Cardiff-Portsmouth & Worcester/Gloucester to Weymouth - Keep or Split?

[whole diary]

[Lee]

For me, Question 20 has the potential to be one of the most pivotal debates of the entire refranchising process:

Do the medium-distance regional services (e.g. Cardiff to Portsmouth and Worcester/Gloucester to Weymouth) adequately serve the needs of all passengers along their lines of route, or would shorter-distance services, targeted on local travel requirements, be more beneficial?

Leaving aside the Brightons (as far as is practical) which have their own question and topic (see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10047.msg104193#msg104193 ) what are the views of forum members on this specific key question?

[anthony215]

I think the Cardiff - Portsmouth Harbour service should remain a through route however in the case of the Great Malvern - Bristol - Weymouth route perhaps this should be split at Bristol TM^‡(resolve).

However if the Portishead branch is re-opened perhaps Great Malvern trains could run to/from Portishead.

[paul7575]

I thought the context of that question was more along the lines of keeping the through long distance service, but removing minor stops and transferring them to a local stopper - this is the basis of the proposals for the Portsmouth Cardiff route shown in the current GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy), section 6.9.6 and 6.9.13:

As a longer-term option for the Cardiff to Portsmouth service, a change in the service
proposition was reviewed to address on-train crowding and improve journey time which
was identified as an interurban route under Gap 17 (see option M under 6.9.13). A service
proposition was developed which involved removing several stops from the existing
service and introducing an additional local stopping service for one peak morning service
and one peak evening service. This therefore provided a means of addressing the capacity
issues and also enabled the principal service to achieve improved journey times.
...Bristol to Westbury
As part of the revised service proposition for the Cardiff to Portsmouth service as
presented in 6.9.6, there will be a journey time improvement of up to nine minutes for
a morning Portsmouth to Cardiff service between Westbury and Bristol Temple
Meads and a two minute journey time saving on one return evening service
between Bristol and Westbury.

Paul

[Lee]

Paul - Imagine the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)/NR^» (Network Rail - home page) gave you a blank sheet of paper. What would you personally do with the relevant services?

[fatcontroller]

Paul - Imagine the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)/NR^» (Network Rail - home page) gave you a blank sheet of paper. What would you personally do with the relevant services?

My view is that the Weston SM - Bristol PW^▸ (Permanent Way) service and the Weymouth - Gloucester/Worcester services are swapped at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) to provide, Weymouth - Bristol PW and Weston SM - Gloucester - Worcester.

These services are only 5 minutes apart in a Parkway bound direction but would require retiming west of Bristol in order to reach Bristol TM for a xx41 departure.

This would provide a more robust service on the Yate/Cam stretch which is only hourly and allows that in the event of any late running that the Gloucester part is protected and any late running could be recouped on the more frequent Weston SM section.

FC^‡(resolve)

[pbc2520]

I think the Cardiff - Portsmouth Harbour service should remain a through route however in the case of the Great Malvern - Bristol - Weymouth route perhaps this should be split at Bristol TM^‡(resolve).

When travelling from Worcester to the south coast, I have never seen the attraction of the direct service to Weymouth or to Southampton/Brighton for two reasons:

• You go outside the NSE^▸ (Network South East) zone, which you don't if you change at Reading or travel through London.
• The facilities on the direct trains through Bristol are nowhere near as good.  There's a significant chance of travelling on a 150 which is awful.  Although the 158s are comfortable, they don't have mains power sockets (to my knowledge).  On the Cotswold line, it is possible to plan around the Turbos.

I would happily spend an hour longer, maybe two, for a much cheaper ticket to travel on trains with better facilities.

However if the Portishead branch is re-opened perhaps Great Malvern trains could run to/from Portishead.

A direct seaside destination may be a good selling point in Malvern...

[Btline]

The bigger priority should be getting an hourly service to Worcester.

Where the trains go doesn't really matter so long as reliability isn't affected and stock is utilised efficiently. Why? Because most folks will be commuting from Worcester to Cheltenham/Gloucester, or taking a trip to/connecting at Bristol.

[Rhydgaled]

My responce to that question in my work-in-progress responce to the consultation is currently:

"The south Wales to the south-coast service (currently Cardiff ^ Portsmouth) is an important through route. Ideally however local services would be run alongside this to serve smaller stations more frequently.

Also remember that the Cardiff ^ Portsmouth is a regional express service. As such, suburban-style rolling stock (such as class 150 and 166/165, both of which have doors located part way along the carriages rather than in vestibules at each end (the later also has a 2+3 seating layout)) are unsuitable."

Note that I am currently unaware of the frequency of local services on the route at present, I need to research that (or you can tell me) as it might effect my first paragraph there. Also I say "The south Wales to the south-coast service (currently Cardiff ^ Portsmouth)" because I suggest elsewhere in the consultation extensions to Swansea or Fishguard and changing all the Portsmouths to go to Brighton instead (basicly my answer to the Brighton question was there should be an hourly service either to Portsmouth or Brighton, with the other getting no Great Western trains).

[paul7575]

Paul - Imagine the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)/NR^» (Network Rail - home page) gave you a blank sheet of paper. What would you personally do with the relevant services?

I haven't a personal view on the Gloucester/Weymouth axis - I only ever really use the Portsmouth service, and that's nearly always south of Salisbury.  I do think the few FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services that run only to Southampton are a duplication of SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s stopper, and completely unnecessary. 

OTOH^▸ (On The Other Hand) my view on the Brighton extensions remains exactly as provided to DfT a few years ago, and could actually form the basis of their related question...

Paul

[grahame]

I do think the few FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services that run only to Southampton are a duplication of SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'s stopper, and completely unnecessary. 

Question 6 asks

6. Respondents are encouraged to consider any changes to the services included in the Great Western franchise that they would like to propose as part of a remapping exercise.

And there would appear to be a logic in transferring Dean and Mottisfont stations into the South West franchise (who already provide all the trains that call there) and perhaps Romsey too (which becomes something of a GW^▸ (Great Western) station outpost after that other transfer).  There may also be a logic in transferring all local trains south of Salisbury into the SW franchise, rather that the current GW / SW split, and running them all with SWT units based at Salisbury rather than having Westbury -> Southampton stoppers run with units based in Bristol. 

Net effect is that south of Salisbury, the GW franchise is running just hourly regional services to Portsmouth and (perhaps, other topic) once a day to Brighton and twice a day from Brighton.  The SW franchise ups the service from Salisbury to Southampton to half hourly. That is a service which did not exist when the last GW franchise was let but rather was broken off and then greatly enhanced from the GW franchise in around 2007.

[ellendune]

When travelling from Worcester to the south coast, I have never seen the attraction of the direct service to Weymouth or to Southampton/Brighton for two reasons:

• You go outside the NSE^▸ (Network South East) zone, which you don't if you change at Reading or travel through London.

Why does it matter that you go outside NSE?

Why should it matter that you go outside NSE?

NSE was a creature of the 1980's

[pbc2520]

When travelling from Worcester to the south coast, I have never seen the attraction of the direct service to Weymouth or to Southampton/Brighton for two reasons:

• You go outside the NSE^▸ (Network South East) zone, which you don't if you change at Reading or travel through London.

Why does it matter that you go outside NSE?

Why should it matter that you go outside NSE?

NSE was a creature of the 1980's

Well, its legacy continues... the 1/3-off NSE railcard very much still exists!  Bizarre as it may seem, you can get 1/3 off on Worcester-Weymouth via Reading but not when taking the more direct route via Bristol.

[WSW Frome]

Interesting how fashions change. There have been various cycles over the years when Weymouth services have 1. terminated at Bristol, or 2. continued northwards. The usual reason given for separate services (when they have reverted to that format) is simpler/reliable operating which seems logical (apart perhaps from occupying more platform space at Bristol). The opposite type of reason is provided when they become through services. I doubt (stand to be corrected) that there are many cross-Bristol journeys (except perhaps from Filton or Parkway) so providing there are reasonable connections, each option is fine.

Indeed not so far back, all/most Weymouth services did not venture north of Westbury. Onward with a Class 33 and Mk1s (side corridor too) towards Cardiff.

Portsmouth to Cardiff has long been regarded as a "trunk route," (except perhaps when the 3Hs were in charge) and will no doubt be kept as such. Interesting to ask the proportion of cross Bristol journeys there actually are though?   

 

[phile]

If you split services into 2, you reduce the number of through journeys available.
Also, you would have to have another train available for the continuation and this after knock on effects, could result in a requirement for additional resources.
Central, at the time, split Nottinghams to Hereford at Birmingham at the instigation of the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) as an alleged move to improve timekeeping.

[matt473]

If you split services into 2, you reduce the number of through journeys available.
Also, you would have to have another train available for the continuation and this after knock on effects, could result in a requirement for additional resources.
Central, at the time, split Nottinghams to Hereford at Birmingham at the instigation of the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) as an alleged move to improve timekeeping.

Maybe it's time that services are split wheras in reality the train would continue to Weymouth, Gloucester etc. with timetables and destination displays saying Bristol Temple Meads (For Weymouth) for example with the train continuing to Weymouth apart from times of disruption when services can be be started at Temple Meads without any reprecussions for the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) and it's performance measures (which are important nowadays whether we like it or not). These trains can be advertised as "change of train may be required to get from Gloucester to Weymouth". This seems to work with many bus services that now are two services with two route numbers despite using same bus and driver due to driving regulations but casuses few problems as people are aware that possible change of bus may be required but more often than not they can remain on the bus. Through services not really lost but people are aware of the possibility of the requirement to change train so possibly an idea that could be further looked into by any future franchise holder.