Padding overkill

[whole diary]

[Mookiemoo]

"And any 'express'  - which will never happen as any skipping of stations in west Oxfordshire would see a certain Mr Cameron raising merry hell"

Maybe except ludlow and south shropshire is a tory swing seat - between iib dem and tory

 We were lib dem we are now tory

At the end of the day - if the villages have to change - so be it


Serve the connurbations first

[Andy W]

This thread, like many others, demonstrates exactly what a shambles FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is (through the Cotswolds). This is largely down to the fact that they are trying to cover differing requirements with single solutions. The full run from Hereford covers both long distance with several commuter services, namely to/from Worcester, Oxford, Reading and of course London. These are shared with the longer distance Hereford / Worcester - London travelers.

a. 180s are history in these parts. They will all have new operators by the start of next year, judging by the interest being shown.

The 180s are fine for the Cotswold line, particularly north of Oxford. The sad fact is FGW's management of the problems that afflicted the 180s was pathetic. The problems will be sorted out and another TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) (maybe part of the First group) will benefit.

b. If you split trains, someone will always be in the wrong part, so hello instant delays as they (slowly) sort themselves out when the train divides.

Trains did split at Oxford a few years ago, half going to Stratford the other half going to Worcester / Malvern. It was quick and painless.

c. You can't have a train sitting in a platform at Oxford for 15 minutes. There are too many other trains and not enough platforms. Even if you were to park in the goods loop north of the station to wait for a path, as a journalist, I - never mind the nationals - would have a field day with trains being operated like this - 'sorry you've missed your train, that's it just up there at the sidings, you can sit and look at it for 15 minutes until it leaves'...

To be honest I would terminate the second half at Oxford, so the Oxford - Paddington section would be strengthened. I would do that at peak times only (but obviously need 180s to do it). The point you are making Willc highlights what I see as strange, the fact that you can't run two trains on the single line in the same direction. It is surely not that difficult to provide signaling to cater for split sections along a single track to allow that to happen. You could then run a stopper out of Oxford to say Moreton following an 'express' to cater for the smaller stations and a stopper to run ahead of an 'express' into Oxford on the up direction. You would better cater for both long distance and local Oxford services that way.

d. Imposing this kind of nonsense on passengers heading to London and living within driving distance of the Chiltern line would have a simple effect - they would all drive to Bicester instead - net result, a FALL in Cotswold Line passenger numbers

I really don't see it as nonesense. The trouble is the mixing of long distance vs short distance passengers, besides that has already happened, Banbury, Leamington and Warwick Parkway already attract passengers into London from the Cotswold line.

e. To pay to run trains like this would need 200 passengers going to Worcester and beyond on every train - they don't exist and wouldn't even if the trains were faster. Do a headcount on the 17.21, 17.51 and 18.21 ex-London beyond Moreton-in-Marsh pretty much any day of the week if you don't believe me.

So let me understand this, it's OK to run a 400+ seat HST^▸ (High Speed Train) but not a 280 seat 180 which this proposal suggests.

But as I pointed out earlier, we 'villagers' are the ones who actually pay the bills and provide the profit on the Cotswold Line, not a handful of hardy commuters from Worcester.

A first class return from Hereford costs ^237, the return for the Hanborough - Oxford commuter is ^3.50, or to put it another way for every first class Hereford passenger you lose you need to recruit another 67 Hanborough - Oxford passengers. Yes I know I've taken an extreme but the concept the 'villagers pay the bills' appears strange - the First Class Hereford / Malvern / Worcester - Paddington passengers are the ones you don't want to lose. That is another illustration of why mixing the services fails. Do you have revenue splits from each station by class and destination?
Finally, can someone please explain the logic behind waiting at stations for 10 mins? If you are going to pad the times then why not run slower if you are on time and save the diesel rather than sprint to the next station and wait for an age?

[willc]

So, Mr Cameron is going to tell his constituents they have to take some pain so his party may gain in the deep south of Shropshire. I doubt it. And if we are only serving conurbations, then presumably the super-trains to Worcester will run on non-stop to Hereford too, making them even emptier? Or are Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury exempt from the 'village' category?

Class 180s - as I've said, a pointless discussion, they are gone! And at the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) AGM^▸ (Annual General Meeting), Mark Hopwood said the leasing charge for one was the same as that for an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), which may indicate why, never mind the reliability issues.

Quick and painless joining and dividing trains - as long as the couplers work. Sometimes they don't - I've been there. And it was never quick on a Friday afternoon with lots of occasional passengers unfamiliar with the routine lugging bags around from set to set. As I've said before, the through London trains are precisely why the line is as busy as it is today and why FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will carry on running them. But not while doubling operating costs to carry the same number of passengers.

Intermediate signals in single track, perfectly possible, but in 1971 the Cotswold Line got the bargain basement singling option and the sky-high cost of interfering with the existing signal systems at Oxford and Worcester is why the extra double track plan goes nowhere near those two points.

Most of those who drive to the Chiltern Line switched out of frustration at the unreliability of the Cotswold Line service - deliver a reliable service and many are likely to return - though this would just mean yet more of us irritating 'villagers' to deal with. And it may be an old wives' tale, but I gather that in the Act of Parliament authorising the building of the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway there is a clause requiring ALL trains to stop at Moreton-in-Marsh, inserted at the request of the then Lord Redesdale as a condition when he sold land for the railway. Certainly in steam days the Cathedrals Express always stopped  - at a town which was far smaller than it is today.

So let me understand this, it's OK to run a 400+ seat HST but not a 280 seat 180 which this proposal suggests

The proposal actually suggests running two 180s, one of which would be nowhere near full leaving Oxford on its dash to Worcester. The other would be near-empty beyond Moreton-in-Marsh but would have to go all the way to Worcester to serve the points missed by the non-stop one. Not great business practice when you could run one train, covering most or all stations - like they do now.

And if there are just so many people shelling out for ^237 tickets from Hereford - or first class seasons from Worcester - why do the bulk of first class passengers join/get off the trains at the stations between Moreton-in-Marsh and Oxford?

You may get the rough end of the deal but in terms of the overall picture, the places where the bulk of the passengers are and most of the growth in numbers has taken place are the ones that FGW will focus its efforts on - the fact is that with a decent level of service, they are far more likely to get those extra Hanborough-Oxford passengers - and on a regular basis - than they are to find a great many more willing to pay an occasional ^237, even on expenses, from Hereford.

[Btline]

This thread, like many others, demonstrates exactly what a shambles FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is (through the Cotswolds). This is largely down to the fact that they are trying to cover differing requirements with single solutions. The full run from Hereford covers both long distance with several commuter services, namely to/from Worcester, Oxford, Reading and of course London. These are shared with the longer distance Hereford / Worcester - London travelers.

a. 180s are history in these parts. They will all have new operators by the start of next year, judging by the interest being shown.

The 180s are fine for the Cotswold line, particularly north of Oxford. The sad fact is FGW's management of the problems that afflicted the 180s was pathetic. The problems will be sorted out and another TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) (maybe part of the First group) will benefit.

b. If you split trains, someone will always be in the wrong part, so hello instant delays as they (slowly) sort themselves out when the train divides.

Trains did split at Oxford a few years ago, half going to Stratford the other half going to Worcester / Malvern. It was quick and painless.

c. You can't have a train sitting in a platform at Oxford for 15 minutes. There are too many other trains and not enough platforms. Even if you were to park in the goods loop north of the station to wait for a path, as a journalist, I - never mind the nationals - would have a field day with trains being operated like this - 'sorry you've missed your train, that's it just up there at the sidings, you can sit and look at it for 15 minutes until it leaves'...

To be honest I would terminate the second half at Oxford, so the Oxford - Paddington section would be strengthened. I would do that at peak times only (but obviously need 180s to do it). The point you are making Willc highlights what I see as strange, the fact that you can't run two trains on the single line in the same direction. It is surely not that difficult to provide signaling to cater for split sections along a single track to allow that to happen. You could then run a stopper out of Oxford to say Moreton following an 'express' to cater for the smaller stations and a stopper to run ahead of an 'express' into Oxford on the up direction. You would better cater for both long distance and local Oxford services that way.

d. Imposing this kind of nonsense on passengers heading to London and living within driving distance of the Chiltern line would have a simple effect - they would all drive to Bicester instead - net result, a FALL in Cotswold Line passenger numbers

I really don't see it as nonesense. The trouble is the mixing of long distance vs short distance passengers, besides that has already happened, Banbury, Leamington and Warwick Parkway already attract passengers into London from the Cotswold line.

e. To pay to run trains like this would need 200 passengers going to Worcester and beyond on every train - they don't exist and wouldn't even if the trains were faster. Do a headcount on the 17.21, 17.51 and 18.21 ex-London beyond Moreton-in-Marsh pretty much any day of the week if you don't believe me.

So let me understand this, it's OK to run a 400+ seat HST^▸ (High Speed Train) but not a 280 seat 180 which this proposal suggests.

But as I pointed out earlier, we 'villagers' are the ones who actually pay the bills and provide the profit on the Cotswold Line, not a handful of hardy commuters from Worcester.

A first class return from Hereford costs ^237, the return for the Hanborough - Oxford commuter is ^3.50, or to put it another way for every first class Hereford passenger you lose you need to recruit another 67 Hanborough - Oxford passengers. Yes I know I've taken an extreme but the concept the 'villagers pay the bills' appears strange - the First Class Hereford / Malvern / Worcester - Paddington passengers are the ones you don't want to lose. That is another illustration of why mixing the services fails. Do you have revenue splits from each station by class and destination?
Finally, can someone please explain the logic behind waiting at stations for 10 mins? If you are going to pad the times then why not run slower if you are on time and save the diesel rather than sprint to the next station and wait for an age?

I agree with (most of) this. Two different types of service are required on this line.

And as I said before, there is a Worcester commuting market also - so an improved service from Morton to Worcester would see an increase in passengers. The HSTs/180s/Thames Turbos would not be empty.

In short, the reason why the trains are empty at points is due to the failings of the operation.

[Andy W]

So, Mr Cameron is going to tell his constituents they have to take some pain so his party may gain in the deep south of Shropshire. I doubt it. And if we are only serving conurbations, then presumably the super-trains to Worcester will run on non-stop to Hereford too, making them even emptier? Or are Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury exempt from the 'village' category?

The suggestion is 'express' trains for the long distance traveller, so stops at Oxford, Moreton, Evesham, Worcester and on to Hereford - see the old Cathedrals Express. This would be one train in each direction per day.
Your obsession with Mr Cameron is interesting - as and when the line runs through Notting Hill I'm sure he'll be really interested, however until that happens I'm sure he's got far more important issues to focus on.

Class 180s - as I've said, a pointless discussion, they are gone! And at the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) AGM^▸ (Annual General Meeting), Mark Hopwood said the leasing charge for one was the same as that for an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), which may indicate why, never mind the reliability issues.

But what is the total cost of ownership, i.e. lease cost, access charges, maintenance costs, fuel costs etc. Out of interest do you have the figures?

Quick and painless joining and dividing trains - as long as the couplers work. Sometimes they don't - I've been there. And it was never quick on a Friday afternoon with lots of occasional passengers unfamiliar with the routine lugging bags around from set to set. As I've said before, the through London trains are precisely why the line is as busy as it is today and why FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will carry on running them. But not while doubling operating costs to carry the same number of passengers.

If that is the case why do so many people get off at Oxford? There is a very significant number of passengers who travel from 'villages' to/from Oxford and their needs, important as they are, are at variance to those long distance travellers.

Intermediate signals in single track, perfectly possible, but in 1971 the Cotswold Line got the bargain basement singling option and the sky-high cost of interfering with the existing signal systems at Oxford and Worcester is why the extra double track plan goes nowhere near those two points.

You would only need to upgrade Wolvercote to Ascott. I am only suggesting additional trains to cater for Moreton - Oxford stopper.

Most of those who drive to the Chiltern Line switched out of frustration at the unreliability of the Cotswold Line service - deliver a reliable service and many are likely to return - though this would just mean yet more of us irritating 'villagers' to deal with.

I'm not sure you're right, Chiltern work hard to gain brand loyalty. There is nothing irritating about 'villagers' it is purely that there are conflicting requirements. If FGW are ever going to succeed they need to be sensitive to both markets.

And it may be an old wives' tale, but I gather that in the Act of Parliament authorising the building of the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway there is a clause requiring ALL trains to stop at Moreton-in-Marsh, inserted at the request of the then Lord Redesdale as a condition when he sold land for the railway. Certainly in steam days the Cathedrals Express always stopped  - at a town which was far smaller than it is today.

Possibly correct - I'm not sure anyone wants to omit Moreton. An interesting read is The Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway by John Boynton that goes through the history of the line.

So let me understand this, it's OK to run a 400+ seat HST but not a 280 seat 180 which this proposal suggests

The proposal actually suggests running two 180s, one of which would be nowhere near full leaving Oxford on its dash to Worcester. The other would be near-empty beyond Moreton-in-Marsh but would have to go all the way to Worcester to serve the points missed by the non-stop one. Not great business practice when you could run one train, covering most or all stations - like they do now.

Sorry, I was suggesting a fast service followed by stopping service. The former would ideally be a 180, but HST if that's what's available. The stopper would be a 165/166. To be honest I didn't go into that much detail and I'm not suggesting that an HST and 166 run coupled, just that a 165/166 would provide the stopping service.
So there wouid be three services, the express with limited stops once a day in each direction, the current service and on alternate trips the current service augmented with a 'stopper' preceeding the up services and proceeding the down ones, running Oxford - Moreton.
 

And if there are just so many people shelling out for ^237 tickets from Hereford - or first class seasons from Worcester - why do the bulk of first class passengers join/get off the trains at the stations between Moreton-in-Marsh and Oxford?
You may get the rough end of the deal but in terms of the overall picture, the places where the bulk of the passengers are and most of the growth in numbers has taken place are the ones that FGW will focus its efforts on - the fact is that with a decent level of service, they are far more likely to get those extra Hanborough-Oxford passengers - and on a regular basis - than they are to find a great many more willing to pay an occasional ^237, even on expenses, from Hereford.

Oh dear - you really don't get the picture. You need to cater for both - and chasing the bulk passengers may not be as wise as chasing the revenue. It's about being sensitive to both markets, not alienating either one or the other. I believe it is really possible to do both  (and without intervention from Mr Cameron).
Do you have a breakdown station by station of numbers of tickets sold by class and destination? It would be interesting to see an analysis of the revenue figures.

[willc]

I don't get the picture - excuse me. I use the route several days each week, for six years and counting, lived locally for two years before that and have been travelling occasionally since the mid-1970s visiting relatives locally, so have seen it come from near enough its lowest ebb - couple of peak through Herefords and assorted other oddments each day, with precious little commuting beyond Oxford - to where we are today.

You need to cater for both

markets

Which is what FGW^▸ (First Great Western), Thames and BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) have done for years, not least since the 1993 Turbo timetable got rid of broken journeys at Oxford and passenger numbers on the route went up by 25 per cent and revenue by 32 per cent within six months - and kept climbing until 2005, when the unreliability started to take a toll.

That the rail operators' way of catering for both markets - and the compromises that it inevitably involves due to operating, staffing and cost constraints - may not entirely suit the smaller number of people travelling from the west of the route is unfortunate. But long-distance trains making more stops is a fact of life across FGW, in Cornwall, Somerset and Wiltshire just as much as the Cotswolds. Why? Because it makes them more money from more passengers and they need it to pay the Government when those premium payments kick in. And in the current economic climate all the more so.

That 1993 timetable also changed the market for ever, making Hanborough, Charlbury and Kingham, in particular, eminently commutable for people working in London. People hate changing trains, so saying 'sorry, we're taking away your through trains in the middle of the peaks and you can all pack into a Turbo and get soaked/frozen in the winter getting to or from platform 3 at Oxford' would destroy what little goodwill FGW have clawed back after the fiasco in December and January.

I posted these passenger figures earlier in this thread but they bear repeating

In order 1977, 1979, 2003, 2005, 2006
Charlbury: 65,494; 81,152; 229,000; 236,749; 232,040
Kingham: 31,258; 36,615; 121,318; 124,462; 126,995
Moreton-in-M: 56,370; 68,193; 176,893; 180,458; 178,004
Evesham: 114,645; 130,198; 240,174; 269,474; 239,257

So if an express was going to stop anywhere between Oxford and Worcester, Charlbury would be one of the stops, but that would then draw passengers from Kingham, swamping the Charlbury car park, so you would have to stop at Kingham too, and if you did that then you would have to call at Moreton, etc, etc. Which is why we are where we are. The current stopping patterns are the result of careful analysis of where the money is coming from. If the extra stops at Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore weren't paying their way in terms of revenue earned, they would have been dropped.

Regular commuters equal regular, steady revenue, equal predictable cash flow. The bedrock of any business. Occasional passengers do not equal steady cash flow, even when they pay ^237 - and how many of those tickets do they actually sell? If it was a high number, then they might look more favourably on the idea of a limited-stop train, but bear in mind any such train would be no quicker than it is now between Paddington and Didcot, as the number of services on that section is now so high that belting along London-Reading in 20 minutes is no longer an option.

I'm not obsessed with Mr Cameron and hold no brief for him. He represents a long stretch of the line, including the second busiest intermediate station - Charlbury - and he is quite focused on the railway, because it is used by a lot of his constituents. Inaction would cost him votes in his own backyard - not a great advert for a prime mininster in waiting. Has your MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) held two public meetings about the railways so far this year? I doubt it. One was attended by Andrew Haines and Dave Ward, Network Rail's boss for the west of England - and Notting Hill wasn't mentioned once.

There is a very significant number of passengers who travel from 'villages' to/from Oxford and their needs, important as they are, are at variance to those long distance travellers.

Exactly. A very significant number, far more more significant than people travelling two or three times a month from Hereford or Worcester to London. You could try running non-stop Worcester to London and back, cutting out all us annoying intermediate passengers. But you would lose a pile of money, as the trains would be near-empty - and still would be even if you did stop at Oxford but missed out almost all the intermediate stops beyond.

You would only need to upgrade Wolvercote to Ascott. I am only suggesting additional trains to cater for Moreton - Oxford stopper.

Shall we try this point again - on cost grounds, you can't do anything that involves fiddling with the signalling system at Oxford, which controls the section to Ascott. Dave Ward said at the meeting in Charlbury the costs would be off the scale, which is why it is not being attempted in the double track project.

And your stopper can't end its journey at Moreton, because you still need to serve Honeybourne and Pershore, where passenger numbers have also climbed, but which also seem to figure high on the hate-list of the fans of running flat-out to Worcester. I refer you to Btline's original proposal:

A better idea. Run a double 180 as far as Oxford. Then split it:

*front half runs fast to Worcester, all stops to Hereford
*second one stops at all stops to Worcester

Someone spoke up in favour of this idea at the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) AGM^▸ (Annual General Meeting). It wasn't exactly cheered to the rafters - too many 'villagers' there, I suppose...

And people went to Chiltern because they knew when they were going to get home every night - why else would you switch from a station 10 minutes' drive from home to one half-an-hour away?

I don't have a breakdown of 180 running costs, but as well as the same lease fee as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), you are looking at maintaining five engines and transmissions, versus two in a 125, and every extra train you run needs a crew of two or three people, you pay more track access charges, etc. And FGW get through something like 22 per cent of all the diesel fuel used on Britain's railways, so I expect they are pretty thorough when it comes to weighing up the numbers on such matters.

[Btline]

Both Willc and Andy W have fully valid points.

Can no-one see that the journey time is too long for longer distance passengers?

It is not about "annoying villagers" but stopping a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) every few minutes on short platforms and then slowly accelerating.

The point being made is not about: either "the villagers" or the "first class long distance commuters" but both.

Has it not occurred to anyone that taking longer distance passengers off peak services would free up space for the main commuters?

[willc]

But there are only so many passengers out there, witness the empty seats on the peak trains either way west of Moreton-in-Marsh now.

Running more trains equals more expense and even with better capacity on the route, which may allow a more even spacing of trains in the future, it's already pretty near a 30-minute interval service running in the direction of the peak flows in the morning and late afternoon-early evening, which is probably adequate to meet demand well into the future, especially if everything bar the halts trains is operated by an HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

At the moment you're talking 4xHSTs east of Moreton each morning peak (3 of them starting at Hereford or Malvern), plus a Turbo, which gives more than 2,000 seats in each directon at these times, with all four return HSTs from 15.51 to 18.21 going through at least to Worcester.

And whether you like it or nor, the 125s, operating to current stopping patterns, are what will be meeting the needs of both types of passenger for the next seven or eight years, in all likelihood - unless FGW^▸ (First Great Western) snap up some of the 130-odd Mk3s with power-operated doors that Irish Railways are now offering for sale. Convert the bogies to standard gauge, rewire to make them into HST trailers - as Grand Central has done with ex-Virgin loco-hauled Mk3 stock - and you could speed up station stops quite a bit.

[John R]

Convert the bogies to standard gauge, rewire to make them into HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trailers - as Grand Central has done with ex-Virgin loco-hauled Mk3 stock - and you could speed up station stops quite a bit.

I'm not sure I'd cite GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) as a good example of how to reuse rolling stock (emergency service again this week due to a breakdown last Friday).

[willc]

It's the power cars - refurbished by DML at Devonport - that keep breaking.

[swlines]

After the small problem of forgetting to pay the bills, that is...

[Andy W]

Hi Willc,

I live just outside Pershore and very rarely use the service because I prefer to drive to Warwick Parkway (and extra 40 mins) and use Chiltern because, despite the drive it's quicker, cheaper, more frequent and more reliable. However yesterday for the fifth time this year I actually went down on FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

Here are my observations:-

The train was the 11.40 Pershore - Paddington
The train arrived spot on time. Arrived at Evesham to be told we would leave 10 mins late. The train running towards Worcester arrived, stopped around 2 mins and pulled out, we waited an extra few minutes while our driver got the token. I really fail to understand why they still stick to 19th century practices - but that's not FGW. We got to Oxford where it was announced that we would have to wait another ten minutes for the Hereford bound train to arrive!!! Now this is all double line so why would we have to wait? Simple we had to wait for the driver who was driving the Hereford train to drive ours back!!!! So there we have it, even when there is double track FGW still completely screw it up by pathetic working practices ........ our train was sitting there blocking the platform because of total incompetence !!!

Back to your points

I posted these passenger figures earlier in this thread but they bear repeating

In order 1977, 1979, 2003, 2005, 2006
Charlbury: 65,494; 81,152; 229,000; 236,749; 232,040
Kingham: 31,258; 36,615; 121,318; 124,462; 126,995
Moreton-in-M: 56,370; 68,193; 176,893; 180,458; 178,004
Evesham: 114,645; 130,198; 240,174; 269,474; 239,257

Yes but I'm interested in the full anaysis, i.e. breakdown by destination and class - and along the line not just 4 stations.

I don't have a breakdown of 180 running costs, but as well as the same lease fee as an HST^▸ (High Speed Train), you are looking at maintaining five engines and transmissions, versus two in a 125, and every extra train you run needs a crew of two or three people, you pay more track access charges, etc. And FGW get through something like 22 per cent of all the diesel fuel used on Britain's railways, so I expect they are pretty thorough when it comes to weighing up the numbers on such matters

I never trust people who throw one cost (in this case lease costs) without going through all the costs, there may or maybe nothing to hide. All I can tell you is total cost of ownership is far more important than lease costs.

I don't get the picture - excuse me. I use the route several days each week

Of course you don't otherwise there would be a degree of balance rather than only looking at the 'villages'. A huge percentage of those people use this service as an Oxford commuter train. Why not cater for them with such a service, that also caters for Finstock, Ascott, Shipton etc.In fact treat the intermediate station from Moreton in exactly the same way that they are treated from Didcot?

And your stopper can't end its journey at Moreton, because you still need to serve Honeybourne and Pershore, where passenger numbers have also climbed, but which also seem to figure high on the hate-list of the fans of running flat-out to Worcester. I refer you to Btline's original proposal:

I don't agree with BTline on that even though Pesrhore is my local station. If I wanted the express I'd go to Evesham but as I stated before Chiltern will continue to get my custom.

Anyway I can't ever see us agreeing, I'm more than happy with Chiltern and you'll be happy driving customers off the service.

On a final note from my trip yesterday, despite enough padding to make Twiggy look like Dolly Parton the train was still ten minutes late ............. but wait 10 minutes late is considered to be on time !!!!!!!!!

[Btline]

Here are my observations:-
The train was the 11.40 Pershore - Paddington
The train arrived spot on time. Arrived at Evesham to be told we would leave 10 mins late. The train running towards Worcester arrived, stopped around 2 mins and pulled out, we waited an extra few minutes while our driver got the token. I really fail to understand why they still stick to 19th century practices - but that's not FGW^▸ (First Great Western). We got to Oxford where it was announced that we would have to wait another ten minutes for the Hereford bound train to arrive!!! Now this is all double line so why would we have to wait? Simple we had to wait for the driver who was driving the Hereford train to drive ours back!!!! So there we have it, even when there is double track FGW still completely screw it up by pathetic working practices ........ our train was sitting there blocking the platform because of total incompetence !!!

[willc]

No, we probably won't agree, but when somewhere the size of Charlbury generates almost as many passengers as does far larger Evesham, then anyone running the trains is going to stop lots, or all, of their trains there.

It's not about what I think, I am just trying to point out why the trains are making extra intermediate stops - because these stations are where FGW^▸ (First Great Western) earns its corn - not from Worcester and Hereford, where the bulk of custom is heading to Birmingham, not London.

Even if there were more double track, when are any extra super-fast trains going to run? And would you use them anyway, since you seem happy with your current arrangements? While you say you would go to Evesham, where would you park? There aren't enough spaces there now, and nowhere to expand, hence stopping more trains at Pershore and Honeybourne, to ease pressure on Evesham.

I'm sure you won't trust anyone on this either, but a 30-minute interval service in the peak is probably about all the line can sustain, in terms of generating adequate traffic - it isn't exactly inner-suburbia here. Over the years, I have used every peak train from 6-am-ish from Moreton onwards, through to what is currently the 08.37 from Worcester. Whether you like it or not, all those starting further west pick up the bulk of their passengers from Moreton onwards - in both classes - and drop them off by Moreton going the other way - whether traveling to/from Oxford, Reading or London. Maybe everyone from further west is now driving to Warwick?

I'm sorry I could only find numbers for four stations off the cuff when Lee was asking about it a while back, but maybe you don't want to observe the clear general trends - Charlbury traffic up almost four-fold, same at Kingham, Moreton trebled, Evesham not quite 2.5, even at its peak in 2005. The Hanborough multiple would be far more - it only had one train a day each way in the late 1970s, like the halts - which, with the exception of Shipton, are unlikely to supply any more custom than they do now, however many trains you stop there.

If you really want a full breakdown of passengers and by class, ask FGW, though I expect they would say it was commercially confidential, and overall numbers by station are all that do seem to get released.

Total incompetence - or Network Rail? They are responsible for the bulk of delays across FGW.

[Btline]

Wikipedia has some station usage figures.

Go to a station's page, and look at the info box on the right hand side. There should also be links to other data.