Severn Tunnel Action Group update

[whole diary]

[John R]

It's a difficult call, but there is a large catchment area (including Forest of Dean, Monmouth), that would benefit from a quicker and easier option of getting to Swindon, Reading and most importantly London. One option would be to trial one peak service, and one immediately after cheaper fares are available. Coming back  you might need three trains as people's return times are move varied.

[Btline]

Once people are in their cars, they won't want to have to stop, pay an extortionate parking fee and train fare to travel.

As for stopping peak trains - they are already busy, and those are the ones that require faster journey times! (people on business, time = money, etc.)

Intercity trains are called Intercity for a reason - and the Cardiff route is one of the few proper Intercity routes left on FGW^▸ (First Great Western)!

[devon_metro]

Can't see a problem in the Cardiff trains calling, they are lightly used anyway.

[John R]

Once people are in their cars, they won't want to have to stop, pay an extortionate parking fee and train fare to travel.

But the catchment area I'm referring to has to pay a fee equivalent to, (and probably more than), the parking fee at STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) if they wish to continue their journey by road into England. (OK, and before anyone says it, yes it's paid on the return journey.) 

[ReWind]

I would rather keep the CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) - Padd route a fast Intercity route.  The amount of passengers who want to get too London as quickly as possible from South Wales far outweighs the amount who would travel from STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) to London.

IMO^▸ (in my opinion), Intercity trains should just stop at Cities and major towns along a route, therefore providing a fast, long distance service.

Local Suburban services should be the trains to stop at small towns, villages and other small stations along a route, picking up passengers, taking them to the city, where they can connect onto longer distance services.

I cant see the problem with passengers at STJ joining a local CDF - BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) service and changing at either Newport or Temple Meads for services to Paddington.  Its what many of us who live in a smaller community have to do. ( i.e. Yate/Cam & Dursley passengers have to change at BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) or GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains), Trowbridge/BOA passengers have to change at Bath or Westbury ).

IMO, thats how the railway should work, otherwise we would be left with no Intercity trains at all!!!   

[Lee]

If all the planned station improvements are put in place, then the already strong calls for extra services being made by those on the ground at STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) will be bolstered to irresistible levels.

The problem is that arguments exist against each possible service enhancement you could put in place there. The argument against calling HST^▸ (High Speed Train) services at STJ has been made already in this topic, so here are some that have been made against calling other services at STJ:

NEW BRISTOL-CARDIFF CORRIDOR STOPPING SERVICE - This is the favoured option of both the West of England Partnership and FGW^▸ (First Great Western). However, capacity constraints are likely to rule this out for the time being.

OFF-PEAK CALLS IN PORTSMOUTH-CARDIFF SERVICES - Operationally feasible, but FGW argue that demand would not be strong enough to justify it. Also unpopular with those who want Portsmouth-Cardiff services speeded up.

MORE CALLS IN XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) CARDIFF-NOTTINGHAM SERVICES - XC are very unwilling to include extra calls at stations that do not form part of their core calling pattern, a stance partly inspired and robustly supported by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) specification. This is the factor that brought matters at Ashchurch to a head, and formed part of the reasoning behind the introduction of additional local services between Worcester-Gloucester.

I support better services for STJ, but I agree that its a very difficult balancing act. One thing is for sure though - timetable planners are likely to have to make this very tough call regarding STJ soon.

[John R]

I cant see the problem with passengers at STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) joining a local CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) - BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) service and changing at either Newport or Temple Meads for services to Paddington.  Its what many of us who live in a smaller community have to do. ( i.e. Yate/Cam & Dursley passengers have to change at BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) or GCR^» (Gloucester - next trains), Trowbridge/BOA passengers have to change at Bath or Westbury ).

Couple of points here. Firstly, if we were talking purely about local passengers then I would agree that STJ does not merit a London service. However, it is potentially a railhead for a large catchment area, north and east of the station, including Chepstow, the Forest of Dean, Wye Valley, and Monmouth.

From this catchment area, the option of driving to Newport is rather unattractive for various reasons that will be obvious to those familiar to the area. Likewise, catching a train that takes you 10 miles in the wrong direction and then you have to allow time for the connection means that you will be passing back through STJ at least 30 minutes after you first departed!

So the only option is to take a local service to Temple Meads. Based on the current timings, that would take around 2 hrs 20, as opposed to 1 hrs 47 mins with a direct service. Add to the fact that some of the connections at Temple Meads are less than the required minimum for that station (so any journeys searched through the on line planner will add a further half an hour), and the fact that pax from STJ usually have to stand to Temple Meads, and that option also becomes rather unappealling for business travellers.

I'm only suggesting two up services call there - one for business travellers, say at 0719 and one for leisure travellers after the peak, say at 0919, and probably three return, as return journey times are a bit more variable, say the 1645, 1845 and 2115 ex Paddington.   

[Btline]

But those trains you highlight are the key, and I expect the busiest, trains for everyone! So everyone is slowed down. I think you could just about get away with stopping off peak Cardiff services, but ONLY if the time is found by removing slack.

Remember, from 2017, many FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) will have to call at Tyford and/or Maidenhead to make up for the loss of local services.

As Oxford fasts/ Cotswold trains already stop between Reading and London, I expect the trains that will stop will be the Bristol/S Wales trains. This could add up to 6 minutes onto an already too slow journey time!

This is assuming that both of the stations will require 2 tph. The alternative is to terminate the Oxford slows at Reading to free up paths.

[IndustryInsider]

Remember, from 2017, many FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) will have to call at Tyford and/or Maidenhead to make up for the loss of local services.

As Oxford fasts/ Cotswold trains already stop between Reading and London, I expect the trains that will stop will be the Bristol/S Wales trains. This could add up to 6 minutes onto an already too slow journey time!

Have you actually read official plans for this, or are you making assumptions Btline? I would say a Crossrail extension to Reading (operating from day one) is more likely than unlikely, in which case the service can operate broadly as it does now. Even if it doesn't why do HST's have to make extra stops? I would imagine a diesel local service from Reading to Maidenhead/Slough to connect with Crossrail is more sensible and likely than HST stops on the Bristol/Cardiff's (which by then will be IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s of course!). There's a good chance with greater acceleration and automatic doors that an IEP service could form an Oxford service calling at Slough and Twyford and do the trip as quick as they do now, so, again, I think that is much more likely!

[Btline]

Where in the official plans does it say that the service will operate to Reading? All maps and press releases clearly state it will stop at Maidenhead. They have even drawn up planned train frequencies; these make no mention of Reading.

I very much doubt, esp with Tory 10% rail cuts, that wires will get to Reading for a good few years after 2017! Besides, once IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) comes in, any incentive to extend wires will be lost.

[IndustryInsider]

Where in the official plans does it say that the service will operate to Reading? All maps and press releases clearly state it will stop at Maidenhead. They have even drawn up planned train frequencies; these make no mention of Reading.

I very much doubt, esp with Tory 10% rail cuts, that wires will get to Reading for a good few years after 2017! Besides, once IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) comes in, any incentive to extend wires will be lost.

Of course it doesn't say anything in the official plans - it's not funded. However the route's safeguarded, Reading is being redeveloped with it in mind, and virtually everybody recognises it's the sensible thing to do, even within Government circles. Train frequencies plans could be adapted with very little thought - how about most trains that terminate at Maidenhead extend to Reading? There, job done! I'll wager a fiver with you that Crossrail is serving Reading within ten years.

[devon_metro]

Tory 10% rail cuts

Lets go bankrupt instead, and I will pay taxes through the roof thanks to Brown and his cronies. Whats to say these "10% cuts" (accurate?) cannot be negated by efficiency savings?

[ReWind]

Can the platforms at STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station) actually take a full length HST^▸ (High Speed Train), or would it have to be SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening)?

If SDO, then there would be at least a 3 minute despatch process, and thats not including bikes/wheelchairs etc!

[John R]

According to Quail the existing platforms can take 7 or 8 coaches, so platform length would be unlikely to be a problem.

[ReWind]

An other alternative could be to add BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) onto every other CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) - TAU^» (Taunton - next trains) service ( every 2 hours ), and eliminate Patchway and Filton from it.  I know, very poorly put. Example:

07.15 CDF - TAU calls Newport, STJ^▸ (Severn Tunnel Junction railway station), BPW, BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) and so on
08.00 CDF - TAU calls Newport, STJ, Patchway, Filton, BRI and so on
09.00 CDF - TAU calls Newport, STJ, BPW, BRI and so on
10.00 CDF - TAU calls Newport, STJ, Patchway, Filton BRI and so on.

You get the picture!!!!!!!

Patchway is not a heavily used station, so a 2 hourly service would be adequate.

This therefore provides a good, quick connection for STJ passengers to connect with HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s at BPW.  Platform 4 could be used for these services. 

Take the 09.00 for example,

Depart STJ at 09.28
Arrive BPW ( approx ) 09.43

Depart BPW 10.00
Arrive Padd 11.28

Total journey time 2 hours ( times approx ).

Passengers who commute from STJ - Filton/Bristol would still have the CDF - PHB services calling at STJ at peak hours.