|
John R
|
 |
« on: October 25, 2014, 23:04:10 » |
|
Is there any mileage in starting the 0732 to Swindon back from Warminster? It could run in the path of the current service that arrives into Westbury at 0732 and then continues at 0738 towards Bristol.
In that way, pax from Warminster would not have to wait 24 mins, which I suspect is discouraging any commuter use. The inconvenience to Bristol bound commuters would be minor, as they would still have a train leaving Westbury at exactly the same time, and other one only 15 minutes later if the through train was important to them.
I've tried to see whether something similar would be possible in the evening with extending the 1736 from Swindon, but run into difficulties as the return working from Westbury would need to be pushed back, which would make for a less attractive connection at Trowbridge, and would also mean the 1852 from Swindon would need to be pushed back too because of the single line. The only solution would be to move the 1736 forward to around 1723, which might even be more attractive for 5pm finishers?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2014, 07:39:23 » |
|
I have wondered this too, John ... in slightly more general terms with regard to connections or direct services to / from the three stations that are within the West Wilts economic area beyond Westbury - i.e. Dilton Marsh, Warminster and Frome. And although I shouldn't start looking at "half data" from surveys (about a half of the data has been entered, and in an unscientific order so results will be skewed), all three are represented in the destinations of journeys that people were / are already making. Again, there's a further danger in giving too much significance to much of the data in terms of journeys that could be done if services were more appropriate for them.
Issue may be that existing people on that train, headed for Bath / Bristol, may not like the extra change at Westbury, but I do wonder where the train originates and if its the one that comes up earlier as a short Salisbury to Westbury working and divides, it may be possible for it to do the Warminster round trip before dividing.
Evening issue is that the 13 minutes earlier on the 17:36 would reduce the catchment area for people finishing at 17:00 to 40% of what it currently is (square rule applies, 23.0/36.0 **2) and also that the train would attract traffic off the 17:30 Swindon to Chippenham, renewing our fear of overloading the short train with passengers and cycles headed on the major SWI» -CPM» evening peak flow to the exclusion of those headed further south.
It's a house of cards ... there are some tuning operations that can / should be done - such as the 08:48 from Swindon becoming the 08:36, and the Sunday service timetable being significantly revised. Other things suggested turn out to have knock-on effects and although those knock-ons may be relatively small compared to the potential gains, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. What we must be careful to ensure is that the passenger provision provided beyond timetable changes reflects what passengers and potential passengers are looking for, as well as being operationally efficient and economically sensible - a very different balance to the major revision of services in December 2006, where the evaluation was more against the contracted service level commitment (SLC▸ ) than against what worked for the passengers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2014, 08:43:26 » |
|
Evening issue is that the 13 minutes earlier on the 17:36 would reduce the catchment area for people finishing at 17:00 to 40% of what it currently is (square rule applies, 23.0/36.0 **2) and also that the train would attract traffic off the 17:30 Swindon to Chippenham, renewing our fear of overloading the short train with passengers and cycles headed on the major SWI» -CPM» evening peak flow to the exclusion of those headed further south.
I think the majority of office and retail space is within a 15 minute walk of the station, so I suspect the 40% may overstate the impact of an earlier train. In addition, most office staff have a degree of flexibility, and if they have arrived by 8.30 (which the current morning arrival time would imply) then they may already be hanging around having long done their allotted hours for the day. So on balance existing passengers might welcome it. I would worry about attracting people off the 1730 though. You could make it pick up only at Chippenham which could relatively easily be enforced by only opening one door at Swindon and checking everyone's tickets as they board. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2014, 18:47:26 » |
|
I would be inclined to go with grahame's view on the Swindon catchment area. I am also mindful that the 1736 slot has, from the very beginning in December 2013, exceeded our expectations in terms of passenger numbers. Also, a 1723 departure would increase the gap between peak services further until the next one at 1852, and I really have my doubts how practical, and indeed how desirable it would be to enforce pick up only at Chippenham. The fears over knock-on effects of timetable changes are real, which is why I've always been an advocate of taking a wider view and coming up with a package that rolls in other aspirations as well. My stab at such a package would be along the following lines (excuse the pun...) on Mondays to Fridays: Start the 0723 Warminster-Great Malvern at 0718, forming it of its normal unit(s) plus the Class 153 TransWilts unit. Call it at Dilton Marsh at 0722, arriving at Westbury at 0728. Divide the train at Westbury, continuing as 0732 Swindon-bound and 0738 Great Malvern-bound portions. Revise the 0628 Cardiff Central-Portsmouth Harbour service so it calls additionally at Dilton Marsh at 0803. Revise the 0849 Swindon-Westbury service to start from Swindon at 0836, calling at Chippenham 0853, Melksham 0902, Trowbridge 0912, arriving Westbury 0920. Extend the 1441 Gloucester-Westbury service to Frome, departing Westbury 1637 and arriving Frome at 1646. Start the 1754 Swindon-Cheltenham Spa service at Frome at 1654, calling at Westbury 1704, Trowbridge 1710, Melksham 1719, Chippenham 1730, arriving Swindon at 1748. Extend the 1520 Cheltenham Spa-Swindon service to Westbury, calling at departing Swindon at 1636, calling at Chippenham 1653, Melksham 1703, Trowbridge 1712, arriving Westbury at 1721. Withdraw the 1711 Westbury-Warminster service, and start the 1728 Warminster-Great Malvern service at Westbury at 1738. Dependent on the answer to http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14807.msg164192#msg164192 - Divide the 1640 Gloucester-Weymouth service at Westbury, continuing as 1840 Weymouth-bound and 1844 Salisbury-bound portions, calling at Dilton Marsh 1846, Warminster 1853, arriving Salisbury 1916. Start the 2038 Westbury-Bristol Temple Meads service at Salisbury at 2003, calling at Warminster 2025, Dilton Marsh 2029, arriving Westbury at 2035. Of course, a number of the above ideas have already been proposed (some more than once) and rejected due to an eclectic mix of reasons which include operational, financial and freight pathing considerations. None of it is impossible given the will through, and might just form the basis of an interim settlement while we wait for Electrification/Turbo-related opportunities to appear on the horizon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2014, 20:43:51 » |
|
Looks good ... a comment on a couple of the items where I feel there are tweaks that could be considered to the suggestion (even if the final suggestion 'approved' is yours rather than mine) Start the 0723 Warminster-Great Malvern at 0718, forming it of its normal unit(s) plus the Class 153 TransWilts unit. Call it at Dilton Marsh at 0722, arriving at Westbury at 0728. Divide the train at Westbury, continuing as 0732 Swindon-bound and 0738 Great Malvern-bound portions. As from 15th December, the Great Malvern train arrives at Westbury at 07:32 and the TransWilts leaves at 07:33. The TransWilts is shown as an earlier column in the timetable, and the Great Malvern train is on platform 1, so connections would be chancy at best. I would be inclined to simply move the train from Warminster a few minutes earlier (as per your suggested timings) and not couple / uncouple - apart from anything else, having a train that's going to divide call at DMH» will results in some interesting platform gymnastics at Westbury. Extend the 1441 Gloucester-Westbury service to Frome, departing Westbury 1637 and arriving Frome at 1646.
Start the 1754 Swindon-Cheltenham Spa service at Frome at 1654, calling at Westbury 1704, Trowbridge 1710, Melksham 1719, Chippenham 1730, arriving Swindon at 1748. The 16:46 arrival at Frome steps arrivals up to hourly at around that time of day. The 16:54 departure is only half an hour after another train - however, it does put something into the long gap to 19:06. The ongoing service to Swindon is good timing for return evening commuters southbound on the TransWilts, especially if the a.m. 08:49 became 08:36 - I have not commented further on that element as it's much documented already. Extend the 1520 Cheltenham Spa-Swindon service to Westbury, calling at departing Swindon at 1636, calling at Chippenham 1653, Melksham 1703, Trowbridge 1712, arriving Westbury at 1721.
Withdraw the 1711 Westbury-Warminster service, and start the 1728 Warminster-Great Malvern service at Westbury at 1738. The 17:11 Westbury to Warminster appears very much to be a train run to meet the SLC▸ requirement for a maximum gap of 3 hours at Dilton Marsh, and doesn't load well. However, the 17:28 from Warminster does get a bit of custom. I'm going to modify your proposal: Extend the 15:20 Cheltenham Spa-Swindon service to Warminster, departing Swindon at 16:31, calling at Chippenham 16:49, Melksham 16:58, Trowbridge 17:08, Westbury at 17:15, Dilton Marsh at 17:18 and arriving Warminster at 1725. Start the 17:28 Warminster-Great Malvern service at 17:30, with just a brief pause (not the 2 minute wait) as Westbury. I've lost the connection at Swindon off the 16:29 London - Bristol service - but I don't think that matters since anyone for Melksham / Trowbridge / Westbury could change at Chippenham. There doesn't appear to be any reason that the train can't set out as soon as the Bristol has cleared. This earlier running gets the train into Trowbridge in better time, relieving a tight turn around of the single line in the earlier proposal. A train off Swindon at around 16:30 has been a frequent request and I would expect it to do very well. Dependent on the answer to http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14807.msg164192#msg164192 - Divide the 1640 Gloucester-Weymouth service at Westbury, continuing as 1840 Weymouth-bound and 1844 Salisbury-bound portions, calling at Dilton Marsh 1846, Warminster 1853, arriving Salisbury 1916. Start the 2038 Westbury-Bristol Temple Meads service at Salisbury at 2003, calling at Warminster 2025, Dilton Marsh 2029, arriving Westbury at 2035. You could also take the train on just to Warminster (arrive 18:53, leave 19:22, head back to Swindon and Cheltenham Spa) if that's the service it next runs. Slight concern at Warminster where it would need to cross over behind the 19:00 to Cardiff to be clear of the 19:09 to Portsmouth. As you say, your option somewhat depends on what happens to the unit off the Weymouth - does it stable overnight, or is it the one that goes to Cheltenham Spa? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 20:49:45 by grahame »
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2014, 21:15:35 » |
|
Idea behind dividing morning peak services at Westbury was to eliminate the need to have to choose between direct Warminster-Swindon and direct Warminster-Bath/Bristol - My way, you can have both.
I may well adopt your proposed 1631 departure off Swindon if it is truly viable - as you say, it would give us more single line leeway around Trowbridge.
However, I just don't see the proposed 1725/1730 five minute turnaround at Warminster being robust enough, particularly given the track layout.
Therefore, I think I would rather play it safe and officially terminate/restart at Westbury rather than alienating passengers by having to stop it short there on a regular basis anyway. Yes, there is a little bit of custom from Warminster on the existing 1728, and I too would like to keep it if I could, but it is not exactly huge, and pales into insignificance compared to the potential usefulness of gaining an extra high peak direct train from Bristol at 1749.
Also, running that 1749 from Bristol through to Salisbury would plug one of the most glaring high peak service gaps on the Severn/Solent network, and Industry Insider's answer regarding the unit off the Weymouth does give me hope that it could be turned round at Salisbury to form an extension of that 2038 to Bristol as described, rather than kicking its heels in Westbury sidings.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 21:23:06 by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2014, 06:42:03 » |
|
Idea behind dividing morning peak services at Westbury was to eliminate the need to have to choose between direct Warminster-Swindon and direct Warminster-Bath/Bristol - My way, you can have both. Yes, you can - at the expense of an extra shunt / coupling and later uncoupling. Not sure whether the extra hassle for 20 minutes running time together would be sellable to the operator? However, I just don't see the proposed 1725/1730 five minute turnaround at Warminster being robust enough, particularly given the track layout. I've reduced a 6 minute turn around to 5. Logically, as you're proposing pulling the 17:11, the modified train up to Warminster could have the conditional DMH» stop removed - however the real issue may be that the 17:11 has plenty of slack prior to starting and so is pretty much certain to enter service again right time, whereas the proposal is on the end of a run from Cheltenham with two reversals and a single line section involved. Therefore, I think I would rather play it safe and officially terminate/restart at Westbury rather than alienating passengers by having to stop it short there on a regular basis anyway. Yes, there is a little bit of custom from Warminster on the existing 1728, and I too would like to keep it if I could, but it is not exactly huge, and pales into insignificance compared to the potential usefulness of gaining an extra high peak direct train from Bristol at 1749. It does indeed pale into insignificance compared to the other gains that are around from doing it (though the 17:49 from Bristol isn't operationally linked) ... I would risk suggesting that the 16:54 Frome - Swindon (new train section) and 16:31 Swindon - Westbury / Warminster between them would pull in not far short of 100 extra journeys, with a further significant boost (perhaps 60% of those new journeys) to the opposite journeys in the morning. Also, running that 1749 from Bristol through to Salisbury would plug one of the most glaring high peak service gaps on the Severn/Solent network, and Industry Insider's answer regarding the unit off the Weymouth does give me hope that it could be turned round at Salisbury to form an extension of that 2038 to Bristol as described, rather than kicking its heels in Westbury sidings. No problem with that, now that it seems that the stock isn't the train the forms the 19:32 Westbury to Cheltenham Spa. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2014, 07:58:59 » |
|
You will have to forgive my lack of addressing forum quotes directly - I'm afraid my "smart" phone won't play ball on that front.
I do think you make a good argument on the morning peak coupling issue. Equally though there is an element of swings and roundabouts to this - we know for a fact that a change of trains within a short interchange period will put people off, which in turn would also reduce the attractiveness of the proposal to the train operator.
If I had to do it that way, then I would probably pick Warminster-Great Malvern connecting into Westbury-Swindon on the basis that it would put off less passengers than the other way round. It obviously wouldn't be the end of the world, although I am mindful that we would be admitting defeat on one of the main aims of the OP▸ .
With your proposed 1631 running through to Warminster, it's not just the 6 vs 5 minute turnaround time - there is also the issue of the removal of the 2 minutes dwell time at Westbury on the way back through, at a location where a whole host of factors can reduce your chances of dispatching trains quickly.
With your consideration of the removal of the conditional Dilton Marsh stop on the way to Warminster, the logic is again swings and roundabouts - Surely, if you value keeping the option of a train originating from Cheltenham/Swindon, leaving Westbury for Warminster at 1710-1715ish, then it stands to reason that you value the potential benefits that both a direct train from TransWilts and the retention of a connection off the Cardiff-Portsmouth service arriving at Westbury a quarter of an hour or so earlier can bring to Dilton Marsh.
You are correct in suggesting that I am selling the huge benefits of Warminster and Dilton Marsh gaining an extra high peak direct service from Bristol (and extra evening return from Salisbury) partly as "compensation" for losing the 1711/1728 services, rather than there being a direct operational link between them.
Also, it should be noted that an 1844 departure from Westbury towards Dilton Marsh and Warminster would provide a far better connection off the key 1736 Swindon-Westbury service than is currently the case. This would further cement the overall TransWilts commuter offering and customer base, despite not being the ideal (but operationally difficult to achieve) direct service that was the other key aim of the OP - once again "swings and roundabouts"...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Network SouthEast
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2014, 10:40:01 » |
|
I think one thing to be considered about the 17:36 from Swindon to Westbury not going to Warminster is that the 153 unit which spends most of the day on Melksham services started the day from Westbury, where there are no fuelling facilities. That means the unit has gone a long time without being fuelled. After the 153 arrives at Westbury and sits in the sidings it's next workings (to Bristol and then Exeter (where it is fuelled)) are all attached to other units.
The new 153 which is detached from the Cardiff to Portsmouth service at Westbury would have been fuelled the same morning.
Indeed one might ask why the 'new' 153 can't run a Westbury to Warminster service. Well, one thing to consider is that it finishes the day at... Westbury!
I'm not suggesting the 153s used on the Melksham line are ever at danger of running dry, but this might be a factor that would go against extending the 17:36 to Warminster.
***
So what about starting the 07:32 Westbury to Swindon from Warminster?
There are a few points to consider... this 153 starts the day at Westbury!
The driver is due a meal break before the 07:32 from their last working, so another driver would need to be resourced to take the unit from Westbury sidings to Warminster and back.
The guard won't have booked on, as their first train of the day is the 07:32. So another guard would need to be resourced.
I suppose you could diagram the crew to swap trains at Westbury, but it introduces another element of risk to punctuality!
***
I don't want to make it sound like I'm trying to poo-poo any suggestions, but often there is a reason why something doesn't happen, even if it is not obvious.
Sure, anything can be resolved with more rolling stock, new paths and extra staff, but is that good value for the fare paying passenger or tax payer?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2014, 11:17:43 » |
|
If the 153 went down ECS▸ as part of the stock formation that forms the Warminster-Great Malvern service, and then divides at Westbury in service on the way back through to go forward at 0732 to Swindon as I suggest, then the driver and guard could book on as normal with no extra staff required.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Network SouthEast
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2014, 11:51:26 » |
|
If the 153 went down ECS▸ as part of the stock formation that forms the Warminster-Great Malvern service, and then divides at Westbury in service on the way back through to go forward at 0732 to Swindon as I suggest, then the driver and guard could book on as normal with no extra staff required.
Good idea about crewing. But that doesn't resolve the fact that the 153 would be running for 45-60 minutes longer before it is due to be fuelled. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2014, 12:02:39 » |
|
I don't want to make it sound like I'm trying to poo-poo any suggestions, but often there is a reason why something doesn't happen, even if it is not obvious.
Sure, anything can be resolved with more rolling stock, new paths and extra staff, but is that good value for the fare paying passenger or tax payer?
I'm completely in agreement with that ... some suggestions made in the past have happened, and others have not for reasons - in most cases - explained to us. This particular set of posts is in the TransWilts members section and is allowing us to explore ideas and balances to the best of our ability before we get "formal" in our asks ... some have been explored previously but things change, others are new, but it's a good idea for those of us with community links / asking about these things to be consistent amongst ourselves and also research ahead of time and make suggestions which as far as possible are sensible, and do-able from both an operational and a financial standpoint. On that last basis, you'll find looking way back that I HAVE asked questions about fuel tanks  and I believe their would be enough on board. As regards the evening unit swap at around 18:30 ... there may indeed be the need for another crew although there's gotta be someone around at Westbury to dispose the incoming / prepare the outgoing unit. I / we don't know the answers, nor all the knock-on effects. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2014, 13:50:05 » |
|
I think the other thing to bear in mind is that none of the ideas put forward in the topic so far require additional rolling stock, and where paths need to found, we know that FGW▸ have made genuine efforts to find an accommodation with the relevant freight operators. Therefore, without wishing to be over-simplistic, it really does seem to boil down to whether the amount of farepaying passengers (and to a certain extent how much those passengers pay) is enough to justify paying the additional costs associated with running the extra mileage - and to be honest, based on reliable evidence I've seen gathered by organisations such as Wiltshire Council, TWCRP» , Heart of Wessex CRP▸ etc, I don't see any of these proposals suffering from not being welcomed and reasonably well-used. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that there was intense debate about whether the new TransWilts services would be good value for the fare paying passenger or taxpayer, but I believe we are starting to move beyond that, and into "How far can we go in developing this" territory... ...which is where this topic came in  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2014, 14:30:07 » |
|
Summarising ... we're all on the same side, but we have different areas of expertise which we can put together for everyone's mutual benefit.
Transwilts figures are rather good thus far with First, Wilts Council and community working together; here we're looking at relatively small adjustments / tunings that can make it even better, and where a changed that's modest to make might bring in lots of new business.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2014, 21:43:42 » |
|
There's a quote on railuk forums that some Class 153s are rostered to do 1500 miles before refuelling, so I doubt whether that will be a constraint.
It's been a useful discussion. I expected (and hoped) when starting it that it would trigger some debate and ideas, and I haven't been disappointed. It would be even better if next May or December we see some of the suggestions turn into reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
