How NOT to do it !

[whole diary]

[moonrakerz]

A previous poster had wondered why the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) service ran just behind the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service. I was just pointing out that there wouldn't have been any flexibility to retime it  because you'd have to retime the Waterloo or Exeter departures (which they split from and join) as well - which will be locked by SWT's overall timetable.

(Ideally you'd want trains equally spaced on the clockface - eg if 2 trains run 30 mins apart the pax should theroetically be shared 50/50)

Whilst agreeing with Paul's point here, I find some of the train timings to be strange, to say the least. I have commented previously about some of the services which appear to run for no other purpose than to enable another "box" to be ticked.

Another example I have noticed: The 1108 FGW service from Warminster (Cardiff) to Portsmouth is followed 8 minutes later by another FGW service from Westbury to Southampton.
This train then returns as a service to Worcester - admittedly well timed at Warminster to be exactly 30 mins after/before the regular Cardiff trains!

I really cannot see the point of this Westbury-Soton-Worcester trip. I personally do use the Worcester trains as they provide a very cheap way to get to Birmingham, but I cannot see FGW getting rich on my fare of ^2.65 each way. If the platforms were packed with people at that time of day - maybe - but they aren't.

This train has to be there solely to allow FGW to say it is meeting some minor requirement of its franchise - it really isn't of much use to the travelling public - who end up paying for this through their Income Tax.

[paul7575]

Hence my firm belief that the afternoon FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service from Malvern to Brighton is a waste of time beyond Southampton. As I've said before, the SN train that runs in that path in every other hour has to be diverted via Eastleigh so that it can be overtaken by FGW's service, which is generally a 2.158, or sometimes a 150.  Now the FGW service often leaves Southampton surprisingly full, after a fair number of new pax join it.  I suspect because the basic journey planners default to the fastest trains, so the SN service for that hour drops off the planners! (In any case most pax given a choice will select a faster train even if only by a few minutes.) 

Now if that service was terminated short, wouldn't it be more use to FGW in Wiltshire somewhere? The service between Salisbury and Southampton should be adequately provided for by FGW and SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s respective hourly semi fast and stoppers - those odd 153s that terminates at Southampton during the day seem a bit of a waste of a unit as well...

Paul

[devon_metro]

A previous poster had wondered why the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) service ran just behind the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service. I was just pointing out that there wouldn't have been any flexibility to retime it  because you'd have to retime the Waterloo or Exeter departures (which they split from and join) as well - which will be locked by SWT's overall timetable.

(Ideally you'd want trains equally spaced on the clockface - eg if 2 trains run 30 mins apart the pax should theroetically be shared 50/50)

Whilst agreeing with Paul's point here, I find some of the train timings to be strange, to say the least. I have commented previously about some of the services which appear to run for no other purpose than to enable another "box" to be ticked.

Another example I have noticed: The 1108 FGW service from Warminster (Cardiff) to Portsmouth is followed 8 minutes later by another FGW service from Westbury to Southampton.
This train then returns as a service to Worcester - admittedly well timed at Warminster to be exactly 30 mins after/before the regular Cardiff trains!

I really cannot see the point of this Westbury-Soton-Worcester trip. I personally do use the Worcester trains as they provide a very cheap way to get to Birmingham, but I cannot see FGW getting rich on my fare of ^2.65 each way. If the platforms were packed with people at that time of day - maybe - but they aren't.

This train has to be there solely to allow FGW to say it is meeting some minor requirement of its franchise - it really isn't of much use to the travelling public - who end up paying for this through their Income Tax.

1108 Westbury - Southampton connects from the 0645 Penzance - London Paddington. Its only a single 153 and is often rather packed.

[Timmer]

Hence my firm belief that the afternoon FGW^▸ (First Great Western) service from Malvern to Brighton is a waste of time beyond Southampton. As I've said before, the SN train that runs in that path in every other hour has to be diverted via Eastleigh so that it can be overtaken by FGW's service, which is generally a 2.158, or sometimes a 150.  Now the FGW service often leaves Southampton surprisingly full, after a fair number of new pax join it.  I suspect because the basic journey planners default to the fastest trains, so the SN service for that hour drops off the planners! (In any case most pax given a choice will select a faster train even if only by a few minutes.) 

Now if that service was terminated short, wouldn't it be more use to FGW in Wiltshire somewhere? The service between Salisbury and Southampton should be adequately provided for by FGW and SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s respective hourly semi fast and stoppers - those odd 153s that terminates at Southampton during the day seem a bit of a waste of a unit as well...

Paul

I totally support operating through services like this but feel the FGW Brighton's have become a bit of a luxury with every unit available to FGW a precious commodity that could be used elsewhere on the network. As Paul says, Southern now operate an hourly service from Southampton along the South Coast which requires a simple same platform change at Fareham off a Cardiff-Portsmouth train for Southern services to Brighton.

[grahame]

I have heard it said that the return of the Malvern to Brighton afternoon service from Brighton at 17:00 is a vital commuter train from Brighton out via Hove.  You may question whether or not "First Great WESTERN" should be providing a commuter train right outside their territory - all the way across, beyond SWT^▸ (South West Trains) land ... but they do.  And I suspect that the ORCATS^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) arrangements pay them well for it, as well as it being part of the frachise arrangements.

Hypothetically, running it as Malvern to Southampton (arr 14:32) then 14:40 to Swindon (arr 16:30, leave 16:40) would put it back into Southampton at 18:30, to pick up the diagram to Malvern at 18:42.  That is all 'paths allowing', of course.

But there are alternatives which wouldn't mean 'canning' the Brighton run.   The 16:28 arrival at Westbury (a terminator) could go up to Swindon, and form the 17:45 to Cheltenham.  The arrival at Swindon at around 16:35 from Cheltenham could be extended to Westbury, and pick up the northbound path of that 16:28 arrival - at 17:38.   This would only mean the removal of a Westbury - Warminster - Westbury run starting at 17:01, and I note that as from December there's an extra such round trip off the 16:45 from Parkway.

I don't know the arguments w.r.t. the 11:07 Westbury to Southampton, which stops at Dilton Marsh but has an otherwise identical stopping pattern to the 11:01 from Westbury, nor of the 12:26 return which follows the 12:10 but has a much more leislurly schedule.   Yes, as a timetable option that could run a Westbury -> Swindon -> Westbury cycle - filling the current northbound gap between the 07:02 and the 19:35, and the southbound gap between the 06:15 and the 18:44    . But there's another option - there's a train that arrives in Westbury at 11:36 and is the parked up until 13:38, which could make the Swindon cycle.

Not covered in this topic so far, but the 08:13 from Bristol to Swindon (a 150 diagram that goes on to Cheltenham after a layover of 45 minutes in Swindon) courl run as it does at the moment from Bristol  to Bath (i.e. with Keynsham and Oldfield Park stops) then fast to Westbury to keep it ahead of the 08:22 from Bristol - it would arrive at Westbury at around 08:55, and form an 09:06 Cheltenham via Swindon train pickup up its original route at Chippenham and path at Swindon. Passengers from Keynsham and Oldfield Park to Swindon would drop back to the 08:30 from Bristol at Bath, and arrive in Swindon some six minutes later than they do at present.


Let's look at the crewing costs of those options.   The train that's parked at Westbury over lunch time probably WOULD need a new crew / changed rotas / extended shifts.  Cutting the Brighton back to Southampton, and not running to Southampton but rather to Westbury at lunch time, look like they're 'crew neutral'.   My other options eat into what could be short crew breaks and I am open to advise.

The train costs are minor - running units a little further or diverting them, and I have already established that there is no risk of fuel running out in the tanks.

The passenger story is that this gets us a significant step towards an appropriate service on the TransWilts - trains arriving in Swindon at aroung 07:48, 09:50, 12:36, 16:35 and 20:20, and returning at 06:15, 12:45, 16:50, and 18:45.   That means excellent 9 hour days in Swindon for people with an 8 hour day - 07:48 to 16:50, or 09:50 to 18:45.   It means the ability to go up to Chippenham for the Wilthsire Heritage Centre, or Swindon for shopping - arriving at 09:50 and leaving back at 12:45 or 16:50.  It give half day work opportunities ... I could go on.   It's a step towards the service that the GWRUS^▸ (Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy) has such a high BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio).

[paul7575]

I have heard it said that the return of the Malvern to Brighton afternoon service from Brighton at 17:00 is a vital commuter train from Brighton out via Hove.  You may question whether or not "First Great WESTERN" should be providing a commuter train right outside their territory - all the way across, beyond SWT^▸ (South West Trains) land ... but they do. 

You're quite right. Indeed the Sussex RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) (edit: consultation draft) explicitly mentions needing to strengthen the service out of Brighton because as a 2 car, it isn't big enough for commuting flows. This seemed ridiculous to me, because the only way to strengthen it at this time of day would be take an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 3 car unit from something more useful.  Hence I've responded to the Sussex RUS asking why it is being suggested that FGW are being asked to deal with commutrer flows in the Brighton area, when they are supposed to have so many issues of their own in the Bristol area.  Perhaps someone in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) has just mixed up Brighton and Bristol...

As I may have pointed out before, binning this service wouldn't be a new idea for DfT, because it was definitely proposed in the SWT 2007 franchise consultation.  [I think the reasoning was that the FGW Brightons ran in lieu of SWT services in the odd couple of return paths they used on weekdays, the corresponding SWT services being curtailed at, and started from Fareham's bay platform, although they didn't provide connections out of the FGWs.]  As it turned out the proposal wasn't carried through, for some unknown reason.

Paul

[matt473]

If the dftare making fgw run extra servicesto Paignton as a result of swt withdrawing from the area, then could they not do the same for Brighton as tehy have in teh West and fund a loco hauled diagram to enable first to use the units on this service in their area whilst enabling a potential increase in capacity for Brighto whilst freeing up a unit or 2 to either replace the loco hauled diagram in the west or even provide a service for Melksham.

[paul7575]

There is a difference though, as in the Paignton area, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are filling in real gaps compared to the current timetable. On the West Coastway out of Brighton, FGW's 2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) is additional to a pretty high frequency EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) service, 6 or more tph, formed of 3 or 4 car (or 8 car from Hove) EMUs. It runs only three mins ahead of a Brighton to Portsmouth service as far as Havant, so why don't they just get SN to strengthen that Portsmouth service? They are making big alterations to their rolling stock fleet on the south coast services anyway, so that could be the best time to change the diagrams...

Paul