Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 => Topic started by: devonexpress on August 30, 2018, 23:58:28



Title: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: devonexpress on August 30, 2018, 23:58:28
If you could or would like to see new services by GWR what would they be?

Mine are the following

*New services from Paddington to Birmingham Snow Hill (fast) and Stratford Upon Avon giving better links from the Midlands to London,South West and Heathrow.

*10:30 Paddington to Paignton extended to Kingswear during the summer to provide connections to the South Hams, possibly calling at Churston if the PDSR would permit it. Rerouted back via the original route of Bristol Temple Meads.

*Summer service to Minehead to cater for Butlins, replacing the current coach service from Taunton by Buses of Somerset.

*Services from Cardiff extended to Shrewsbury or looking at setting up a new direct service from Paddington to Shrewsbury with regular timings, possibly by merging some ATW services into the new service.



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: JayMac on August 31, 2018, 00:56:01
GWR should concentrate on performing their existing franchise commitments before looking at any extra-curricular activities.

Were any of your suggestions put in a response to the recent consultation? Do any have the backing of GWR themselves or stakeholders?

One I would vehemently oppose is the suggestion that one of Buses of Somerset's most profitable routes is taken away from them to provide a slower and less frequent rail service to Minehead. A train service can't really cater for Butlins unless a halt is provided. The bus deposits holidaymakers at the camp gates. A train leaves them with a near mile long walk, luggage and kids in tow. A Summer weekend special to the West Somerset Railway, in the same vein as that to the Swanage Railway with SWR, by all means. Not scheduled daily services at the expense of the buses that serve communities between Taunton and Minehead. Removing the buses in favour of trains cuts off access to public transport for parts of Taunton and Minehead, and communities along the A358/A39 not served by WSR stations without a bus service.

Is there a need for London - Birmingham to have a fifth operator/route? There's already Virgin, Chiltern, West Midland Trains, with HS2 on the way. Where's the capacity at Paddington for trains to Birmingham. Where's the revenue abstraction justification?

Same arguments for a Paddington - Shrewsbury service. Capacity and abstraction.

For Kingswear, an additional train would have to be diagrammed or the timetable changed. Run the 1030 from Paddington through to Kingswear and you can't then use that set for the return working from Paignton at 1454. Is a 1445ish arrival in Kingswear going to be attractive to summer day trippers? Then there's getting the clearance for Class 80x to travel through to Kingswear. Far better to again consider the Swanage Railway/SWR option. A weekend special DMU service from a regional centre. Bristol to Kingswear perhaps. But then that already has a very good Summer heritage service.

Sorry to be so negative, but to my mind your ideas smack of wanting modern GWR to do what GWR of old did. Our franchised railways aren't really set up to do such things, beyond the odd special. What people want and where they want to go are very different today compared to the days of God's Wonderful Railway. Your sughestions appear to be fanciful ideas dreamed up whilst wearing rose tinted spectacles.



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on August 31, 2018, 05:50:10
Sorry to be so negative, but ...

I'm afraid I agree with the questions that Bignosemac asks and issues he raises on the three proposals, and caution against GWR or any other TOC biting off more than they can chew. However, I stress absolutely the right of members here to fly kites here - to asks and learn, to stress test, and to encourage others to pick up ideas of the useful bits of other ideas.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Electric train on August 31, 2018, 07:31:11
Sorry to be so negative, but ...

I'm afraid I agree with the questions that Bignosemac asks and issues he raises on the three proposals, and caution against GWR or any other TOC biting off more than they can chew. However, I stress absolutely the right of members here to fly kites here - to asks and learn, to stress test, and to encourage others to pick up ideas of the useful bits of other ideas.


Not only has the modern franchising made the most recent changes in how the railway operates, there is a question about capacity at some stations to handle these extra services; also is there the demand ie enough regular day on day bums on seats that make a through service viable


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: ChrisB on August 31, 2018, 08:45:43
The only one I would support wholeheartedly would be a transfer back of the Stratford-upon-Avon service to GWR. Along with the reinstated link from Honeybourne - Stratford. FGW/Thames Trains made a better effort than Chiltern ever has of serving Stratford - indeed, Chiltern has a lack of rolling stock preventing them from any service improvement over the current offering, most of which now involves a very inconvenient change of train.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on August 31, 2018, 09:19:23
I have taken a look at my own "list" of things I would see on the horizon.  In all cases, operational case, business case, local sentiment seem achievable - to bring not only new business that it can cope with to the railway, but also a wider economic benefit to the areas served and very little abstraction from other services - rather complementing other services (rail and road) into a network.

(Oxford and) Swindon to Solent (and Fawley).  http://atrebatia.info/swi_sol_201712_v11.pdf

Sewweb - Fast and regular train services connecting South Wales, North Somerset and the inner residential areas of Bristol with the Patchway, Aztec West and Westgate business areas of North Bristol.  http://www.sewweb.info/leaflet.pdf

Portishead (from Bristol)  http://www.passenger.chat/231

Okehampton (from Exeter) http://www.passenger.chat/2338

Tavistock (from Plymouth) http://www.passenger.chat/804

East - West Rail (Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford, etc) http://www.passenger.chat/1219


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on August 31, 2018, 09:50:37
Worcestershire County Council is keen on extending London-Worcester services to Droitwich and Kidderminster, and I believe GWR has been looking into it.

I've long thought that there could be a market to extend one or two London-Herefords to Ludlow, but the fact there's no turnback until you get to Craven Arms is a bit of a downer.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: devonexpress on August 31, 2018, 09:55:49
Sorry to be so negative, but to my mind your ideas smack of wanting modern GWR to do what GWR of old did. Our franchised railways aren't really set up to do such things, beyond the odd special. What people want and where they want to go are very different today compared to the days of God's Wonderful Railway. Your sughestions appear to be fanciful ideas dreamed up whilst wearing rose tinted spectacles.

I just hope your not being so negative because of my comments on other places in this forum.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: JayMac on August 31, 2018, 10:07:36
I try to respond to the content of the posts. Playing the ball not the person.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on August 31, 2018, 10:09:35
Snip
I just hope your not being so negative because of my comments on other places in this forum.

Sadly, each of the three does have significant issues (elephants in the room).  Having said which ... Old Oak Common to Curzon Street Birmingham, fast (very fast!) with HS2 is on the cards, and people have been wrestling with / looking at Minehead and Kingswear for years - both are a lot more researched than blue sky ideas.

When I first got involved in rail campaigning - over a decade ago - some chap came round and asked me if I knew what I was getting into ... altered me to the depth of issues to be looked at, the time, the cost, and the danger of getting sucked in such that I would get stuck / couldn't get out.  At the time, my wife and I felt he was being a bit negative but it was a brave and correct flag for him to raise, and I have thanked him since - he did us a real service by helping define aspirations and o qualify the issues.  I see a similar approach in Bignosemac's answer to you.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: WelshBluebird on August 31, 2018, 10:16:02
I have to agree with bignosemac's comments. GWR can't even deal with their current services at the moment. Surely they should sort that out first?
Then maybe start looking at improvements to current services (higher frequencies, new stations on existing services) etc.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on August 31, 2018, 10:27:37
I have to agree with bignosemac's comments. GWR can't even deal with their current services at the moment. Surely they should sort that out first?
Then maybe start looking at improvements to current services (higher frequencies, new stations on existing services) etc.

Agreed - though there are elements that can be in parallel - they don't have to be serial.

We were offered an element of choice on the TransWilts train - do you want it to start for 2014, or wait another year (!) until electrification's come through and you'll have a more stable base with far less engineering during the trial.    Being impatient (and having a limited time in which to claim LSTF  grants) we went for 2014 ... so glad we did as the major engineering works turned out to be March to August 2018, by which time we had had - and overcome some - other problems (too short train, too short platform, too few trains).


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: ChrisB on August 31, 2018, 10:52:08

(Oxford and) Swindon to Solent (and Fawley).  http://atrebatia.info/swi_sol_201712_v11.pdf

East - West Rail (Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford, etc) http://www.passenger.chat/1219

The latter could cover (some of) the former of course.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: CMRail on August 31, 2018, 11:26:10
I think GWR should make minor improvements to there services rather than extend some. More services into Wales, later services, improving how direct services are (missing off stops for a separate service) and improving timetables so they match with connecting services. Increase local patterns that aren’t yet 1tph (Worcester, TransWilts etc.) and improve reliability.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: simonw on August 31, 2018, 11:57:29
What is sad about GWRs decline, and potential future is that very little of it is in their control.

Whilst NR and DfT are not wholly responsible, the failure to deliver upgrades, new rolling stock (new and cascaded) on a schedule that could allow for training has made their job, and their customers experience, difficult.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: froome on August 31, 2018, 14:25:19
One new service I would like to see, using existing lines, is to run direct services from Bath to Swindon and along the line to Cheltenham Spa. At present this isn't a permitted route, so needs two tickets to be bought and usually quite a long wait at Swindon, and it would avoid Temple Meads and all the chaos and overcrowding that happens there. It could also tie into a new station at Corsham. Alternatively it could just be made into a permitted route, and perhaps run some Trans Wilts services from Westbury via Swindon to Cheltenham Spa to provide extra capacity and better connecting times.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: WelshBluebird on August 31, 2018, 15:19:26
One new service I would like to see, using existing lines, is to run direct services from Bath to Swindon and along the line to Cheltenham Spa. At present this isn't a permitted route, so needs two tickets to be bought and usually quite a long wait at Swindon, and it would avoid Temple Meads and all the chaos and overcrowding that happens there. It could also tie into a new station at Corsham. Alternatively it could just be made into a permitted route, and perhaps run some Trans Wilts services from Westbury via Swindon to Cheltenham Spa to provide extra capacity and better connecting times.

Not sure why that would happen when there are already direct Bath to Cheltenham Spa services tbh.
Yes these are overcrowded, but surely the answer there is to solve the overcrowding on those services?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 31, 2018, 16:14:39
Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: brooklea on August 31, 2018, 17:04:38
An earlier train from Castle Cary to the west than the current 1027 departure would be nice, sometime between 0800 and 0900. I hope once the IET timetable starts this might become feasible.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: WelshBluebird on August 31, 2018, 17:21:33
Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

I took it as froome suggesting a Bath to Cheltenham service via Swindon (presumably calling at those intermediate stations).
However as there is already a direct Bath to Cheltenham, I seriously doubt GWR will want to run a second along the different route.
Yes the existing service is slow, overcrowded and infrequent, but the answer there is to improve the existing services.
As for the intermediate stations, again surely the answer is to improve the existing connections?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on August 31, 2018, 17:47:45
Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

I took it as froome suggesting a Bath to Cheltenham service via Swindon (presumably calling at those intermediate stations).
However as there is already a direct Bath to Cheltenham, I seriously doubt GWR will want to run a second along the different route.
Yes the existing service is slow, overcrowded and infrequent, but the answer there is to improve the existing services.
As for the intermediate stations, again surely the answer is to improve the existing connections?

There have been various ideas bandied about on the topic of a second train in each hour between Swindon and Cheltenham Spa once the London train goes up from every 2 hours to every hour.    One of the curiosities of the current service is that it takes a few minutes over an hour from Swindon to Cheltenham Spa, which means that a train every 2 hours requires 2 units.  An (extra to the London) train every hour would require just 3 units and if alternate trains went Stonehouse - Cheltenham Spa (direct) - Gloucester - Stonehouse and Stonehouse - Gloucester - Cheltenham Spa and Stonehouse (direct)  and with 90 m.p.h (165/166 rather than 150 timings) you might even do the hourly service with just 2 units.  The redoubling from Swindon to Kemble has removed one headache, and the provision of an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham direct service (assuming the London IET also goes around in a triangle) would be a huge boost to rail travel from Swindon to the Midlands and the north which is mindbendingly slow at present for the milage involve by the time you have a tour of Gloucester, or do the Didcot dance and change a second time at Oxford.

Fly in the ointment?   Turnback arrangements at Cheltenham Spa because the extra bay(s) got dropped.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: froome on August 31, 2018, 19:03:58
Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

I took it as froome suggesting a Bath to Cheltenham service via Swindon (presumably calling at those intermediate stations).
However as there is already a direct Bath to Cheltenham, I seriously doubt GWR will want to run a second along the different route.
Yes the existing service is slow, overcrowded and infrequent, but the answer there is to improve the existing services.
As for the intermediate stations, again surely the answer is to improve the existing connections?

One reason for making the suggestion is that I think it is foolish to make all journeys from Bath to the north go via Temple Meads, which can be very busy and confusing for tourists to navigate. Swindon has always felt like a better route to me, and would mean avoiding the long journey through the built up area of greater Bristol, and as Graham says, could make the Wiltshire to the north route work better. Cheltenham Spa still has space to build whatever lay-offs would be needed.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: CMRail on August 31, 2018, 19:52:45
When Filton Bank was blocked a couple of weekends ago I took the oppertunity to go to Bath, as I wouls be able to change at Swindon. I had a nice HST trip from Gloucester to Swindon, then waited for the IET to take me onward to Bath. The journey is less congested, more comfortable and is a decent journey in my opinion.

A direct Cheltenham to Bath service would be good, however I don't think that Cheltenham has the capacity to hold another train there, considering the fact that there will be an additional Wales service as well. Could Worcester-Bath be considered? It would allow more Swindon to Worcester trips, and easier connections for Ashchurch onto London and other places. It would also mean that less service would need to extend from Cheltenham to Worcester on HSS services, or on Bristol stoppers. A 166 would do the job well, and an additional service along the Golden Valley as well as Worcester is a job well done in my opinion.

Another route I thought would be good is a Gloucester/Cheltenham/Worcester to Oxford service, but I then realised that a service from Bristol/Bath/Westbury would probably more operationally suitable.


Another thing that Network Rail were/are looking at is how the HSS to Gloucester/Cheltenham could have time enhancements, i.e Cheltenhams missing Gloucester. The things that were considered however was that Gloucester shouldn't loose a service/services to and from London and therefore it has been a difficult task. Aprox time saving would be 11 minutes by not serving Gloucester.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 31, 2018, 20:50:56
I used to make regular trips between Stroud and Bath and/or Bristol, a long time ago (1980s and 90s). The service was pretty dreadful back then, with long long waits for connections at Gloucester especially. Swindon was a bit quicker for Bath services but also long waits. Things seem to have improved quite a lot since then. But what I really used to want was a line due south from Kemble to Bath! However, we're talking about potential new services not new lines, so...

Another thing that Network Rail were/are looking at is how the HSS to Gloucester/Cheltenham could have time enhancements, i.e Cheltenhams missing Gloucester. The things that were considered however was that Gloucester shouldn't loose a service/services to and from London and therefore it has been a difficult task. Aprox time saving would be 11 minutes by not serving Gloucester.
I can see the problem but Gloucester gets missed already by the Bristol–Birmingham XCs. It is a larger place than Cheltenham and I don't think it would be a good idea for it to lose more services.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: eightonedee on August 31, 2018, 23:35:48
While I generally agree with posters who would rather that GW concentrated on doing better what they do now, than trying to thread new routes into the system.

However, it must surely be possible for those responsible for setting timetables to try to coordinate trains on different routes to connect conveniently to facilitate easier cross country travel. It seems to be a common complaint that trying to get from one part of the franchise area to another between two points not served by direct trains involves long inconvenient stopovers at interchange stations.

I have had a quick look at the service specification in the 2015 franchise agreement. It's full of prescriptions for frequency, maximum journey times and earliest and latest times, and the only reference to connections seemed to be where a specified route might be covered by two connecting trains.

I appreciate from responses to an earlier post complaining at the poor coordination of the two legs of my commute during the peak/late peak evening rush hour (it's even worse now - two consecutive trains from Guildford to Reading are timed to arrive a minute before the departure of onward trains for Goring) that it might not be easy, but why not provide (for example) that incoming stopping local trains from the Stroud Valley/Gloucester/Cheltenham line should arrive at Swindon between (say) 8 and 12 minutes before a London bound express and between 8 and 20 minutes before a Bristol bound train?

Let's press for convenient connectivity - we might get a better service without extra trains being shoe-horned in and which GW and NR would struggle to cope with. 



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: martyjon on September 01, 2018, 07:27:07
If I remember correctly Cheltenham had a turnback/stabling facility north of the station which allowed for loco hauled stock to be "run-round". There may also have been a "dead end" siding there for stabling a DMU but in recent years all there is now is a long "dead end" siding with a "cripple" refuge to the south on which I have seen a disabled DMU parked up there. Stock needing to turnback has in some instances got to run to Worcester to turn back.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: CMRail on September 01, 2018, 08:39:39
If I remember correctly Cheltenham had a turnback/stabling facility north of the station which allowed for loco hauled stock to be "run-round". There may also have been a "dead end" siding there for stabling a DMU but in recent years all there is now is a long "dead end" siding with a "cripple" refuge to the south on which I have seen a disabled DMU parked up there. Stock needing to turnback has in some instances got to run to Worcester to turn back.

There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET, however capacity is needed hence the bay proposals that have been called off. There is no bi-directional signalling now nor is there needed though all trains terminating have to reverse.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: martyjon on September 01, 2018, 08:54:59
If I remember correctly Cheltenham had a turnback/stabling facility north of the station which allowed for loco hauled stock to be "run-round". There may also have been a "dead end" siding there for stabling a DMU but in recent years all there is now is a long "dead end" siding with a "cripple" refuge to the south on which I have seen a disabled DMU parked up there. Stock needing to turnback has in some instances got to run to Worcester to turn back.

There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET, however capacity is needed hence the bay proposals that have been called off. There is no bi-directional signalling now nor is there needed though all trains terminating have to reverse.

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on September 01, 2018, 09:12:22
There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET, however ...

Nine?   Is there (going to be) a problem with 5 + 5?

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.

The bay platform would allow passengers to leave the incoming train, crew to switch ends, and new passengers to joint all at the same time.   Under current arrangement you have a five step serial process
1. Passengers off train
2. Trains moves to siding
3. Crew change ends
4. Train moves from siding
5. Passengers join train
all of which would make it impractical to run an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham Spa service with just two sets, each calling at Gloucester in one direction only.   Also make it impossible for passengers from Stroud to Gloucester to stay on train as it reversed.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: martyjon on September 01, 2018, 10:25:16
There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET, however ...

Nine?   Is there (going to be) a problem with 5 + 5?

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.


The bay platform would allow passengers to leave the incoming train, crew to switch ends, and new passengers to joint all at the same time.   Under current arrangement you have a five step serial process
1. Passengers off train
2. Trains moves to siding
3. Crew change ends
4. Train moves from siding
5. Passengers join train
all of which would make it impractical to run an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham Spa service with just two sets, each calling at Gloucester in one direction only.   Also make it impossible for passengers from Stroud to Gloucester to stay on train as it reversed.

Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: CMRail on September 01, 2018, 10:40:23
There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET, however ...

Nine?   Is there (going to be) a problem with 5 + 5?

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.


The bay platform would allow passengers to leave the incoming train, crew to switch ends, and new passengers to joint all at the same time.   Under current arrangement you have a five step serial process
1. Passengers off train
2. Trains moves to siding
3. Crew change ends
4. Train moves from siding
5. Passengers join train
all of which would make it impractical to run an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham Spa service with just two sets, each calling at Gloucester in one direction only.   Also make it impossible for passengers from Stroud to Gloucester to stay on train as it reversed.

Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?

A member of Cheltenham staff said the siding was to small for the ten car when it was in testing. Apparently they won’t run any 5+5 anymore to Cheltenham due to Gloucester platform issues and other minor difficulties.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on September 01, 2018, 11:29:11
Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?

I would look at the benefit / cost of both options, taking into account plans for services for future years, effect on delay when things aren't quite right or both options, differences in operating costs over the next n years ... if you're looking at 2 trains per hour from the Stroud Valley and one train an hour from the Welsh franchise, plus perhaps local trains every hour coming up from Bristol, the decision might be a different one to a service at half that level.

There isn't space to re-engineer the siding where it is to have a platform face offset up there, rather line platform 6 at Salisbury or indeed the double platform at Gloucester is there?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: broadgage on September 01, 2018, 11:34:42
In the longer term I can see various opportunities for new GWR services.

In the near term though the priority needs to be running the existing timetable properly, with enough full length trains including a reasonable reserve for breakdowns, and enough staff to run the full service even on a Sunday, again with a reasonable margin for sickness etc.

In the longer term, through trains to Butlins at Minehead are needed.
This is not as simple as it sounds since the existing Minehead station is too far from Butlins for those burdened with luggage and children.
A new, short branch line from the existing WSR into Butlins would be needed, together with a platform. All this is entirely doable, but far from cheap.
I suspect many Butlins customers would prefer a train directly into the site, to driving via very congested local roads.

That however must remain a future plan until existing services are working properly.
I cant imagine Butlins management being keen on the idea at present.
With good reason, Butlins management might fear that their train would be cancelled, diverted or half length.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: IndustryInsider on September 01, 2018, 11:59:43
Of all those mentioned, Stratford is the most likely IMHO.  As ChrisB says, Chiltern have practically abandoned it when they were allowed to seek glories elsewhere, and I've always considered it a better match with GWR anyway as it links London and a 'tourism trinity' of Windsor, Oxford and Stratford all on one route, well, almost in the case of Windsor.  Three or four tourism timed trains a day (Chiltern could keep their peak ones if they want them) would suffice.

Personally I can't see the Honeybourne link being restored any time soon, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the route via Leamington.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: martyjon on September 01, 2018, 12:47:30
Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?

I would look at the benefit / cost of both options, taking into account plans for services for future years, effect on delay when things aren't quite right or both options, differences in operating costs over the next n years ... if you're looking at 2 trains per hour from the Stroud Valley and one train an hour from the Welsh franchise, plus perhaps local trains every hour coming up from Bristol, the decision might be a different one to a service at half that level.

There isn't space to re-engineer the siding where it is to have a platform face offset up there, rather line platform 6 at Salisbury or indeed the double platform at Gloucester is there?

Don't know where the proposed bay platform would be located but I assumed it would be located at the south end of the station utilising space where the long gone double track went Stratford way towards, from memory, Cheltenham Spa (Malvern Road) and Cheltenham Spa (St. James) stations and where the Royal Mail building was, it might still be there in another use. Is the trackbed of the defunct Kingham Branch trackbed still in railway ownership, I know there was a down loop there when I last took notice of the infrastructure there, there was even the boarded up shell of Cheltenham Lansdown Signal Box at the north end of the down loop there too.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Andy on September 01, 2018, 13:00:28
I have taken a look at my own "list" of things I would see on the horizon.  In all cases, operational case, business case, local sentiment seem achievable - to bring not only new business that it can cope with to the railway, but also a wider economic benefit to the areas served and very little abstraction from other services - rather complementing other services (rail and road) into a network.

(Oxford and) Swindon to Solent (and Fawley).  http://atrebatia.info/swi_sol_201712_v11.pdf

Sewweb - Fast and regular train services connecting South Wales, North Somerset and the inner residential areas of Bristol with the Patchway, Aztec West and Westgate business areas of North Bristol.  http://www.sewweb.info/leaflet.pdf

Portishead (from Bristol)  http://www.passenger.chat/231

Okehampton (from Exeter) http://www.passenger.chat/2338

Tavistock (from Plymouth) http://www.passenger.chat/804

East - West Rail (Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford, etc) http://www.passenger.chat/1219

I couldn't agree more with this. In particular, I just can't see why a limited regular service to/from Okehampton hasn't been trialled already, either by GWR or even SWR. And reinstatement to Tavistock seems to have been "in the pipeline" for an eternity already....it's all so frustrating!

For a long while, I felt that more through services between Penzance and St Ives could potentially be a winner, especially in the summer and possibly with a new halt at Marazion, but with plans for 2 tph on the Cornish mainline and the St Erth interchange, it makes less sense now. I do wonder whether a platform extension at St Ives might be necessary at some point, though.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: devonexpress on September 01, 2018, 16:07:29
I believe from what I interpreted at the far end of the GWR franchise consultation that First Group have been instructed to look into the feasibility of a Okehampton to Exeter service, and how best to implement it so whether that will lead to anything who knows.  Surely with all the spare trains that seems to be coming around they couldn't just use one, put on a 2 or 3 hourly timetable, advertise it, and then run it for 3 to 6 months under a trail basis?  Im guess it would be too much red tape as per usual.


The Stratford services as I suggested is something GWR is being pressured to look at, although I do think serving Birmingham would be good too, mainly because I don't think HS2 is going to happen anytime soon or at all, especially after Crossrails bad news.

Services to Minehead would be good, mainly because it removes the coach service from Taunton, and would allow more people to travel closer to Minehead, and then use the coaches as a shuttle service to Butlins, reducing road usage.

I also feel that a service to Kingswear would be beneficial, as it would link to the South Hams, Cruise ships in Dartmouth, the Navy College etc, even if it was a summer only service, or a special events service, such as when the Regatta is on, as long as the PDSR didn't lose any revenue because of it, It could help massively with parking issues in Dartmouth, and traffic around the local area on such a busy period. The only issue could be Greenaway Tunnel, but since IET's have been cleared on the line to Pembroke Dock I can't see much of an issue.

I should state that my idea is not to make the modern GWR like the old GWR but to look at ways it can enhance its services, and play its part in reducing congestion on many roads which nearly always happens in the South West during the summer period.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on September 01, 2018, 16:52:22
I believe from what I interpreted at the far end of the GWR franchise consultation that First Group have been instructed to look into the feasibility of a Okehampton to Exeter service, and how best to implement it so whether that will lead to anything who knows.  Surely with all the spare trains that seems to be coming around they couldn't just use one, put on a 2 or 3 hourly timetable, advertise it, and then run it for 3 to 6 months under a trail basis?  Im guess it would be too much red tape as per usual.

There is a huge difference on reporting on the feasibility of something and actually implementing what you find to be feasible and with a predicted good business case and community support.  Feasability study costs £££ but running it for a trial period, especially with a ramp up period, costs ££££££££££ (or perhaps a bit more even than that). And you can probably buy more votes per £ with studies than with a trial.    But it can be done (someone remind me of an example please ;D ).

The trial service needs to be sufficient for people to be tempted to use it.  Its period needs to be long enough to give it a fair crack of the whip (try 3 years not 3 months).    And if much of your traffic is going to be life-changing for people, they need the assurance that they won't have to change life back at the end of the trial - i.e. there needs to be a planned and more or less guaranteed continuation after the trial is a success.   You need to be very careful of grey areas where the service does a very great deal for people, but does not get marked as a success, and be aware of what you'll do with the six to eight extra staff you'll have on the books if you end up "pulling" it after the trial.  Oh - I should also ask where they come from and who trains them in the first place ...

Can be done. Has been done. But "just" doesn't come into it!




Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: JayMac on September 01, 2018, 21:47:20
Services to Minehead would be good, mainly because it removes the coach service from Taunton, and would allow more people to travel closer to Minehead, and then use the coaches as a shuttle service to Butlins, reducing road usage.

It is a bus service, not coaches. Removing it takes away a bus service from Rowbarton and Staplegrove in Taunton, Pen Elm, Norton Manor Camp, Bishops Lydeard village, Crowcombe, Carhampton, Marsh Street, Alcombe and Minehead town centre. Residents in Williton, Watchet, Washford and Dunster could have a longer walk to just one station rather than a choice of bus stops.

I hope this is a logical reply and doesn't come across as cocky and rude.   It's okay to float ideas. It's equally okay to shoot them down if they aren't a practical solution, causing more problems than they solve. If you feel the response isn't okay then feel free to use the 'Report to moderator' button.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: MVR S&T on September 02, 2018, 20:09:41
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K97206/2018/09/04/advanced

Trial for a Paddington to Southampton, with a 3rd rail shoe mod of course.......



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: devonexpress on September 03, 2018, 19:50:16
Services to Minehead would be good, mainly because it removes the coach service from Taunton, and would allow more people to travel closer to Minehead, and then use the coaches as a shuttle service to Butlins, reducing road usage.

It is a bus service, not coaches. Removing it takes away a bus service from Rowbarton and Staplegrove in Taunton, Pen Elm, Norton Manor Camp, Bishops Lydeard village, Crowcombe, Carhampton, Marsh Street, Alcombe and Minehead town centre. Residents in Williton, Watchet, Washford and Dunster could have a longer walk to just one station rather than a choice of bus stops.

I hope this is a logical reply and doesn't come across as cocky and rude.   It's okay to float ideas. It's equally okay to shoot them down if they aren't a practical solution, causing more problems than they solve. If you feel the response isn't okay then feel free to use the 'Report to moderator' button.

Please let me clarify for you.  The idea is to take tourist passengers away from the local bus and the changeover, onto a direct train straight to the destination, something which most passengers want.   The bus service could continue, without having to use non DDA compliant coaches.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: JayMac on September 03, 2018, 20:23:26
Ah, I see. A complementary service. Very different to the 'replace' mentioned in the OP.  ::)



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: devonexpress on September 05, 2018, 18:26:32
Moving forward, maybe we should change the thread to 'potential new services or improvements to current services GWR could start'


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: eightf48544 on September 06, 2018, 10:13:40
The trial service needs to be sufficient for people to be tempted to use it.  Its period needs to be long enough to give it a fair crack of the whip (try 3 years not 3 months).    And if much of your traffic is going to be life-changing for people, they need the assurance that they won't have to change life back at the end of the trial - i.e. there needs to be a planned and more or less guaranteed continuation after the trial is a success.   You need to be very careful of grey areas where the service does a very great deal for people, but does not get marked as a success, and be aware of what you'll do with the six to eight extra staff you'll have on the books if you end up "pulling" it after the trial.  Oh - I should also ask where they come from and who trains them in the first place ...

Can be done. Has been done. But "just" doesn't come into it!

I agree with your comments. I moved to Taplow because it was in walking distance of the station and there was a reasonable although noisy journey to Pad (117s), although there was still a loco hauled fast to and from Pad in the peak although not at the time I wanted. Then the Turbos and now 387s there was a rocky patch when the Off Peak service was hourly although as i was working it just meant you had to time half days correctly, plus the Sunday service was withdrawn which hopefully will come back with Crossrail (whenever)



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: broadgage on September 06, 2018, 12:40:47
Regarding transport to/from Minehead, there are in my view 3 different flows with very different needs.

Firstly, local residents making local trips to shops and other local facilities. The existing 28 bus needs to be retained and preferably improved for this market. A small minority could use trains on the West Somerset Railway as an alternative, but most journeys have one or both ends too far from a station for this to be viable for most passengers.

Secondly visitors from afar wanting a day on the beach at Minehead, or visiting for other reasons. Also Minehead residents visiting places on the national rail network.
This market is very poorly served by the existing bus because it is slow, unreliable, and subjectively getting worse.
A through train service between Minehead and the national network would be a very considerable improvement.

Thirdly the customers for Butlins holiday camp, such customers are very poorly served by the existing bus service which fails miserably to handle the numbers involved.
This market needs a through train service from Taunton AT LEAST, from London or Bristol would be better.
Minehead station is a bit too far from Butlins to walk with luggage, a shuttle bus could complete the journey very quickly, better still would be a dedicated Butlins station.
The existing bus is unusable by local residents on "bad Butlins days" since EVERY bus leaving Minehead will be full and standing with no question of anyone boarding at intermediate stops.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on September 06, 2018, 17:01:21
I really MUST avoid my Crayonista tendencies ...  Minehead, Butlins - BMI ... short branch into 5 car platform that adjoins Butlins and also provides direct sea front access, allowing operation of an unstaffed station away from the heritage stuff.

Are your thoughts something like this, broadgage?

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/MBU.jpg)

Train parks up there overnight ... and runs
... early service Minehead to Taunton and Bristol (commuters and extra capacity between Taunton and Bristol)
... Bristol to Taunton and Minehead (day trippers)
... Minehead to Taunton, Frome, Westbury, Pewsey, Bedwyn, Reading, London (Butlins departures)
... London to Minehead (more holidaymakers arrive; same stops as London outbound train)
... Minehead to Taunton and Bristol (shorter day trippers)
... Bristol to Taunton and Minehead (returning commuters)
... Minehead to Taunton (longer day trippers)
... Taunton to Minhead ('late train' for commuters who have had a longer day)
Set swap possible/probable at London
Only limited public service during the day while heritage trains are running
Elephant in room is suitable infrastructure and staff to run IET at sensible speed and manning along the line



Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: broadgage on September 06, 2018, 17:54:16
Yes, I was thinking of something broadly similar to that.

I see no near term need to clear the Minehead branch for IETs, HSTs seem more realistic in the near term, these HAVE previously run to Minehead.
Also IETs might not be welcome on a heritage route, whilst HSTs ARE borderline heritage, the first ones ran only a few years after the end of BR steam.

It should be possible to do at least 40MPH, an acceptable speed on the branch.

The Butlins line would probably have to be elevated about 2M above ground level for two reasons.
Firstly there is a small river and a public footpath between Butlins and the present line, the line would have to pass over the water and with enough clearance for pedestrians to walk along the footpath under the railway.

Secondly, the Butlins branch and platform, if at ground level would be a considerable impediment to pedestrians and vehicles moving around Butlins site. By elevating the track on an embankment or a bridge, pedestrians and cars can pass underneath.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: JayMac on September 06, 2018, 18:44:14
I see no near term need to clear the Minehead branch for IETs, HSTs seem more realistic in the near term, these HAVE previously run to Minehead.

Before Watchet station platform was reprofiled. HST cab steps need to be removed to run through now. Something HST drivers are reluctant to allow on safety grounds.

Quote
It should be possible to do at least 40MPH, an acceptable speed on the branch.


That would require an Act of Parliament. Increase the speed and provide regular scheduled services then you have to comply with much more stringent laws, regulations and safety legislation. Heritage railways costs are kept in check by only having to comply, operationally, with the spirit of the Light Railway Act 1896. Does the WSR bear any of the costs of obtaining necessary acts to increase line speed and comply with the the more stringent laws? Or are such costs borne entirely by Network Rail and the TOC(s) who could, in this fanciful scenario, operate to Minehead.

Or do the West Somerset Railway sell up completely to Network Rail and just become tenants, operating when Network Rail give them permission?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: broadgage on September 06, 2018, 19:02:35
As HSTs have previously run to Minehead, the works required at Watchet to again run to Minehead are presumably minor.

As regards 40MPH running, one might hope that HMG will change the rules and allow relatively modern stock to run at 40 MPH on certain heritage lines.
It could reasonably be argued that steel bodied, air braked stock with power operated doors or centrally locked slam doors, is no less safe at 40MPH than is older stock at 25MPH.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Oxonhutch on September 06, 2018, 20:39:08
It is more the permanent way and signalling infrastructure that practically limits the line speed, rather than the rolling stock.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Southernman on September 06, 2018, 20:50:40
You cannot have one train allowed to do 40mph on a heritage railway whilst the others are limited to 25mph! Its 40mph or 25mph. If the former then a vast expense on upgrading the track, signalling, staff training, maintenance and certification of the heritage set up will be required.

And really, what market (viability) actually exists outside summer Saturdays? And how do you find pathways for all these extra trains on a single line railway. As already mentioned the local traffic will continue to go by bus.

There has to be a simpler, cost effective solution! What is wrong with the extension of some Taunton terminators into Bishops Lydeard? Winners all round I would say and something that could be introduced relatively quickly.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: broadgage on September 07, 2018, 12:50:34
I don't see why some trains can not run at enhanced speeds on the longer and better equipped heritage lines, we do after all have differing speeds for different types of traction on the national network.

As for demand for rail travel to Minehead from the national network, in my view this is substantial on every day in the Summer season, and some demand exists all year.
As well as family holidays for a week or two weeks, Butlins host other large scale events outside of the holiday season.
Concerts, large religious gatherings and other events.
More such events seem likely if transport was easier.

Overseas air travel is becoming more expensive and less attractive due to rising oil prices and growing concerns regarding security.
Day trips and longer holidays within the UK are increasing in popularity.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 07, 2018, 13:59:37
As they would be the main beneficiary, perhaps Butlins could jointly fund it?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: broadgage on September 07, 2018, 15:48:26
As they would be the main beneficiary, perhaps Butlins could jointly fund it?

Yes I think that Butlins should contribute.
I doubt that Butlins management would be keen at present, looking at other GWR services, but that might change.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: TaplowGreen on September 07, 2018, 17:12:33
As they would be the main beneficiary, perhaps Butlins could jointly fund it?

Yes I think that Butlins should contribute.
I doubt that Butlins management would be keen at present, looking at other GWR services, but that might change.

They could have a knobbly knees competition en route!


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Dispatch Box on December 02, 2018, 21:10:10
Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?

I would look at the benefit / cost of both options, taking into account plans for services for future years, effect on delay when things aren't quite right or both options, differences in operating costs over the next n years ... if you're looking at 2 trains per hour from the Stroud Valley and one train an hour from the Welsh franchise, plus perhaps local trains every hour coming up from Bristol, the decision might be a different one to a service at half that level.

There isn't space to re-engineer the siding where it is to have a platform face offset up there, rather line platform 6 at Salisbury or indeed the double platform at Gloucester is there?

Don't know where the proposed bay platform would be located but I assumed it would be located at the south end of the station utilising space where the long gone double track went Stratford way towards, from memory, Cheltenham Spa (Malvern Road) and Cheltenham Spa (St. James) stations and where the Royal Mail building was, it might still be there in another use. Is the trackbed of the defunct Kingham Branch trackbed still in railway ownership, I know there was a down loop there when I last took notice of the infrastructure there, there was even the boarded up shell of Cheltenham Lansdown Signal Box at the north end of the down loop there too.

Yes all still there, Plus the scruffy old Red Building now in use as a Gym,I Was told by Dispatch staff at one time, they were going to pull it down and provide a bay platform, but it will use some Carpark space,and they were waiting for the Gyms Lease to run out.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: JontyMort on December 02, 2018, 22:11:10
Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?

I would look at the benefit / cost of both options, taking into account plans for services for future years, effect on delay when things aren't quite right or both options, differences in operating costs over the next n years ... if you're looking at 2 trains per hour from the Stroud Valley and one train an hour from the Welsh franchise, plus perhaps local trains every hour coming up from Bristol, the decision might be a different one to a service at half that level.

There isn't space to re-engineer the siding where it is to have a platform face offset up there, rather line platform 6 at Salisbury or indeed the double platform at Gloucester is there?

Don't know where the proposed bay platform would be located but I assumed it would be located at the south end of the station utilising space where the long gone double track went Stratford way towards, from memory, Cheltenham Spa (Malvern Road) and Cheltenham Spa (St. James) stations and where the Royal Mail building was, it might still be there in another use. Is the trackbed of the defunct Kingham Branch trackbed still in railway ownership, I know there was a down loop there when I last took notice of the infrastructure there, there was even the boarded up shell of Cheltenham Lansdown Signal Box at the north end of the down loop there too.

Yes all still there, Plus the scruffy old Red Building now in use as a Gym,I Was told by Dispatch staff at one time, they were going to pull it down and provide a bay platform, but it will use some Carpark space,and they were waiting for the Gyms Lease to run out.

I noticed last time I was waiting at Cheltenham - and when you do a lot of Worcester-Bristol return runs, as I do, you do a lot of waiting at Cheltenham - that they are enhancing the car park by removing the bank in the middle. But the bay platform idea for London terminators is dead, isn't it? That is a real shame, because at present a terminating HST from Paddington can take a very long time to clear the platform.

But to return to topic, an hourly Cheltenham-Worcester service would be good. Worcester to Bristol - hardly an eccentric journey - becomes two-hourly, even though the XC service is half-hourly.

Worcestershire Parkway might improve things in this respect - because at least it will be within taxi range even if there is no connection into a Cotswold - but then again it might not.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: ellendune on December 02, 2018, 22:44:47
Don't know where the proposed bay platform would be located but I assumed it would be located at the south end of the station utilising space where the long gone double track went Stratford way towards, from memory, Cheltenham Spa (Malvern Road) and Cheltenham Spa (St. James) stations and where the Royal Mail building was, it might still be there in another use. Is the trackbed of the defunct Kingham Branch trackbed still in railway ownership, I know there was a down loop there when I last took notice of the infrastructure there, there was even the boarded up shell of Cheltenham Lansdown Signal Box at the north end of the down loop there too.

Yes all still there, Plus the scruffy old Red Building now in use as a Gym,I Was told by Dispatch staff at one time, they were going to pull it down and provide a bay platform, but it will use some Carpark space,and they were waiting for the Gyms Lease to run out.

The scruffy not so old red building is IIRC the Royal Mail Building only built in the 1990's?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: simonw on December 03, 2018, 08:56:04
Why don't  they renovate Cheltenham station by lowering the track creating 4/6 full and terminating platforms below the current station.

The current station station could be converted into a public space, with access to the real station below.

I've no idea of the cost, but this would make Cheltenham much more useful and allow many more local services.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on December 03, 2018, 09:05:57
Why don't  they renovate Cheltenham station by lowering the track creating 4/6 full and terminating platforms below the current station.

The current station station could be converted into a public space to the real station below.

I've no idea of the cost, but this would make Cheltenham much more useful and allow many more local services.

£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££,  I fear

How about an Arnos Grove arrangement - 3 platforms, 2 outer being for through trains, inner platform with train doors opening on both sides for terminators.   Too left field though?   Thought so!


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: CMRail on December 03, 2018, 17:21:09
Why don't  they renovate Cheltenham station by lowering the track creating 4/6 full and terminating platforms below the current station.

The current station station could be converted into a public space, with access to the real station below.

I've no idea of the cost, but this would make Cheltenham much more useful and allow many more local services.

Whilst knocking down the car park, a main road and a stagecoach depot. Not much you can do..


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Red Squirrel on December 04, 2018, 20:52:46
Why don't  they renovate Cheltenham station by lowering the track creating 4/6 full and terminating platforms below the current station.

The current station station could be converted into a public space, with access to the real station below.

I've no idea of the cost, but this would make Cheltenham much more useful and allow many more local services.

Whilst knocking down the car park, a main road and a stagecoach depot. Not much you can do..

How about sending terminating trains to a new Cheltenham Town station, near the junction of St George's Rd and Honeybourne Way?

Oops, I broke my crayon...


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Witham Bobby on December 05, 2018, 13:25:59

Quote

Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2018, 08:50:40 pm »
   
You cannot have one train allowed to do 40mph on a heritage railway whilst the others are limited to 25mph! Its 40mph or 25mph. If the former then a vast expense on upgrading the track, signalling, staff training, maintenance and certification of the heritage set up will be required.

As one very closely involved with the re-opening of the WSR from 1974 to 1979, from the granting of the LRO, the sale of the line to Somerset County Council and lease to the WSR, to the stages involved in getting the whole branch passed for the running of passenger services, I can tell you that the 1975 LRO did in fact give authority for the WSR to run trains as differential speeds.  DMUs were authorised fror 40mph, and everything else 25mph.

When we discovered that HMRI imposed a requirement that DMUs be maintained and inspected by the staff of British Rail (which kind of made sense -  two miles of the intended service would be over BR metals) the option to operate the DMUs at a higher line speed was not taken up.  It would have been too expensive without the expected revenue from the Taunton service.  And that didn't happen because of the intransigence of the Western National bus drivers, who were represented by the NUR for historical reasons, and the blindness of the management at BR(WR) Divisional HQ at Bristol, who just didn't want it to happen


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: Andy on December 05, 2018, 17:58:49
Was the 25 mph limit an arbitrary choice back in the day or is there a specific reason for choosing that speed? Is there any reason why the limit couldn't be raised to, say, 30mph, or 35mph, allowing heritage lines to choose whether to keep 25mph as their own limit or adopt a higher one?




Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on December 05, 2018, 18:08:29
Was the 25 mph limit an arbitrary choice back in the day or is there a specific reason for choosing that speed? Is there any reason why the limit couldn't be raised to, say, 30mph, or 35mph, allowing heritage lines to choose whether to keep 25mph as their own limit or adopt a higher one?

Depends on which day you want to look back to. The 25 mph limit comes from the Light Railway Act of 1896 under which most heritage lines run - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Railways_Act_1896 . Above that speed you (still) have an extra raft of regulations; sure heritage lines could choose a higher limit, but at a big step up in rules and regulation.  Moving the other goal post (getting the light railway act changed) would, I suspect, be so problematic that I mention the possibility only as a theory.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: SandTEngineer on December 05, 2018, 19:18:51
Just to be clear, Grahame.  The Light Railway Act 1896 itself does not limit the railway speed.  This is done in the Light Railway Order specific to each railway authorised under the act.


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on December 05, 2018, 19:24:40
Just to be clear, Grahame.  The Light Railway Act 1896 itself does not limit the railway speed.  This is done in the Light Railway Order specific to each railway authorised under the act.

Ah - so there could be some flexibility then?


Title: Re: Potential new services GWR could start?
Post by: grahame on November 17, 2020, 05:39:55

 ...
I also feel that a service to Kingswear would be beneficial ...

Churston and Kingswear have cropped up as ideas from time to time.   From in Your Area (https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/how-kingswear-could-soon-be-back-on-the-national-rail-map/) a suggestion that Kingswear could be added back to the National Network with the final miles being via connection onto a steam train.



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net