Proposed December 2007 Timetable Specification Changes

[whole diary]

[Lee]

Here are the proposed December 2007 timetable specification changes , courtesy of Severn Tunnel Action Group (link below.)
http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/FirstGW%202007%20Draft%20Timetable%20for%20comments.pdf

Lots of franchise documents can also be accessed from the link below.
http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/issues.htm

A Bristol Evening Post article (link below) details some of the timetable changes , which include restoring the Cardiff - Taunton link.
http://thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145365&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145191&contentPK=17788602&folderPk=83726&pNodeId=144922

[paulsouthwales]

Makes an interesting read!  Anyone read all 39 pages?  I have to say, I did try! For regular passengers, it would have been better to have this laid out in traditional timetable form.

[Timmer]

Makes an interesting read!  Anyone read all 39 pages?  I have to say, I did try! For regular passengers, it would have been better to have this laid out in traditional timetable form.

Hopefully it will be real soon and one of the good people who regularly post on this site who have access to it will post it on for us. I take it the sentences with strike thoughare services that are being changed/dropped?

[Lee]

I take it the sentences with strike thoughare services that are being changed/dropped?

Proposed new wording is underlined , proposed deleted text is lined through.

What I particularly noticed was the following :

- Certain London - Bristol services to call at Keynsham but NOT Oldfield Park as originally suggested by FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

- No change proposed to the routeing of the Cardiff - Portsmouth specification.

- No changes proposed to either the Melksham or Severn Beach line specifications. One would have thought that FGW would have included these as a precaution , given the links below.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2835.msg6078#msg6078

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=41.msg60#msg60

According to the Bristol City Council Physical Environment Scrutiny Commission Severn Beach Line Update (03/04/2007) , agreement had been reached in principle with FGW to run a 40 min frequency train service between Bristol Temple Meads - Avonmouth on Monday to Saturday inclusive , and that discussions were required with South Gloucestershire Council to ensure that the Avonmouth - Severn Beach rail - replacement bus linked in with the trains.

The Severn Beach line specification currently requires an all - day Saturday train service to be provided to Severn Beach , which means that it would have to be altered to allow the 40 min frequency train service between Bristol Temple Meads - Avonmouth (with a bus link to Severn Beach) to run.

[grahame]

Here's my response .... sent to russell.evans@firstgroup.com if anyone else wants the contact name to write in themselves.

Consultation response on changes to First Great Western SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) from December 2007

Dear Mr Evans

I understand that you are co-ordinating consultation responses with regards to proposed changes in the First Great Western SLC from December 2007, as set down in Glenda Lamont's letter of 22nd June.

BACKGROUND

The current service that First Great Western are providing on the TransWilts line from Swindon to Westbury and Salisbury is failing to fulfill the needs of travellers on that corridor, linking the five largest towns in Wiltshire - Swindon, Salisbury, Chippenham, Trowbridge and Melksham.   Traveller numbers had risen by over 10% per annum, compound, until last December, but a reduction of some 60% of service and an SLC that leaves the remaining services running at inappropriate times has lead to a loss of over 90% of traffic.  The lack of trains - for example, the gap in services from Swindon from 06:19 to 18:42 - is causing severly extended journeys for many travellers (Swindon to Trowbridge - 35 minutes by train, 95 minutes by direct "express" bus) and historic data shows that the service is highly effected by the number and timing of services.

I understand that First Great Western are now using some trains which take a little longer from point to point, and that they feel unable to offer additional services on this route without explicit clearance from the SLC.    I therefor propose the following to replace Section F5.

CHANGE PROPOSAL

Four services to be provided each day from Westbury to Swindon and return, calling at Trowbridge, Melksham, and Chippenham in each case. On Monday to Saturday, one service to arrive in Swindon between 08:15 and 08:45, and one service to leave Swindon between 17:15 and 17:45.  Services to be allowed up to 50 minutes for the journey between Westbury and Swindon, with one exception of 55 minutes allowed.

Additional services may be run to provided from Swindon to Westbury, Frome or Salisbury to provide a service at up to 2 hourly intervals. These services to be allowed up to 55 minutes between Swindon and Westbury.

All of these services may be linked with Westbury - Salisbury - Southampton, Westbury - Weymouth and Swindon - Gloucester and Cheltenmham services.

COMMENT

I believe that the above SLC change would, if the services were provided to the full, provide an appropriate train service on this route for 2008. With the adjustments to the service in the minimum specification above, you would see a substantive increase in average passenger numbers per train.

The SLC described above is compatabile with each of the following, each of which I understand has been progressed in some depth.

a) Existing service retained, plus an extra service from Salisbury at around 07:10 and an extra service from Salisbury at around 16:10, returning from Swindon about 80 minutes later (using the train currently running on to Southampton which will be duplicated by the new South West Trains service)

b) A shuttle train running every 2 hours throughout the day (with one three hour gap) between Swindon and Westbury / Frome

c) A shuttle train running every 3 hours between Swindon and Salisbury.

The appropriatness of other proposed changes to the SLC is beyond the scope of comment of this email, which reflects the views of the "Save the Train" campaign for an appropriate TransWilts train service.

I understand that you will be copying responses (including this one) to the Department for Transport, and that they may be copies and published further.  Please feel free to include my contact details with such copies, and note that I would be happy to clarify any points if needed.

I look forward, hopefully, to seeing an appropriate amendment to this section of the SLC along the lines we have been discussing with the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) since late last year, and thus the return of a more appropriate service from this coming December.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Ellis
Well House Consultants, 404 The Spa, Melksham, Wilts
http://www.wellho.net   graham@wellho.net
+44 (0) 1225 708225 (phone)  +44 (0) 1225 707126 (fax)

[Lee]

Dear Mr Evans ,

I understand that you are co-ordinating consultation responses with regards to proposed changes in the First Great Western SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) from December 2007 , as set down in Glenda Lamont's letter of 22nd June.

I would like to suggest further SLC changes , in order to secure an appropriate level of service for Dilton Marsh , Melksham & Pilning stations , and also to take into account the agreement reached by Bristol City Council and First Great Western to provide a 40 min frequency service on the Severn Beach Line from December 2007. My proposed changes are listed below :

F2a - CARDIFF CENTRAL - BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS.

3 Limited Stops

3.1 Pilning

On Mondays to Saturdays , two services in each direction shall call. On Mondays to Fridays , one of these shall arrive at Bristol Temple Meads between 0800 and 0900 , and another shall depart from Bristol Temple Meads between 1700 and 1800.

F3 WESTBURY ^ SOUTHAMPTON CENTRAL.

Services may be joined to those specified in Route F2b (Bristol Temple Meads - Westbury) and Route F5 (Westbury - Swindon).

3 Limited Stops

Stops specified in this section may be provided by services specified in Route F1 (Cardiff Central ^Portsmouth Harbour)

3.1 Dilton Marsh (remove if all call on Sunday)

(a) On Mondays to Fridays between 0600 and 2359 , ten services in each direction shall call at a maximum interval of three hours.

(b) On Saturdays between 0600 and 2359 , ten services in each direction shall call at a maximum interval of three hours.

(c) On Sundays , four services in each direction shall call.

F5 WESTBURY ^ SWINDON.

1 Route Definition

1.1 Services shall be provided between Westbury and Swindon calling at Chippenham , Melksham and Trowbridge.

1.2 Services may be joined to services specified in Route A4 (Swindon - Cheltenham) , Route F3 (Westbury - Southampton Central) and Route F4 (Westbury ^ Weymouth).

2 Frequency

2.1 Daily

(a) Between and including the Early and Late Services , four services from Westbury shall be provided. On Mondays to Saturdays , one service shall arrive at Swindon between 0815 and 0845.

(b) Between and including the Early and Late Services, four services from Swindon shall be provided. On Mondays to Saturdays , one service shall depart between 1715 and 1745.

(c) Additional services may be run in each direction to provide a service at up to 2 hourly intervals.

3 Maximum Journey Times

Services specified in paragraphs 2.1 (a) and 2.1 (b) to be allowed up to 50 minutes for the journey in each direction , with one exception of 55 minutes allowed. Services specified in paragraph 2.1 (c) to be allowed up to 55 minutes in each direction.

G5 BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS ^ SEVERN BEACH.

1 Route Definition

Services shall be provided between Bristol Temple Meads and Severn Beach calling at St Andrews Road , Avonmouth , Shirehampton , Sea Mills , Clifton Down , Redland , Montpelier , Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill.

2 Frequency

2.1 Mondays to Fridays

(a) Between and including the Early and Late Services , 25 services shall be provided from Bristol Temple Meads at 40 minute intervals. Before 0740 and after 1740 , intervals of up to 1 hour 40 minutes may apply.

(b) Between and including the Early and Late Services , 25 services shall be provided from Severn Beach at 40 minute intervals. Before 0740 and after 1740 , intervals of up to 1 hour 40 minutes may apply.

(c) One service in each direction may be provided after the Late Service.

(d) Services between 0800 and 1800 may be provided by means of a Connection at Avonmouth and during these hours the service between Avonmouth and Severn Beach may be provided by road transport.

(e) Provision of the services specified in this paragraph 2.1 is dependent on an agreed funding contribution towards the costs of one train diagram by Bristol City Council. Should such a contribution not be provided , paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the current G5 specification (plus derogations , if any) shall be substituted , and the paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 detailed below shall be null and void.

2.2 Saturdays

(a) Between and including the Early and Late Services , 16 services shall be provided from Bristol Temple Meads at hourly intervals. One interval of up to 2 hours 10 minutes is permitted.

(b) Between and including the Early and Late Services , 16 services shall be provided from Severn Beach at hourly intervals. One interval of up to 1 hours 30 minutes is permitted.

(c) One service in each direction may be provided after the Late Service.

2.3 Sundays

No service required.

Yours sincerely ,

Lee Fletcher
Campaign Against New Beeching Report (CANBER^▸ (Campaign Against the New Beeching Report))
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1517

[devon_metro]

I can't see loadings being very high on a Pilning train. It is in the middle of nowhere!

[Lee]

I can't see loadings being very high on a Pilning train. It is in the middle of nowhere!

The proposed specification is NOT suggesting that Pilning should have extra trains merely to that station , but that a very limited number of stops should be added into the Cardiff - Bristol service at Pilning to provide a basic service. For a better understanding of how the specification works , visit the link below.
http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/issues.htm

Pilning currently has ONLY 2 TRAINS PER WEEK , and I dont think that anyone would suggest that was a fair level of service. As for "It is in the middle of nowhere!" , try telling that to the Pilning locals , backed by their local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Steve Webb & FOSBR^▸ (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways) , who are fighting to keep their station open.

[BandHcommuter]

I can't see loadings being very high on a Pilning train. It is in the middle of nowhere!

The proposed specification is NOT suggesting that Pilning should have extra trains merely to that station , but that a very limited number of stops should be added into the Cardiff - Bristol service at Pilning to provide a basic service. For a better understanding of how the specification works , visit the link below.
http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/issues.htm

Pilning currently has ONLY 2 TRAINS PER WEEK , and I dont think that anyone would suggest that was a fair level of service. As for "It is in the middle of nowhere!" , try telling that to the Pilning locals , backed by their local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Steve Webb & FOSBR^▸ (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways) , who are fighting to keep their station open.

Perhaps Liam is suggesting that the potential patronage from Pilning station is not sufficient to justify deceleration of the existing peak train service linking the cities of Cardiff and Bristol with an extra station stop. I haven't looked at the web site mentioned above, but maybe the user group have considered the business/economic case.

[Lee]

Analysis has shown that providing Pilning with the very least they deserve (a viable peak - hour service) would be possible. If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) / DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) / Network Rail's doesnt , then they should damn well have another look at it.

I'm sorry , but having visited Pilning station for myself , and seen it in a "virtual closure" state , I feel very strongly about this.

[BandHcommuter]

Analysis has shown that providing Pilning with the very least they deserve (a viable peak - hour service) would be possible. If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) / DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) / Network Rail's doesnt , then they should damn well have another look at it.

I'm sorry , but having visited Pilning station for myself , and seen it in a "virtual closure" state , I feel very strongly about this.

What you are saying seems fine from a common sense point of view. But if you and the local campaign group believe that the rail funders and service providers are seriously missing something here, you must give them the evidence to justify their revisiting the timetable spec - this might include:

The analysis you mention above (presumably this relates to the feasibility of timing in an additional stop, including performance implications on other trains)
The potential patronage (e.g. what is the the population within certain distances of the station, who are they and where do they work - this would involve trawling census information I guess). You might also identify potential key flows such as school traffic, MOD/BAE/Rolls Royce workers etc.
The impact (or evidence of lack of impact) on existing passengers who might have their services slowed down and potentially experience additional crowding - how busy are the trains now?
The attributes of other public transport options in the area, including shortcomings and constraints.

This might even start to form the foundations of an economic/business case.

I fear that simply presenting a portfolio of suggestions for SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) changes may not be taken seriously unless backed up by this sort of evidence. Bear in mind the volume of competing demands that these people have to deal with. Think about the audience and the sort of presentation that might make them give your proposal a second glance. A sound case would also give more ammunition to key opinion formers in the area.

[Lee]

You do have a point. I should really give an update on whats been done so far.

The proposed timetable contained in the link below has been presented by Steve Webb MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) to Network Rail as a basis of discussions into what may be feasible regarding changes to the current Portsmouth - Cardiff service. He has also , with local help , been conducting surveys into potential usage.
http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested%20Portsmouth%20-%20Rhoose%20timetable.pdf

As you can see , the proposed Cardiff Central arrival / departure times (even with extra stops) would be within 5 minutes of those contained in the current timetable. The proposed services also follow the same train paths as now , in order to minimise potential disruption to other services.

On other public transport options in the area , the local bus service runs twice a day in both directions on Monday - Friday only , while the train service runs twice a week on Saturdays only......

[grahame]

I fear that simply presenting a portfolio of suggestions for SLC^▸ (Service Level Commitment) changes may not be taken seriously unless backed up by this sort of evidence. Bear in mind the volume of competing demands that these people have to deal with.

I completely agree, and indeed the call for input asked for evidence to be submitted too.

On the TransWilts element (Westbury to Swindon),  I submitted brief evidence with the consultation inputs, and have also provided a great deal of extra data to First, to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), and to Wiltshire County Council covering "how" and "why".   

With this service - the one I use and know best - each of these three organisations has already been examining the current situation in very much more depth than your might suspect from our inputs, and a great deal of preparatory work has been done.  And I'm pretty sure that some of the players, at least, are minded to be as helpful as they can be - though there remain elements who I suspect would like the whole line to just go away and are continuing to fillibuster in the hope that it will.

[Lee]

Here is the Severn Tunnel Action Group response , which includes the Pilning commuter service option (link below.)
http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/TR133%20Severn%20Tunnel%20Action%20Group%20Response%20to%20Changes%20to%20FGW%20Service%20Level%20Commitment.doc