PLEA FOR FASTER HEREFORD/WORCESTER TRAINS

[whole diary]

[devon_metro]

I don't care what the stats say. I still have to factor in Cotswold time and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) time - often, it is a good job that you do. And the stats only apply to the final destination - so people getting off before the end could still be late, but the train arrives on time due to the slack.

When the 180s go (have they gone already?), it'll mean more Turbos. When there is an hourly service - even more. This will put off even more long distance passengers, who will drive so they can catch an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) (Chelt/Ditcot/Swindon) / a Pendolino (B'ham Int) or a Clubman (Warwick P'way).

Stebbo - I take you point about Pershore, Honeybourne, Shipton and Hanborough. But you can't start removing Slough and DEFINITELY not Reading.

I also think that splitting trains should be looked at. This happens a lot in Kent, Sussex, Surrey etc, where extra train paths closer to London are unavailable. In most cases, one portion serves all stops, whilst another portion runs fast, calling at the main towns only. e.g. London Victoria to Portsmouth Harbour and Bognor Regis (Bognor bound coaches detach at Horsham and stop everywhere, whilst the Portsmouth portion continues fast to give Chichester etc. a fast train), and London Charing Cross to Hastings. Splits at Tunbridge Wells. One portion is an all stopper, one is semi fast.

So when the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) comes to FGW, why not have the Hereford and Worcester trains as 2 x 5 car trains. Split at Oxford. One semi fast to Hereford, one all stops to Shrub Hill. Both would be filled.

Perfect solution for you then, 166+165 Paddington - Oxford 166 continues semi fast, 165 stops at the shacks...

 

[willc]

William, however much your enjoy your role as FGW^▸ (First Great Western) cheerleader that's the reality.

Well that will give them a laugh in the FGW press office.

I'm just giving them - and Network Rail - some credit for turning things around. I think frequent journeys between Moreton and Oxford, slap bang in the middle of things, give me a pretty fair sense of how things are working.

Trains that are late reaching Moreton from the west or late leaving Oxford for Worcester are, as a general rule, going to stay late - but that very rarely happens nowadays, whereas 12 or 14 months ago late running was par for the course.

So when the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) comes to FGW

I'll believe that when I see it.

One semi fast to Hereford, one all stops to Shrub Hill. Both would be filled.

Define semi-fast.

Unless the first train ran non-stop to Worcester (meaning it would not be full, unless hundreds of people a day really are driving elsewhere to get trains), everyone wanting any intermediate station it stopped at between the two places would all pile on to the first train - causing delays at Oxford while they get into the right set.

As a result, the second train would be near-empty (and very empty beyond Hanborough), especially if your semi-fast called at Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton and Evesham, which seem to be the only places occasionally exempt from the near-pathological hatred some of you seem to have for those of us who don't live in Worcester or Hereford and dare to set foot on trains, thus ruining your clearly far more important journeys.

In the Oxford-bound direction, you would have to have two departures within a matter of minutes at any intermediate stops, with perhaps a five-minute gap at Charlbury. Where's the sense in that?

And where are all the extra train crews coming from to operate this timetable?

Maybe in a couple of years' time you could all club together to set up an open-access firm to take up the fourth path every hour with a non-stop train from Worcester to London. It would tear through the single-line sections flat out and you could wave at all us shack-dwellers as you speed past - at least for a few weeks until it goes bust.

[Btline]

Semi-fast: Oxford - Morteon - Evesham - Worcesters - Malverns - Ledbury - Hereford.

Stopping: all stops, minus halts, to Worcester Foregate Street.

BOTH units would be full - the first with the Morteon, Evesham and all the other long distance traffic (which would dramatically increase); the second with the local "Oxford Park and Ride" traffic AND local traffic to Worcester.

In the Oxford-bound direction, you would have to have two departures within a matter of minutes at any intermediate stops, with perhaps a five-minute gap at Charlbury. Where's the sense in that?

It works in many other parts of the country!

Maybe in a couple of years' time you could all club together to set up an open-access firm to take up the fourth path every hour with a non-stop train from Worcester to London. It would tear through the single-line sections flat out and you could wave at all us shack-dwellers as you speed past - at least for a few weeks until it goes bust.

That's just plain silly. Not even the original Cathedrals Express did that! Why do you "shack dwellers" seem against InterCity trains? Here is a solution which would keep services for all.

I'll believe that when I see it.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum: FGW^▸ (First Great Western) appear to be getting IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) in excess to their current number - plenty for the Cotswold Line. (unless you want them reserved for the Dicot - Morteon shuttles, which I am sure will be jam packed)

[IndustryInsider]

When the 180s go (have they gone already?), it'll mean more Turbos.

They were due to be handed back last week, but that was extended to this week I believe? Whatever the reasons regarding leasing costs and reliability, it is a shame to see a potentially very useful train for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) move elsewhere.

[willc]

180s are still here - or at least were last night on the 17.51.

Why do I object to all your wheezes about faster trains? Because they all involve someone else getting a worse service than they do at present, either by missing out their stations, or making them sit at Oxford going nowhere until the super-train has cleared the single line.

I can just see the marketing slogan - New Cotswold Line timetable - faster trains for Worcester and Hereford, slower trains for almost everyone else.

I wouldn't be cheerleading for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) if that was their pitch - nor would the other people living along the route who make the current level of train services to Worcester viable - the inconvenient fact you all continue to ignore. And even if all the people you say are driving elsewhere came back to the Cotswold Line, that would still be the case.

Who would want to be the FGW manager summoned to explain to Mr Cameron why his constituents should lose out? - "Well Prime Minister, there are these people in Worcester who are going through unique suffering at our hands, so we must do something about it, never mind all your voters in Charlbury paying us thousands of pounds every year for season tickets."

What about Huddersfield, in Yorkshire, which has a bigger population than Worcester and Hereford combined? It last had direct trains to London in 1977, one portion working a day each way, which went when HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) arrived on Leeds services.

How do you justify Moreton getting stops by your fast train ahead of far busier Charlbury?

In the case of the Hastings line, which you cite as an example, looking at the current weekday timetable, I can see a grand total of two trains a day each way which perform this type of manoeuvre, one of which appears to be little more than a stock positioning move to get an extra set back to the coast after the morning peak - hardly a compelling case.

IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) is a plan, nothing more. If electrification gets moving, that plan will have to change. It's also a British Government-led procurement programme and these things hardly have an inspiring track record. Just about every computer system you care to mention is late, way over budget and doesn't do what it's supposed to. The same goes for every weapons procurement programme the MoD runs. Why should the people who killed XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) services north of Crewe and made people on many other journeys change at Birmingham New Street do any better?

[Ollie]

In the case of the Hastings line, which you cite as an example, looking at the current weekday timetable, I can see a grand total of two trains a day each way which perform this type of manoeuvre, one of which appears to be little more than a stock positioning move to get an extra set back to the coast after the morning peak - hardly a compelling case.

There are a lot of services in the South East that split, however I think they are a bit of a misunderstanding, as they split and head off in totally different directions. As you say don't know of many that split and go same place albeit one a bit faster.

[John R]

In the rush hour several London to Weymouth services split at Southampton, with the front half running fast to Bournemouth and beyond, whilst the rear portion forms a stopper to Bournemouth.

[Btline]

There is a regular service towards Chichester which divides to provide a fast service and an all stopper.

I'm sure the residents of Charlbury can cope with a extra few minutes on the timetable - think of Hereford passengers!

And I think that Evesham would soon re-overtake Chal as the biggest place on the line with faster trains!

[willc]

I'm sure the residents of Charlbury can cope with a extra few minutes on the timetable

And there you have it - special treatment for Worcester, where people can't cope with a few extra minutes on the timetable, but that's fine for other people.

Evesham would certainly get busier, because all the people who use Pershore and Honeybourne now would go there instead - or rather, back there, recreating the early-morning pressure at Evesham before more stops at the other two were brought in - since they would get home a lot earlier, or could set out a bit later if the stopping pattern you suggest were followed. You would probably also get a similar effect with Kingham passengers switching to Moreton.

So, as I said, the first train out of Oxford would be jammed, while the second would be near-empty within 10 or 15 minutes of leaving Oxford. And your later faster train towards London would see the same effect in reverse.

This "regular service to Chichester" appears to have just one stop in common between the services after they split or before they join at Horsham - at Barnham - as the stopper goes to Bognor, not Chichester. Substitute Worcester for Barnham and it looks a lot more like my one train non-stop to Worcester and one stopping everywhere else scenario than what you suggest.

On the Bournemouth line, this method of operating probably has as much to do with the demand for train paths in and out of Waterloo in the peak as it does with overall journey times. Eg the 17.35 ex-Waterloo splits and its fast portion, non-stop from Southampton, is in Bournemouth at 19.20, while the stopper, after leaving So'ton three minutes down, gets in at 19.40. The 18.05 departure does not split, calls at most stations between Southampton and Bournemouth and gets in at 20.02. So the fast portion cuts a grand total of 12 minutes off the end-to-end time - not sure the speed-hungry types from Worcester and Hereford would be impressed by that.

[Andy W]

And there you have it - special treatment for Worcester, where people can't cope with a few extra minutes on the timetable, but that's fine for other people.

Pot....Kettle....Black

[paul7575]

On the Bournemouth line, this method of operating probably has as much to do with the demand for train paths in and out of Waterloo in the peak as it does with overall journey times. Eg the 17.35 ex-Waterloo splits and its fast portion, non-stop from Southampton, is in Bournemouth at 19.20, while the stopper, after leaving So'ton three minutes down, gets in at 19.40. The 18.05 departure does not split, calls at most stations between Southampton and Bournemouth and gets in at 20.02. So the fast portion cuts a grand total of 12 minutes off the end-to-end time - not sure the speed-hungry types from Worcester and Hereford would be impressed by that.

What is surprising about the SWML^▸ (South Western Mail Line) evening peak period is that there are actually fewer trains from Waterloo to Southampton than in the off peak. Ideally the half hourly 'fasts' would run to Bournemouth and split there, with the third off peak train, the current Poole service, providing the stopper west of Southampton, but this train becomes a second Portsmouth service in the evening peak, leaving Waterloo in its normal path, but diverted after Eastleigh. This is the main reason why the Weymouth services have to drop a portion at Southampton, rather than Bournemouth.  Of course for stations such as Winchester the overall capacity is still there, it is of no concern to those pax where the train goes on its way further south. Complicating things a bit more are various fill in services that run from Basingstoke - Southampton, and Winchester to Totton, providing a peak only local service for that part of the route.

Paul

[stebbo]

As I started this topic, can I try and get back to my basic request.

When I moved to Hereford in 1990, the London trains took about 2hrs 40mins to London and were pretty reliable. Now, in 2009, they take over 3hrs and are highly unreliable. So, without wanting to be accused of being pompous, because I am a businessman who normally travels by train to London for business purposes, I avoid the Hereford to London services because they take longer, cost a lot more and don't get me to London on time. There are quite a few people I know who live around Hereford and Worcester who think the same. Despite what some contributors to this site think, the Hereford and Worcester areas do have a considerable number of business travellers who would like to use the train but who are currently wary of doing so for the reasons I mentioned. They therefore take to their cars - either driving to London or to Birmingham/Bristol/Swindon, or even Newport.

Personally, I don't expect a non-stop Worcester to Oxford service as some have suggested. If the demographics say Honeybourne is a better source of revenue than (say) Moreton because of car parking capacity, then fine: stop at Honeybourne but cut out one other stop to compensate (although I agree that having more stops on the single line is not helpful). But I'm afraid that, personally speaking, adding stops at Shipton and Hanborough takes the biscuit - sorry if you live there, but that's my personal opinion. So far as I can see, the Shipton stop entered the equation because of some daft issue about door opening - grow up FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and find a way to fix the Turbos, but don't stop a complete 8 carriage express.

I also agree that splitting trains would have been ideal. The Adelantes would have been great. One unit from Hereford to Worcester or Evesham, then two coupled through to Hereford. But that's gone because, as I understand it, FGW couldn't handle the maintenance (or their procurement guys fouled up in the first place with the technical spec - I'm not an engineer but a 125mph DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) with mechanical drive sounds like pushing the envelope in the first place).

To sum up, there are a quite a large number of people who travel from the Hereford and Worcester areas to London. Currently the service is way below what we enjoyed in the early/mid 1990s and all I asked for was one train each way per day that gets near what was achieved back then. Partial redoubling may help punctuality but we still need lower journey times.

[stebbo]

Sorry, two units coupled through to Paddington......

[Timmer]

stebbo can I just say that I am with you on this one and there are others out there who would agree that services are slower than they used to be because trains stop at more stations along the way and its very annoying. I'm all for providing a decent service from each station but thanks to Dft specifications its got to the point where many 'Intercity' routes are now more like SE commuter routes stopping at every station, why? because there isn't enough rolling stock to provide both fast and stopping services as in the case of services in the West for example.

I don't see this changing much now because if you cut services stopping at certain stations there will be an outcry from those easily forgetting the almost non existent service they used to suffer in the days of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)).

Like I say, I'm all for providing a decent service to every station where it can be justified. I just think Dft, and before them the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about), made one rule for every station along the route regardless of usage and said to the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) you must stop there every hour, half hour etc without looking at every station on it's own merit and whether it justifies having every train stop there.

[willc]

I give up - I'll just crawl back into the Turbo which is clearly all that I and all the other people using stations too short to accommodate a full-length HST^▸ (High Speed Train) deserve to be allowed to use for having the temerity to get in the way of the Worcester and Hereford business community - even on a Saturday afternoon.