few years ago in order to reduce congestion at Temple Meads.  This was designed to reduce delays but of course the longer-distance services such as Weymouth - Gloucester / Great Malvern now have many more opportunities to get delayed, especially on the single line section between Castle Cary and Dorchester, plus negotiating a number of complex areas with lots of conflicting movements, such as Westbury, Bristol, Gloucester and Worcester.  The advantage for me is it opens up through journey opportunities, such as Gloucester to Bath or Salisbury.

Of course, most of the services are run with Class 150s (a Class 158 if you're lucky), which are most unsuitable for a long journey of several hours and there is no catering on route either!

From a Gloucester perspective, the biggest loss when Cross Country stopped serving the city, apart from the Nottingham to Cardiffs, was the through trains to / from the South West of England.  There was a stopping service to Taunton for a while, but now no regular service south of Bristol TM^‡(resolve).  I'd like to see a semi-fast service Gloucester, Bristol Parkway, TM, Weston, Bridgwater, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway, Exeter St D, Exeter Central.

[TonyK]

And so would I, Deltic! Gloucester - Bristol is badly served these days. I know I'm not the only one to have to make the journey regularly. I usually end up on a single car class 153(?), stopping at every station each way. There's one an hour, and they are always full. When I first moved to Bristol, and had to go up North every month, most intercity trains called at Gloucester on the way, although there was a bit of a wait for the loco to be run around. And why do the Bristol trains from Gloucester use the distant and exposed platform 1, instead of carrying on to the station entrance?

I gave up trying to fathom the reasoning behind the routes years ago. Worcester to Portsmouth, Gloucester to Weymouth and the like all mean Abbey Wood or Parkway to Temple Meads to me. I can see the easy ones, like Severn Beach to Portishead will take just short of an hour, as will SB^▸ (Signal Box) to Bath, but beyond that, I'm stumped.

[phile]

The bigger priority should be getting an hourly service to Worcester.

Where the trains go doesn't really matter so long as reliability isn't affected and stock is utilised efficiently. Why? Because most folks will be commuting from Worcester to Cheltenham/Gloucester, or taking a trip to/connecting at Bristol.

LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) recently tried a service between Gloucester and Worcester (153 worked)  but later withdrawn as not considered viable.

[anthony215]

The London Midland Worcester - Gloucester service used a 2 carriage class 170 I never saw a class 153 used.

I do admit it was pretty much empty the majority of the time in fact I was the only passenger on a few occasions where I used it.

Perhaps the service would have been better used if it either ran beyond Gloucester to Bristol or connected better with the Gloucester - Bristol trains at Gloucester.

[phile]

The London Midland Worcester - Gloucester service used a 2 carriage class 170 I never saw a class 153 used.

I do admit it was pretty much empty the majority of the time in fact I was the only passenger on a few occasions where I used it.

Perhaps the service would have been better used if it either ran beyond Gloucester to Bristol or connected better with the Gloucester - Bristol trains at Gloucester.

mY MISTAKE, SORRY.   i BELIEVE IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A 153 BUT WHEN IT ACTUALLY STARTED BECAME A 170

[Temple Meads]

An interesting discussion.

I've never noticed any obvious problems with running the trains direct from Cardiff from Portsmouth, in fact, it's very good to have a reasonably fast cross-country service, which is hourly.

Another question, is where would you split these services, Cardiff to Bristol seems a bit short for a train of the 158's calibre, and 150's are not "prestige" enough for a semi fast service connecting 2 of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s major cities.

But going on to the point about Gloucester, this is an important settlement not to have any "proper" trains stopping there, in fact I was looking at a Network timetable from 1994 the other day, and most of the services now operated by XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) stopped at Gloucester.

Not good, although this is of course XC's problem and not FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s.

[JayMac]

But going on to the point about Gloucester, this is an important settlement not to have any "proper" trains stopping there, in fact I was looking at a Network timetable from 1994 the other day, and most of the services now operated by XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) stopped at Gloucester.

Gloucester does have bi-hourly HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to and from London Paddington. There also remains a token XC service once a day, late evening, in each direction on a Edinburgh-Bristol TM^‡(resolve) service and a Bristol TM-Birmingham NS service.

Virgin XC decided to stop serving Gloucester due to the time penalty of the reversing and problems of pathing when services were late running. Arriva XC inherited the calling pattern and I doubt they see not serving Gloucester as a problem. Operationally it is probably a boon not to have to reverse there.

Of course if the line to Gloucester Eastgate had survived 1970s rationalisation then cross country services could have continued to serve Gloucester without the need to reverse. Local opposition to the road traffic problems caused at 4 level crossings in the city is often cited as the reason for the closure of the Tuffley Loop.

[Temple Meads]

But going on to the point about Gloucester, this is an important settlement not to have any "proper" trains stopping there, in fact I was looking at a Network timetable from 1994 the other day, and most of the services now operated by XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) stopped at Gloucester.

Gloucester does have bi-hourly HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to and from London Paddington. There also remains a token XC service once a day.

Yep, I should've researched that post before I posted really 

[Rhydgaled]

I've never noticed any obvious problems with running the trains direct from Cardiff from Portsmouth, in fact, it's very good to have a reasonably fast cross-country service, which is hourly.

Another question, is where would you split these services, Cardiff to Bristol seems a bit short for a train of the 158's calibre, and 150's are not "prestige" enough for a semi fast service connecting 2 of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s major cities.

South Wales to Portsmouth is a very important route, it shouldn't be split anywhere in my opinion. Ideally I'd like to see it extended further into Wales (to Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen, via the Swansea district line), perhaps with 2x 158 (a 4-car train) between Portsmouth and Cardiff, with one unit (2 coaches) heading west.

As for Worcester/Gloucester to Weymouth, I've never used it but what to do with it depends on electrification. I'd like to see the Taunton - Cardiff service extended to Swansea to provide a third fast train each hour between Cardiff and Swansea (though it would have a stop at Pyle, meaning none of the ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) Manchester trains would need to call there). If the whole Taunton - Swansea is electrified, that's all good. If Swansea - Bristol is electrified but not Bristol - Taunton however then I'd suggest splitting it at Bristol to provide a Swansea - Bristol electric service (with something like a 377). In that case then it might be a good idea to take the diesel Taunton - Bristol service and combine it with Worcester/Gloucester to Bristol, leaving Bristol - Weymouth as a stand-alone service.

[phile]

Extending Portsmouth and Taunton services west of Cardiff would be an enormous bureaucratic exercise involvong ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) and DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) and which would take years to resolve at the speed things move these days.    They would have to replace HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) (or electrics ?) or ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) services as there would be a pathing problem.  FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would not have enough resources to cover.   It would be as popular as West Wales to Manchester perhaps, but it wont happen that easily.    There was a Milford Haven to Portsmouth service in Wales and West days  before the formation of Wessex Trains in 2001 and the resulting re-franchising whereby Weeex trains stopped at Cardiff.

[JayMac]

South Wales to Portsmouth is a very important route, it shouldn't be split anywhere in my opinion. Ideally I'd like to see it extended further into Wales (to Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen, via the Swansea district line), perhaps with 2x 158 (a 4-car train) between Portsmouth and Cardiff, with one unit (2 coaches) heading west.

As for Worcester/Gloucester to Weymouth, I've never used it but what to do with it depends on electrification. I'd like to see the Taunton - Cardiff service extended to Swansea to provide a third fast train each hour between Cardiff and Swansea (though it would have a stop at Pyle, meaning none of the ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) Manchester trains would need to call there). If the whole Taunton - Swansea is electrified, that's all good. If Swansea - Bristol is electrified but not Bristol - Taunton however then I'd suggest splitting it at Bristol to provide a Swansea - Bristol electric service (with something like a 377). In that case then it might be a good idea to take the diesel Taunton - Bristol service and combine it with Worcester/Gloucester to Bristol, leaving Bristol - Weymouth as a stand-alone service.

So you want Pompeys extended to Swansea and beyond, Tauntons extended to Swansea, elswhere yo go on about loco dragged electrics to Swansea and beyond?

Have I got that right? Anything else to Swansea? CrossCountry from Nottingham?

Where are all the paths to be found between Cardiff and Swansea for these pie-in-the-sky services?

[anthony215]

Extending the Tuanton - Cardiff trains to Swansea could be done if they are interworked with the Cardiff - Swansea swanline services which would all have to be cut back to Swansea instead of some selected services continuing on to west wales.

This may require some retiming on the Milford Haven - Manchester routes in the east/northbound services from Milford Haven

[Rhydgaled]

So you want Pompeys extended to Swansea and beyond, Tauntons extended to Swansea, elswhere yo go on about loco dragged electrics to Swansea and beyond?

Have I got that right? Anything else to Swansea? CrossCountry from Nottingham?

Where are all the paths to be found between Cardiff and Swansea for these pie-in-the-sky services?

No, not Nottinghams to Swansea. Here's what I would like to have heading eastwards out of Swansea.

• 1tph Intercity 225 Great Western electric service to London (existing service, different stock)
• 1tph diesel service to Manchester (existing service, stops between Cardiff and Swansea would always be Neath, Port Talbot and Bridgend only, these could continue to come from further west)
• 1tph electric service to Bristol/Taunton (stops between Cardiff and Swansea would be Neath, Port Talbot, Pyle and Bridgend. It would also be the train that serves any new stations opened on route)
• 1tph Swanline electric (existing service, but electrified and doubled to hourly), prefrablly extending to Cheltenham with the Maesteg trains combined with Ebbw Vale ones instead

That's it. The westwards extension of the Portsmouth - Cardiff would be an express service to Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen, with stops at Bridgend and Port Talbot ONLY on the section in question (it would run via the Swansea District Line and the only calling point between Port Talbot and Carmarthen would be Llanelli). And yes, it couldn't happen until 158s are released from elsewhere (Edinbrough - Glasgow electrification looks like the first opertunity). Given that the other extra services would be electric, they are long-term asperations also.

[The SprinterMeister]

I've never noticed any obvious problems with running the trains direct from Cardiff from Portsmouth, in fact, it's very good to have a reasonably fast cross-country service, which is hourly.

Another question, is where would you split these services, Cardiff to Bristol seems a bit short for a train of the 158's calibre, and 150's are not "prestige" enough for a semi fast service connecting 2 of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s major cities.

South Wales to Portsmouth is a very important route, it shouldn't be split anywhere in my opinion. Ideally I'd like to see it extended further into Wales (to Pembrokeshire/Carmarthen, via the Swansea district line), perhaps with 2x 158 (a 4-car train) between Portsmouth and Cardiff, with one unit (2 coaches) heading west.

I would agree there is no case for splitting Cardiff - Portsmouth services, however there is no case for extending them beyond Cardiff into the area which is primarily the remit of ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) to provide services. Too many single line sections and not enough people requiring through services in my opinion.

There is also the question of subsidy. As 'West'services are subsidised to varying degrees I would be be somewhat peturbed if my taxes were being used to provide services within Wales that the Welsh taxpayers should be funding. Arguably this already occurs on the Cardiff - Newport - STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) section but there is no case for further extending that principle. Services beyond Swansea are properly the remit of the Welsh Assembly and ATW to sort out..

The argument came up previously from a different perspective some time ago after Wales and West was split into two buisness units.  Which is why ATW were told by WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) to stop running through 'Wales and Borders' services to Penzance and use the resources to bolster services in Wales. And quite rightly too. The Greater Western franchise has got a finite number on units and the idea that these should be used to provide journey opportunities within Wales is therefore unrealistic.

[bambam]

There is also the question of subsidy. As 'West'services are subsidised to varying degrees I would be be somewhat peturbed if my taxes were being used to provide services within Wales that the Welsh taxpayers should be funding. Arguably this already occurs on the Cardiff - Newport - STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) section but there is no case for further extending that principle. Services beyond Swansea are properly the remit of the Welsh Assembly and ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) to sort out..

The argument came up previously from a different perspective some time ago after Wales and West was split into two buisness units.  Which is why ATW were told by WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about) to stop running through 'Wales and Borders' services to Penzance and use the resources to bolster services in Wales. And quite rightly too. The Greater Western franchise has got a finite number on units and the idea that these should be used to provide journey opportunities within Wales is therefore unrealistic.

I agree that there isn't a case for the extension of Cardiff-South West services to Swansea although the argument about subsidy is a silly one. The units should be used where it is most effective. So if there is spare units if the Great Western franchise, and overcrowding on others, such as Northern. And vice versa. The units should move to where the demand is and where the greatest benefits are, we should all be trying to get the best out of the rail network, not argue about them being our resources so exclusively for our use, as happens to often.



Edited to fix quote. bgnosemac