Great Western Coffee Shop

Not looking good for cornwall intercity links. Dft possible 6 services specified a day in new franchise.

If First retain the franchise I suspect they won't change much - they learnt their lesson in 2006!

I am confused now. On Spotlight this evening they have said about the cuts, but yet on the BBC news site they say The department of transport have confirmed there will be no cuts.  ???

Not quite, I'm afraid, Marky   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-18873898

The DfT spokesman simply promised "regular train services".

We'll know soon - I hope the fears turn out to be unfounded.

The current Greater Western franchise Service Level Commitment specifies 7 weekday services between London Paddington<->Penzance. That's 6 daytime services in each direction and one that must leave Paddington between 2300-0030 and one that must start back from Penzance and leave Plymouth between 2330-0100.

See: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-passenger-franchise-agreement-first-great-western/fgwcommitment1.pdf#page=30 para 3.11.

If the next franchise specifies the same service level commitment as these rumours seem to be suggesting then a reduction from what currently runs will not be the fault of the Department for Transport. FGW currently provide more London-Penzance services than the minimum specified. It'll be up to the winning bidder to decide on the commercial case for providing more than the specified minimum.

It's a little surprising that interested parties in Cornwall are now bringing this matter to greater attention. The time to have made noises and representations was during the franchise consultation period.

So the specification will continue as before then - as the consultation said that the base service would be guaranteed to be at least as good as it is now.  FGW run the additional service for a reason I would have thought: it makes money!  I can't see that commercial decision changing with ever-growing passenger numbers.

To be fair to FGW they have gone over and beyond on most services they offer compared to what the dft specify

It is also fair to point out that some services have seen cuts since the above "Final" 2006 SLC was published and is still shown on the DfT as "Final". As an example, Ascott-u-Wychwood (on the Cotswold Line) has had all of its Saturday services withdrawn but they are still shown on the DfT document. I wonder how many other adverse changes may have been made.

Cornwall Council press release here

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=31898

As the franchise is for 15 years let us hope they have at least made the PNZ - PAD nine trains a day.

Especially as traffic is increasing and the Government says it is encouraging rail transport.

It will not be long before we find out but I do find it strange that the Council has not realised all this during the consultation period.

I cannot believe the Council had not noticed the timetabled current nine a day was not the franchised minimum of six.

The franchise consultation did state that the new minimum specified service level would be the current service level, not the current minimum, so there it was assumed there was no need to campaign against service cuts, just for improvements. That is quite important in Cornwall where currently there are a lot more services run than the minimum, on the branches as well as the mainline.

The Franchise Consultation (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-36/great-western-franchise-replacement.pdf#page=38) document said this (and I stand somewhat corrected from my earlier post):


Are interested parties in Cornwall getting wind of a change of heart by the DfT? Or is it just rumour and hearsay flying around at the moment?

I stand corrected on my comment too.  That's a small, but important, distinction!

Probably, don't forget Murphy's law applies:

If DaFT can get it wrong then they will.

I have been ... holding back ... from posting in this thread as I know little about the metrics of passenger travel in Cornwall.  However, some points

a) The current service level OR the current specified service level were the only two sensible points from which the DfT could have started the discussion in the consultation, and I think they got it doubly right by going for exisiting service level.   It's the point from which we have the most up-to-date data, and it's also the one that everyone can understand

b) On the TransWilts, we chose to respond looking at all scenarios; unusually, the current service level and pattern is distrinctly odd, and everyone agrees "could do better".  And "all scenarios" includes both up and down; I suspect that is / was a prudent move. At worst, we have wasted a bit of our time looking at "what-if"s that don't happen.

c) There are some places / areas where we already know that the status quo cannot realistically hold beyond electricifcation as it was (or indeed now is) announced. For example, it would be a surprise to find an hourly Bedwyn to Paddington through service running under the wires all the way from Newbury to Paddington. The solutions could be any one of (i) local shuttle (ii) reduced service (iii) electrify to Bedwyn or (iv) move to B&H outer stopper service, all stations Taunton or Exeter to Newbury then RDG and PAD.

d) There are some services which are more operationally convenenient than provided for significant passenger flows, and including those in the spec would tie down the next operator unnecessarily. I would argue against a specification that's drawn up in a way that it forces (or strongly creates an environment for) a less than optimum service as far as passenger are concerned.

e) We're looking at 15 years, with a doubling to trebling of passengers in that time. Will a single service level really work?  For sure, on many lines we'll be looking at extra capacity more from the lengthening of trains than by increased frequencyr. But on others the train service should change; more trains will encourgse more passengers due to better frequency and opportunities.

f) With the current fare system potentially undergoing change (consultation last month), and one of the desired effects being to level out the peaks somewat - a bit of a holy grail, I fear - there could be balance changes too on services; better use of stock and seats outside the peak, and a further reduction of the remaining commuter flows of trains where there's a whole series over a short period, then much more intermittent in other periods.

Footnote - Current through Penzance to Paddington services, Monday to Friday
From PNZ: 05:05, 05:41, 06:45, 07:41, 08:44, 10:00 (10:47, high summer) 14:00 16:00 17:39, 21:45
From PAD: 07:30, 10:06, 12:06, (13:06 not high summer), 14:06, 15:06, 16:06, 17:03, 18:03, (19:03 FO), 23:45
Most services run via the Berks and Hants line.  A few are via Bristol.

Good example came up just a few minutes ago.  The 06:48 Portsmouth Harbour to Brighton (arrive 08:15) is cancelled this morning. Quick look on journey check shows that the 06:45 from PMH, change at Havant, will get you to Brighton at 08:18.  Being a Saturday, I would expect there to be plenty of room on the remaining train.

Even if there's a franchise requiement to have an GW unit in Brighton to form a subsequent departure, I contend that it's reasonable to leave it (on Saturday morning at least) to the GW TOC to decide if the unit runs a service from PMH first, or perhaps an extra North Downs service from Reading to Gatwick and on to Brighton, giving extra strength to the airport for everyone flying away on their Saturday package holidays.  Or for the unit to be parked up at Preston Park overnight from Friday ...

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-19016435):

Interesting radio interview from BBC Radio Cornwall with Alec Robertson - leader of Cornwall Council, followed by Chris Pomphret - Chairman of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership, on the subject of the ITT and how it relates to Cornwall.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p00vxcjx

from 00:28.15.  6 days only.