Reliability from Avoncliff

[whole diary]

[litecactus]

Spent an unintended hour at Avoncliff station yesterday, my intended train the 1304, skipped our stop so I had to wait another hour for the 1404.

I got talking to another passenger and he said this is a common issue and he's considering using the car instead!

Can anyone shed any light on this? Is it a common issue?

[grahame]

Spent an unintended hour at Avoncliff station yesterday, my intended train the 1304, skipped our stop so I had to wait another hour for the 1404.

I got talking to another passenger and he said this is a common issue and he's considering using the car instead!

Can anyone shed any light on this? Is it a common issue?

Yes - it's a common issue at present.   Many local trains have been replaced by new(er) turbos which are being fitted with selective door opening to allow them to stop at shorter platforms.  However, the fitting out of the selective door opening is going much slower than was hoped, so trains that have these new units on (but are not SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) fitted yet) cannot stop a Avoncliff (or Dilton Marsh, Thornford or Chetnole).

It should get better - not suddenly, but gradual improvement over next handful of months.     

TransWilts very much in touch wit GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) over "our" station concerned - that's Dilton Marsh. Standard is that another train will be stopped in place of the one that's missed if it's more than an hour to wait for the next train, OR road replacement will be organised. 

Both the alternatives (in my view) remove the convenience of having rail travel to a reliable, published timetable and GWR should be taking steps - as many of their team are - to allocate trains that CAN stop onto services that are timetabled to stop.  I am less convinced that solutions that would cost GWR any money are being considered,  such as extra driver signage which could provide a tempoaraty solution on both platforms at Dilton March, and on the Westbury-bound platform at Avoncliff.  Avoncliff towards Bath is more tricky, due to the train needing to stop under the very tight aqueduct if the rear of 3 carriages is to be on the platform; it's also across the end of one signalling section and onto the start of the next ...

Edit to clarify situation

[Bob_Blakey]

At St.James' Park passenger ingress/egress is frequently restricted to the single door, generally at the front of the train, which is being managed by the guard. Is there some reason why this process cannot be used on other routes with short platforms?

[grahame]

At St.James' Park passenger ingress/egress is frequently restricted to the single door, generally at the front of the train, which is being managed by the guard. Is there some reason why this process cannot be used on other routes with short platforms?

The process you describe has been routinely used at many short platforms for a long time with 150, 153 and 158 trains - perhaps with 143 and 142 (when we had them) too.    However, the single door at the front of the 165 and 166 units is in the driver's cab and it wouldn't be allowed (I'm sure) even for fit passengers to go into the cab, climb over the driver's seat, and get out of the door.

Where a 15x unit still runs a service radiating from Westbury, the same process as it used at St James' Park is followed.

There are no 16x diagrams - to my knowledge - to the west of Taunton (yet?) so no problem at St James' Park; further, if any 165 and 166 diagrams do end up including Exeter, one hopes the SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) will have been fitted in advance rather than having the trains introduced before they've been modified to be suitable to call at all the stations.

Special arrangements are in place at Melksham and Stonehouse, by the way, which included some work at the stations to allow for the unmodified 166 units to call at their short platforms. We are told that such works must be limited to those stations for safety reasons, and indeed I can understand why they cannot be applied at the Bath-bound platform at Avoncliff.

[litecactus]

I thought all the turbos were modified so that the guard could open the local door, like what happens on the 150s that stop there.

[grahame]

I thought all the turbos were modified so that the guard could open the local door, like what happens on the 150s that stop there.

Not yet ... there's an ongoing program of fitting 166s to have local door, but it got held up and at present only some are so fitted. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are trying to roster those "some" onto services that are in the area and continue south of Westbury rather than on services that head off from Bristol to Taunton and Severn Beach.

[martyjon]

Most of my working life I spent at one employer in the aviation industry. That employer had a suggestion scheme which paid money when a suggestion was accepted provided that it was outside of the scope of influence of the department the individual actually worked in.

Is it not within the realms of Network Rail, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) / every TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) to have such a suggestion scheme.

In the case of the non-SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) Turbos to have them miss Melksham and Stonehouse would have caused so much uproar that the powers to be could not justify an 'until fitted with SDO' excuse as for not stopping at these stations. With the other stations affected by this problem the one or two passengers a day affected isn't going to make the main BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) and ITV evening news bulletins so for the two aforementioned stops 'local arrangements' were devised as Grahame has reported. Quite honestly the powers to be didn't want to implement the Melksham solution at Dilton Marsh, Avoncliffe, Thornford, Chetnole and other stops I haven't mentioned because it would have meant sending a man out in a van with a length of point rodding emblazoned with a notice, LA - Local Arrangement, TS - Turbo Stop, Guard Operates Doors in the van and which the man would use the sledge hammer in his vans toolkit to knock the notice into the cess. Oh I forgot a second man would be needed as a lookout then a third one as a safety measure in case man number one caught his thumb between the sledge hammer and the top of the point rodding, then a fourth to inspect the work and sign it off, then a fifth to sign off a 'PW^▸ (Permanent Way) not obstructed by lineside works certificate' and a sixth to supervise the whole job each of which travelling to the specific location in a company provided vehicle. Member posters please add those extra men that I may have inadvertently omitted.

In a previous post it has been stated that such an arrangement in use at Melksham could not be used at Avoncliffe in the down direction so why not challenge all those Network Rail apprentices to come up with a solution to this problem, an internally illuminated TSTOP (vertical lettering) box set into the cess at ground level. There you are for free a solution that if put out to consultants would cost NR^» (Network Rail - home page) £10,000 in consultancy fees.
 
Now if such a suggestion scheme were in place and passengers as well as rail employees were able to take part it might replace 'the powers to be say no' attitude with 'the powers to be were overruled by public/employee opinion'.

[ellendune]

Most of my working life I spent at one employer in the aviation industry. That employer had a suggestion scheme which paid money when a suggestion was accepted provided that it was outside of the scope of influence of the department the individual actually worked in.

British Rail certainly had such a scheme in the 1970's

[IndustryInsider]

First have at various points during the franchises they’ve held as well. Not sure whether there is one currently applying though.

[grahame]

Most of my working life I spent at one employer in the aviation industry. That employer had a suggestion scheme which paid money when a suggestion was accepted provided that it was outside of the scope of influence of the department the individual actually worked in.

British Rail certainly had such a scheme in the 1970's

First have at various points during the franchises they’ve held as well. Not sure whether there is one currently applying though.

The method of working that's currently in use at Melksham and at Stonehouse was proposed by a member of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) team, and is named in his honour.  How departments work / whether that was part of his normal role, I don't know ... but I do pass on a hearty "Thank You" to him each time I see him.

[chuffed]

The method of working that's currently in use at Melksham and at Stonehouse was proposed by a member of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) team, and is named in his honour.  How departments work / whether that was part of his normal role, I don't know ... but I do pass on a hearty "Thank You" to him each time I see him.
[/quote]

His name wasn't 'Heimlich' was it ? As in 'manouvre '?
I'd be choked if it was !

[Alan Pettitt]

It seems this morning even GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) can't puzzle the system out:

06:02 Salisbury to Gloucester due 08:32
06:02 Salisbury to Gloucester due 08:32 will no longer call at Dilton Marsh and Avoncliff.
This is due to a problem currently under investigation.
Last Updated:26/03/2018 05:31

[WelshBluebird]

Would it be beyond possible for a short term timetable change, so that the (sometimes) Turbo operated services are no longer timetabled to stop at Avoncliff until the modifications have been done to all the units, but instead the 158 (or sometimes 150) operated services between Cardiff and the South Coast are timetabled to stop instead? I get that it would add a couple of minutes to the running time of those services, but surely that would be preferable to the current situation? At least some kind of timetable could be used by passengers then rather than the current "You'll get a train if you are lucky" situation?