Great Western Coffee Shop

Stephen Joseph of the Campaign for Better Transport is quoted in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/may/31/major-transport-projects-commuters-hs2-crossrail)


What more local infrastructure proposals would you ask Santa to fund this Christmas?  Even Santa has a limited budget though, so please let him know how and why they would be useful, and how they would provide a sustainable (financial, environmental, and quality of life) investment.

Let me start ...

Dear Santa,

Please may we have a robustness and capacity package at Chippenham?  I'm sure that Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong wouldn't notice ...

1. An extra track relaid from Brunel's viaduct over the town, through the station and alongside the main line towards London - total length of around 500 metres - with a crossover at the eastern end to allow trains leaving that track towards London to take the northern of the pair of lines towards Swindon

2. An extra track from where the Bradford Junction to Thingley Junction single track line crosses the Holy Well brook from Corsham to Lacock up to Thingley Junction, making use of the trackbed from the second track that was removed from that section in the late 1960s, with that track diverging from the single line just north of the bridge over the book and crossing over at Thingley Junction to allow a parallel movement off the new loop towards Chippenham while a train pulls under caution into the existing line at that point from the down main

3. Additional signals between Bradford Junction and Thingley Junction so that trains can follow each other at a headway not exceeding 10 minutes, and signalling changes in relation to (1) and (2) to allow flexible use to be made of the resultant infrastructure.

Reasoning:

a) At present, a freight train leaving Westbury bound for Swindon cannot be sidetracked all the way along, and with more trains (3 an hour rather that 2) proposed from Bath via Swindon when the new "IEP timetable" is introduced, intermediate holding point(s) that does not interefere with time-critical (i.e. passenger) services will give an extra operating flexibility that will offer additonal timetabling paths and increased capacity without the need for a massive intervention.

b) An addiitonal loop platform track at Chippenham will allow trains from London, from Westbury, and from Brisol to be terminated and reversed at Chippenham without blocking the main through lines during the process

c) Passenger services from Swindon to Westbury and beyond are timed to leave Swindon just behind Bristol expresses, from which they connect.  If the Bristol express is delayed by a few minutes, the Westbury train is also delayed.  If the Bristol train is delayed by a few more minutes, the Westbury train runs ahead all the way to Thingley, and London to Melksham and Trowbridge connections are lost. With an extra loop at Chippenham, Westbury services could run ahead of somewhat delayed Bristol trains, but still connect at Chippenham, resulting in maintained connections and an overall total delay lessened. The option of timetabling connections at Chippenham would also be available, reducing London to Trowbridge journey times by 5 minutes. [Also applies in the opposite direction]

d) Trains headed for Westbury could clear the main London to Bristol line while waiting delayed services from Westbury via Melksham

e) Electric only trains could routinely run between London and Chippenham, rather than restricting operation west of Royal Wootton Bassett to Bi-modes, or operations to times at which a blockage of the main line for electric train reversal was acceptable

f) Reduced headway between trains will increase robusteness of services up to at lease six an hour in each direction between Swindon and Chippenham - 3 IEP services to Bristol, 1 turbo service via Westbury, 1 turbo (or, later, 387) service via Corsham, and 1 freight service.

Business case and sustainability issues

The Swindon to Westbury train service has the fastest growing passenger numbers in the country at the moment according to GWR directors, and our business case work and surveys indicate that it will continue to grow for a years, if it's allowed to. And it will grow all the better if linked in to Westbury to Salisbury and Salisbury to Southapton services encouraging new passengers who will travel on through trains but don't like / eon't change along the way.  But it will need that hourly train mentioned above to achieve this growth - it's already showing signs of being capacity limited on current operations, an emotionally limited by the infrequency of the service at present.

Trowbridge is the county town of Wiltshire, and is fast growing; it has an indirect through train service to London via Salisbury 3 or 4 times a day, irregular services with changes at Westbury and with changes at Swindon, and a service every 30 minutes which involves doubling back at Bath Spa.  By increasing the Swindon service to run hourly, Trowbridge will enjoy a fast hourly service to London with the majority of the journey using electric traction.

The extra track at Chippenham will provide options for the proposed extra Bristol Metro service from Bristol temple Meads to Bath Spa (where it cannot robustly be reversed) to be extended to Chippenham (reversing there) or to Swindon (overtaken by an express if necessary at Chippenham) or beyond.  As well as solving Bristol Metro's problem of where to reverse their train, this is an "enabler" for Corsham in that it provides an hourly local / regional train through their town to / from Bath and Bristol, which are their major journey desires.

Many people from the towns of Melksham and Corsham curently drive to Chippenham to catch the train to Swindon, Reading and London. But as the station at Chippenham is only accessible by car through the town, it leads to more congestion there, leadng to motorist frustration, and a decrease in air quality .  It should be noted that air quality on Rowden Hill, Chippenham ( http://www.wiltshireairquality.org.uk/assets/documents/council-reports/Wiltshire%20ASR%20final%20draft%2022nd%20July.pdf page 20 ) and at the Bridge Centre has been reported as being outside required standards, and both of these locations are on the direct car driving route from Chippenham Station to Melksham and Corsham. By providing good hourly connecting trains from Chippenam to both Corsham and Melksham, which would be enabled by our infrastructure request, you'll be helping us cut vehicle traffic through these "dirty" areas, cut frustration in the town centre of Chippenham, and help reduce the need to provide yet more car parking there.

I am posting a copy of this letter to you, Santa, on a forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat where there are a lot of very knowledgable and intelligent people who I know will be able to take a look at what I've written to you, and let us know of any adjustments that would make these "invisible from space" infrastructure works even more effective!

Graham

Double Junction at Bourne End to allow a through 2 TPS (30 minute) service to Marlow without changing at Bourne  End all day. Possible electrification if suitable reliable short stock can be

Electrification of Windsor Branch with a Dynamic Loop on Eton Arches to allow a 6 TPS (10 minute) service.

Electrification of Henley Branch with possible dynamic loop or loops at Shiplake or Wargrave stations.

See other thread reinstatement of Bourne End Wycombe preferably as heavy rail to connect with Chiltern, Wast West, WCML and MML plus alternative route to Oxford and Banbury.

Through lines Gerrards Cross, Tesco tunnel is built for 4 track.


 

I suppose my 'pet project' is one I call 'Project 70'. A new hourly fast service, using regional express DMUs (ie. class 158, 159 or 175), between Carmarthen and Cardiff in 70 minutes. That being the journey time that seems to be necessary to beat road transport. The current infrustructure theorectically allows a journey time of around 1hr 23min, if the train only calls at Llanelli and Port Talbot Parkway (hence why it is a new service, removing Swansea from existing services is not an option). However, I'm struggling to work out whether the extent of linespeed improvements necessary to save the other 13mins would be a reasonable amount of work or an undertaking requiring a budget large enough to see from orbit. But I know where to start:

The fact the new service needs to avoid Swansea means good connections between services are needed at Carmarthen. Thus, you need headways to be as short as possible, to minimise the wait for the following train. The block sections are all 5-6 minutes between Llanelli and Ferryside, but 10 minutes from Ferryside to Carmarthen. That section therefore needs improvement. At the Carmarthen end the linespeed drops from 75mph to 50 or 55, then to 20mph for a short stretch before going back up to 50/55. Rebuild that embankment (or something) to raise that to 55mph, and maybe try to bring the 75mph closer to Carmarthen.

The other key oppertunity is on the Swansea District Line, that's mostly 50mph (or was it 55?) but with some really slow bits. Getting it all up to 75mph (minimum, it might be possible to go faster still on part of it) for MUs might help quite a bit, but would the bridge that is currently 20mph take it?

Finally, we come to the other part of the project which, depending on whether we are lucky or not, might be either relatively minor or visible from space. That is pathing the service along the south Wales main line, with all the stopping services (particularly between Cardiff and Bridgend) waiting to get in the way. Four-track through one or two of the minor intermediate stations between Cardiff and Bridgend might do it, or it might require 4-tracking. Or, the 70 minute target might require a completely new, shorter, route between Cardiff and Bridgend (for the faster services), effectively creating a 4-track railway between Cardiff and Bridgend (6-track if you count the Vale Of Glamorgan Line too) and speeding up London-Swansea and Manchester-Swansea trains too but at the cost of being visible from the moon.

I found mps/s values for DMUs accelerating/braking online, and fed them into a simulator I built which was supposed to tell me whether bringing the SDL and Carmarthen-Ferryside sections up to speed would buy me the necessary time saving but I'm not sure how acurate they are. When I ran it on the current infrustructure I got 1hr 9mins and 46secs (non-stop), which with the two calls added should be about 1hr 14min end-to-end (suggesting my figures are out, because as I said above the current infrustructure would be timetabled at around 1hr 23min).

Do you have through passenger numbers and business case for Llanelli and west thereof to Port Talbot and east thereof?  Would you see the service carrying on beyond Carmathen to Aberystwyth ...

Rhydgaled

Very interesting way of looking at what a rail service needs to provide if it's to compete with road.

Perhaps it could be added the parameters for reopening lines. I'm sure reopening Bourne End high Wycombe would shorten the journey from Maidenhead to High Wycombe particularly in the rush hour.

Dear Santa (or Satan, if necessary)

With regard to Temple Meads to Filton (Filton Bank), could you please make it it four track, now?

Peace and love,

Four Track, Now!

Nope, I wouldn't even know where to begin on how to work out a business case.

That said, the Campaign For Better Transport have an Annual Average Daily Traffic map (http://bettertransportmaps.org.uk/map-traffic-2005-2013.html) of the road network. 26,000 leaving Carmarthen on the A48 towards the M4. There's also the North Pembrokeshire Transport Forum's 2009 Fishguard rail survey (http://www.nptf.co.uk/materials/finish/3-documents/25-d-2004-09-fishguard-trains-survey-annexes.html), where Cardiff was one of the most-requested destinations (unfortunately the link won't work, you'll need to select the URL in the address bar and hit enter to reload the page) and the North Pembrokeshire MP's comments that Port Talbot Parkway was an important gateway station for the area (http://www.pembrokeshire-herald.com/1941/gateway-station-facelift-finally-secured/), which suggests to me that the rail service west thereof isn't sufficiently attractive to get passengers to use their local station.

That would be visible from space, so no. Well, not initially. The way I see it the service would extend to Milford Haven every two hours (as the current Manchester services do), with the others terminating at Carmarthen (ready to be extended to Aberystwyth if the line is ever built). You would probably be looking at two new long tunnels (one nearly two miles, the other about 0.9), possibly several smaller ones, 90mph running over Tregaron bog and at least one level crossing to do the job properly. Probably in the too difficult pile I think.

I certainly think it needs to be considered when pepole talk about bringing routes like Carmarthen-Aberystwyth back from the dead (see also my comments on Bangor - Afon Wen in another topic; it has to be Porthmadog not Afon Wen). If the train is too slow it won't take enough pepole out of their cars to justify it; existing lines should be kept open regardless, but if you are talking about reopenings you might as well provide more frequent bus services instead unless the train is faster than driving.

Are you sure that the time is the key factor - what about other issues when driving ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EKe08BP0E

A station to serve Langport and Somerton please!

I notice that Andy Street, former MD of John Lewis and candidate for W Midlands mayor is hoping to reopen the Stourbridge to Walsall line and the Walsall to Wolverhampton line.

I think there's already a service (at 06:38 on Saturday mornings ;-) ) from Wolverhampton to Walsall - 13 minute journey time, fare £2.70 anytime day single, "Not via Birmingham".   I guess a service back from Walsall to Wolverhampton would be useful ...

Doubling the line from Castle Cary to Exeter via Yeovil Pen Mill, Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton or Exeter to Newton Abbot (New Line avoiding Dawlish and Teignmouth), St. Austell to Newquay via Burngullow and St. Dennis Junction.

 Re-introduce the Waterloo-Plymouth direct.
 Competition for GWR was never a bad thing, I'm sure their would be a business case for it.

I don't see GWR being particularly phased by the SWT competition into Bristol Temple Meads, so I'm less convinced that it would be beneficial.

That advert is great ;D. Am I sure that the journey time is the main reason pepole are driving? No. Frequency might be more important, I don't know. When I asked my father why he was driving to Port Talbot for a recent trip to London, his first reaction was to blame the need to change train to reach London from west of Carmarthen. I don't think RailFuture's suggestion of running hourly Paddington trains through to Carmarthen over the Swansea District Line is sensible though, because the 9-10 coaches you need in London is overkill west of Swansea. That point on train length is another reason why I think we need 'Project 70' actually. We need through trains to/from Cardiff, but on the current Manchester services passengers making a long treck to Pembrokeshire are swamped by passengers for Swansea etc. Really the Manchester-Swansea train needs to be longer, with a seperate 2-car (or possibly 3-car) service from Cardiff for the exclusive use of passengers for Llanelli and points west.

On travel to Cardiff though, Dad said he'd drive all the way, citing cost and a very vauge 'convenience'. What would be more convenient? A faster service, enhanced frequency of through trains or what?

Am I sure the train is slower than driving? Yes; very much so. The SWWITCH rail strategy report by AECOM has similar figures for journey time (although it doesn't propose doing anything about it as far as I can recall). That report also states that faster and/or more frequent services could raise modal share from 1-8% to perhaps 10-20% (using northern England as an example).

I use it occasionally, on cost grounds.

- Full Bristol suburban electrification including Weston, Severn Beach, Portishead and Yate
- Redoubling of Severn Beach line and full Henbury loop reopening
- Heavy rail branch to Bristol Airport via Yatton (with south arm of triangle to serve Weston and beyond)
- Temple Meads redevelopment
- Conversion of Bristol Metro Bus to tramway

That would be one big climb up 180 m.

Agree with all your points, particularly redevelopment of BTM and electricification.

Redesign of platforms between BTM and Weston to take 5 carraiges at each station AND (probably more critically) so that exits aren't just at one end. E.g Yatton & Nailsea, carraiges close to the single entrance are busy while those further away aren't.

New station at Long Ashton, but to achieve this I think we need passing lines at stations to avoid slowing down the long distance trains.

That will be expensive at NLS given it is on an embankment. The arborted ramp scheme is the best we can hope for, which would have improved capacity  on the down side when evening trains arrive and queues build up at the stairs.

My perception is that 4 car local trains are perfectly adequate on the line when supplemented by the long distance services. These latter services do tend to have longer dwell times by virtue of the fewer doors and passengers who don't move down inside straight away, although these will be shortened once the HSTs with their slam doors are replaced.  I don't think you could justify a platform extension for the few HST/IEPs that use the station unfortunately, even as a daily user of the station. I'd rather put the money towards more adequate shelters on the up platform. 

Hmm. With thanks for your suggestion, initiation, I'm not sure that it's worth the cost of building another entrance / exit to the 'up' platform at Nailsea & Backwell. And while it would be great to have a second, preferably ramp access on the 'down' platform, that seems to have been swallowed up in the abyss of 'there is no funding for such developments'. 


There used to be a station at Long Ashton, but I can't see any case for that being reinstated: the 'park and ride' at end of the new South Bristol Link road is ... erm, just across the road.

My personal preference is for a re-opening of the station at Flax Bourton - but that turned out to be an April Fool story (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=4470.0).  ;D



Edit note: Written while JohnR was already posting - my apologies for any overlap of our comments. CfN.

Apologies for quoting myself, but one potential station site has gone. Housing is being built on most of the former railway land where Langport East station once stood.