Services through Melksham compared with Beaconsfield

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the Buckinghamshire Advertiser:

Currently Gerrards Cross is served by eight trains from Marylebone between 5.30pm and 7pm but Beaconsfield is served by just six since since timetable changes in December.

Just(!) six trains in a 90 minute period? To a town with a population of 12000? I know of a town in Wiltshire with 21000 inhabitants that has to muddle along with just 4 trains a day......

[Deltic]

Of course Melksham had no trains at all for almost twenty years.  And there are similar sized towns in the area (Cirencester, Devizes) with no trains at all...

But more positively, I have an idea for a new service.  The reason why Beaconsfield has a relatively high frequency service is that it serves London commuters but many commuters now travel from Wiltshire to the capital so what about a semi-fast service that goes out via Slough(?), Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge, Westbury, Bedwyn, Newbury and then semi-fast back to Paddington in the path of the current service. 

Of course, this would require new stock that we don't have and (ideally) extension of the planned electrification from Thingley Junction to Westbury and Newbury.  But it would have efficient stock utilisation with no layover time at the country end, it could provide a service from Swindon to Westbury without using slow 2-car dmus and it would provide lots of new links without having to build any new lines.  Any thoughts?

[IndustryInsider]

I've certainly heard worse ideas in my time, Deltic!  Imagine that, Graham; a half-hourly service from Melksham to London with a 4-car Class 319 electric, on a circular route, one going via Wesbury the other going via Swindon (similar journey time I would imagine?).  Far too radical to ever see the light of day probably, but it does kill several birds with one stone...

[MODS] Probably worth splitting off into a seperate thread?



Edit note:  Done!  Chris 

[Deltic]

Er, if you're going for half-hourly, you would probably have to (re)double the line from Thingley Junction to Bradford Junction.

[John R]

Only 1 train each way per hour. But half hourly from Melksham to London.

[Btline]

Good idea, but FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would probably put 20 mins of slack in at Melk!

[grahame]

2001 Census figures for some places in this thread and in other comparisons that have been made at times

Devizes 11296
Cirencester 18324
Melksham 20230
Chippenham 28065
Trowbridge 28163
Westbury 11135
Bradford-on-Avon 9236
Portishead 17130
Minehead 11699
Exmouth 32972
Falmouth 21635
Workington 19884
Ilkley 13828
Wantage 9767
Wootton Bassett 11043
Corsham 10780
Ivybridge 12056
Looe 5280
Saltash 14964
Beaconsfield 10700
Marlow 14004
Newquay 19423
Pewsey 3237
Yeovil 27949
Warminster 17377
Frome 24510

Some have grown rapidly since, others have not. Some are commuter dormitaries with few local services, others have a proportion of local employment and some local services (but still a lot of commuting). Some have a wide catchment area, others are are close to neighbouring towns leaving only a small patch of countryside covered. Some have a rail line and trains passing through which may as well stop anyway, others have few trains passing or no railway. Some are rich, some have influential people living there, some have very low per-capita incomes.  Some have few tourists / ouside visitors, others are visitor destinations.  Some have boundaries drawn tight around the town, others have census figures that include a more complete / true catchment area.

No conclusions at all. Yes, I would love to see a train that provided Trowbridge to Swindon every hour,  Chippenham to Westbury and beyond every hour,  Melksham with an appropriate service level (you may use ANY larger town from my list, and many of the smaller ones as a template), and the GWRUS^▸ (Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy) confirmed that hourly each way is possible without redoubling, and that the BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) justifies it (multiple calculations done on this too).  Through to London?  It's not the main market at the moment but it could / would become significant with good provision.  And there is huge sense, once you have reliability, to stringing service together end to end as you increase journey opportunities even if the main traffic is shorter distance.  Didn't I read that 90% of Cross Country franchise passengers are on the train for less than an hour?

[johoare]

I guess one of the main differences between Melksham and Beaconsfield is that Beaconsfield is used by people commuting into London daily, hence the need for all those trains..

That still doesn't make it right that Melksham has such a bad service though 

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

just to add, my wanted reinstaitement.... Ottery St Mary 7692,tipton st john for newton pop 1682,sidmouth 14400, total 23774.
add in cranbrook when built if this was hourly and the swt service also stopped at cranbrook exeter-feniton could be half hourly

[devon_metro]

I passed through Melksham twice today, does that count

[matt473]

Out of interest, where is the nearest place with similair poor levels of service? Maybe then a couple of units could be acquired in the future to provid a suitable service to achieve the social benefits of having a railway. This is of course only an idea

[IndustryInsider]

But more positively, I have an idea for a new service.  The reason why Beaconsfield has a relatively high frequency service is that it serves London commuters but many commuters now travel from Wiltshire to the capital so what about a semi-fast service that goes out via Slough(?), Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Melksham, Trowbridge, Westbury, Bedwyn, Newbury and then semi-fast back to Paddington in the path of the current service. 

Returning to Deltic's idea idea of a circular route from Paddington, out via Westbury and return via Swindon (and vice versa), here's how it might look on paper based on using a 4-car Class 319, 100mph train.  Just for a bit of fun really...

10:18  Paddington
10:35  Slough
10:49  Reading
10:56  Theale
11:05  Thatcham
11:11  Newbury
11:18  Kintbury
11:23  Hungerford
11:29  Bedwyn
11:39  Pewsey
12:04  Westbury (reverse)
12:13  Trowbridge
12:21  Melksham
12:30  Chippenham
12:45  Swindon
12:57  Grove and Wantage Parkway
13:03  Didcot Parkway
13:18  Reading
13:29  Maidenhead
13:52  Paddington (then form xx:15 next trip)

10:15  Paddington
10:36  Maidenhead
10:47  Reading
11:02  Didcot Parkway
11:08  Grove and Wantage Parkway
11:21  Swindon
11:36  Chippenham
11:45  Melksham
11:53  Trowbridge
12:06  Westbury (reverse)
12:26  Pewsey
12:35  Bedwyn
12:41  Hungerford
12:46  Kintbury
12:53  Newbury
12:59  Thatcham
13:08  Theale
13:15  Reading
13:29  Slough
13:48  Paddington (then form xx:18 next trip)

...but in all seriousness it does have the following benefits...

1) Melksham & Trowbridge stations would gain a twice hourly service to London.
2) Pewsey & Westbury would gain an additional hourly semi-fast service to London.
3) Westbury, Trowbridge and Melksham would finally be linked with a frequent direct service to Chippenham and Swindon vastly improving links within Wiltshire - having driven from Swindon to Wesbury on the M4 and A350 myself yesterday I can pay testament to what a horrible road that is!
4) Other through journey opportunities that are not currently practicable by rail, including; Newbury to Chippenham; Westbury to Didcot; Pewsey to Trowbridge.
5) A small expansion of the already agreed GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification plan (50 miles fromThingly Junction to Newbury via Westbury) would allow the service to be operated by electric trains and also allow for an enhanced electrified diversionary route via Melksham, and for Bi-Mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services from Paddington to the West Country (via Westbury) to run on electric mode for further.
6) It would allow an hourly service to be provided at the proposed new station service Grove and Wantage (pop: 20000). Until now, the only trains on the route are long distance HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s which it's not desirable to slow down any further with extra stops.
7) Stops at Maidenhead on the outward xx:15 departure and inward xx:18 departure would provide an hourly fast service between London and Maidenhead, and direct links west from Maidenhead not possible without a change of train.
8 ) Stops at Slough on the outward xx:18 departure and inward xx:15 departure could replace one of the 2tph fast train stops, and allow Cotswold Line services to be speeded up slightly by removing the Slough stop. Also, it would provide direct links west from Slough not possible without a change of train.
9) The extra hourly service between Swindon/Didcot and Reading/London would possibly allow for a reduction in calls of South Wales to London express trains, thus speeding them up - perhaps running non-stop Swindon to London, or Bristol Parkway to Reading?
10) Because it's a circular service there is no significant dwell time at a terminus station taking up capacity (save for a quick reversal at Westbury).
11) Just six Class 319 units required to resource the service with a natural driver changeover at Westbury and sensible layovers of 23 and 30 minutes at Paddington before their next working.

Thoughts and opinions?

[eightf48544]

It seems far to sensible to have any chance pf being implemented.

One thing that worries me is that you've put a Maidenhead stop in one of the trains. Do you envisage using Maidenhead East to crossover? It would seem sensible to run that train Relief either Didcot or Reading to Maidenhead East  (and vice versa) and stop on the reliefs at Maidenhead. Thus freeing the mains. The Slough train could also run relief and cross at Slough West or Dolphin. Thus allowing longer faster sprints on teh mains.

I note you envisage electrification. That would be ideal, Although feasable with an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) where would find 6 sets to run the diagrams.

[IndustryInsider]

One thing that worries me is that you've put a Maidenhead stop in one of the trains. Do you envisage using Maidenhead East to crossover? It would seem sensible to run that train Relief either Didcot or Reading to Maidenhead East  (and vice versa) and stop on the reliefs at Maidenhead. Thus freeing the mains. The Slough train could also run relief and cross at Slough West or Dolphin. Thus allowing longer faster sprints on teh mains.

I was envisaging them both using the main lines all the way.  The quicker acceleration and top speed of a 100mph EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) would take up paths currently often operated by Turbos (xx:18's to Bedwyn and xx;21 Oxford's).  In the down direction whilst the first train (xx:15) is stopping at Maidenhead the second (xx:18) would be stopping at Slough, thus not creating much conflict. The same applies in reverse in the up direction.  There would be no reason in principal why the trains stopping at Maidenhead couldn't cross over to the relief lines at Maidenhead East and the ones at Slough could cross over at Dolphin Junction, but that would be subject to the Relief line paths being available, and allowances made for the crossover conflicts that would result.

I note you envisage electrification. That would be ideal, Although feasable with an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) where would find 6 sets to run the diagrams.

It would use the displaced Class 319's being transferred from Thameslink - some of which will be used to cover similar services anyway.  I suppose Turbo's could operate the service with a little more slack put in, but ideally it would be Class 319's.

Like I said, it was only an example of Deltic's idea being put into practice.

[John R]

Could usefully add a stop at Wootton Bassett. Also note that there is no need to reverse at Westbury - just keep on going!