Rail companies launch "Partnership for Britain’s Prosperity"

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

Yup, that was my understanding - and yes, it was meant to get to Exeter before a Cornwall train in order to connect.

I think it's a good solution all round so long as the connection is cross platform at Exeter for those less able or with heavy luggage.

[IndustryInsider]

If, for example, the fasts left PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) at xx:00 and the semi-fasts every other hour at xx:30, then the next fast would probably be about 10 minutes behind at Exeter which would be ideal.  If however the fast left at xx:00 and the semi at xx:10 the wait at Exeter would be much longer.  Worst case is the fast at xx:00 and the semi-fast just before it at xx:50, but got overtaken by the fast at Westbury.

All times are examples, but those interested parties, such as Graham, will be pushing for the first of those scenarios I suspect!

[grahame]

If the hourly service calling pattern that’s proposed comes to fruition then it should be almost all of the trains meeting that sort of journey time.  That’s why there’s the Paddington to Exeter semi-fast also planned, so stops like Newbury, Westbury and Castle Cary can be removed from the Cornwall trains.

If there really IS an hourly semi-fast, yes.  And if the fast were to overtake the semifast at Exeter with the semifast continuing to Paignton or Plymouth ...

Semi-fasts are planned to be every two hours aren’t they?

Planned, yes.

Why?

Start them a little earlier from Paddington - every hour - fairly soon after the super-fast.  Add stops at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn.  Have the super-fast overtake them at Exeter St David's - possible at either side of same platform in both directions.

If, for example, the fasts left PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) at xx:00 and the semi-fasts every other hour at xx:30, then the next fast would probably be about 10 minutes behind at Exeter which would be ideal.  If however the fast left at xx:00 and the semi at xx:10 the wait at Exeter would be much longer.  Worst case is the fast at xx:00 and the semi-fast just before it at xx:50, but got overtaken by the fast at Westbury.

All times are examples, but those interested parties, such as Graham, will be pushing for the first of those scenarios I suspect!

Indeed I would be pushing for the overtake-at-Exeter scenario.   Bit puzzled as to what could possibly be argued for in timings where they did not connect.

[ChrisB]

That would generate an awful lot of *extra* delay minutes during disruption as the fast crawls behind an already delayed slow. I'm not sure NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would agree to a timetable like that.

[grahame]

That would generate an awful lot of *extra* delay minutes during disruption as the fast crawls behind an already delayed slow. I'm not sure NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would agree to a timetable like that.

Ah, right. That really puts paid to the idea of a slow train leaving Worcester at 13:06, calling at Ashchurch, Cheltenham Spa, Gloucester, Cam and Dursley, Yate, Bristol Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood, Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill and getting into Bristol Temple Meads at 14:39, to be followed in by an express from Dundee at 14:43, doesn't it?

[Adelante_CCT]

Add stops at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn

Where would that leave Theale and Thatcham? Terminate those at Newbury? Thus potentially using 387s instead of an 800?

[ChrisB]

And I suspect XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) has been trying to persuade GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to amend their schedule for some time. Grandfather rights are probably in GWRs favour until that section gets a re-write. Oh hang on.....check the 2019 timetable....

[grahame]

Add stops at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn

Where would that leave Theale and Thatcham? Terminate those at Newbury? Thus potentially using 387s instead of an 800?

There's a lot of sense in running two electric trains an hour to Newbury.  Whether there's a lot of reasons against such an idea, I don't know.   Kintbury / Hungerford / Bedwyn to Theale commuter flows?

[ChrisB]

Agree with Bedwyn as that is where the locals will terminate (using bi-modes? - that's the current idea isn't it?), but if you want the others you may as well extend the Bedwyn's to Westbury. What flow is trhere from those local stations to beyond Exeter (which would require a second change)_?

[martyjon]

Ah, right. That really puts paid to the idea of a slow train leaving Worcester at 13:06, calling at Ashchurch, Cheltenham Spa, Gloucester, Cam and Dursley, Yate, Bristol Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood, Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill and getting into Bristol Temple Meads at 14:39, to be followed in by an express from Dundee at 14:43, doesn't it?

Wouldn't have thought so, XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) could overtake a local whilst the local service is serving Gloucester,  is there still a loop at Haresfield just before Standisn Junction, there was a loop at Charfield once but that may be gone even so switch the local to the reversible Up Charfield line at Yate South as far as Westerleigh Junction then of course an overtaking move can be undertaken now the 4th platform at Bristol Parkway is up and running, just needs a bit of slick signalling from Didcot,

[IndustryInsider]

That would generate an awful lot of *extra* delay minutes during disruption as the fast crawls behind an already delayed slow. I'm not sure NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would agree to a timetable like that.

Something like this I could see it panning out most favourably for connections:

SEMI-FAST^▸ (Federation Against Software Theft)            FAST
PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)  09:30           PAD  10:00
RDG^‡(resolve)  09:55           RDG  10:25
NBY^» (Newbury - next trains)  10:10           -
PEW  10:28          -
WSB^» (Westbury - next trains)  10:46          -
CLC^▸ (Castle Cary)  11:04           -
TAU^» (Taunton - next trains)  11:24           TAU  11:38
TVP  11:36           -
EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains)  11:50          EXD  11:58

The fast would continue to Penzance, and some of the semi-fasts could continue to Paignton.  You could possibly overtake the semi-fast at Taunton if running late (still maintaining connections for everyone except Tiverton Parkway passengers), or depart the semi-fast 10 minutes earlier to give a bit more of a performance buffer, but a less optimal connection at Exeter.

[JayMac]

That would generate an awful lot of *extra* delay minutes during disruption as the fast crawls behind an already delayed slow. I'm not sure NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would agree to a timetable like that.

Ah, right. That really puts paid to the idea of a slow train leaving Worcester at 13:06, calling at Ashchurch, Cheltenham Spa, Gloucester, Cam and Dursley, Yate, Bristol Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood, Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill and getting into Bristol Temple Meads at 14:39, to be followed in by an express from Dundee at 14:43, doesn't it?

Which isn't really comparable to the fast/semi fast hypothetical connection at Exeter St Davids. That following XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) from Dundee doesn't offer connections at Bristol Parkway or Bristol Temple Meads.

[grahame]

Which isn't really comparable to the fast/semi fast hypothetical connection at Exeter St Davids. That following XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) from Dundee doesn't offer connections at Bristol Parkway or Bristol Temple Meads.

Gloucester to Taunton and Plymouth journey connections?   Not the biggest flow ...

The fact that the Cross Country express arrives into Temple Meads so close behind the more local service it's been following for so long without making useful onward connections does indeed make it "not really comparable" - or rather it means that if you do compare, there's a darned sight more reason for doing it at Exeter (which ChrisB suggests "NR^» (Network Rail - home page) will not allow") than for doing it at Temple Meads (where it happens every hour already, but without the dividend of connections)

[grahame]

That would generate an awful lot of *extra* delay minutes during disruption as the fast crawls behind an already delayed slow. I'm not sure NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would agree to a timetable like that.

Something like this I could see it panning out most favourably for connections:

SEMI-FAST^▸ (Federation Against Software Theft)            FAST
PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)  09:30           PAD  10:00
RDG^‡(resolve)  09:55           RDG  10:25
NBY^» (Newbury - next trains)  10:10           -
PEW  10:28          -
WSB^» (Westbury - next trains)  10:46          -
CLC^▸ (Castle Cary)  11:04           -
TAU^» (Taunton - next trains)  11:24           TAU  11:38
TVP  11:36           -
EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains)  11:50          EXD  11:58

The fast would continue to Penzance, and some of the semi-fasts could continue to Paignton.  You could possibly overtake the semi-fast at Taunton if running late (still maintaining connections for everyone except Tiverton Parkway passengers), or depart the semi-fast 10 minutes earlier to give a bit more of a performance buffer, but a less optimal connection at Exeter.

Totally agree with the principle.

Tuning ...

Tempted to start the "09:30" earlier to serve virtually every station west of Newbury. Extra traffic lets it step up to hourly. Don't yet have the full performance envelope for class 802 for detailed suggestion. Enabler for Devizes Parkway. In proposals I have seen, the Tiverton Parkway stop is in the EXPRESS schedule (!) ... and that's because so much of their traffic is P&R^▸ (Park and Ride) from Cornwall and South / North / West Devon to London; that Tiverton stop would allow the semi-fast to make calls in the future at Wellington and/or Cullompton.

[martyjon]

That would generate an awful lot of *extra* delay minutes during disruption as the fast crawls behind an already delayed slow. I'm not sure NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would agree to a timetable like that.

Something like this I could see it panning out most favourably for connections:

SEMI-FAST^▸ (Federation Against Software Theft)            FAST
PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)  09:30           PAD  10:00
RDG^‡(resolve)  09:55           RDG  10:25
NBY^» (Newbury - next trains)  10:10           -
PEW  10:28          -
WSB^» (Westbury - next trains)  10:46          -
CLC^▸ (Castle Cary)  11:04           -
TAU^» (Taunton - next trains)  11:24           TAU  11:38
TVP  11:36           -
EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains)  11:50          EXD  11:58

The fast would continue to Penzance, and some of the semi-fasts could continue to Paignton.  You could possibly overtake the semi-fast at Taunton if running late (still maintaining connections for everyone except Tiverton Parkway passengers), or depart the semi-fast 10 minutes earlier to give a bit more of a performance buffer, but a less optimal connection at Exeter.

Totally agree with the principle.

Tuning ...

Tempted to start the "09:30" earlier to serve virtually every station west of Newbury. Extra traffic lets it step up to hourly. Don't yet have the full performance envelope for class 802 for detailed suggestion. Enabler for Devizes Parkway. In proposals I have seen, the Tiverton Parkway stop is in the EXPRESS schedule (!) ... and that's because so much of their traffic is P&R^▸ (Park and Ride) from Cornwall and South / North / West Devon to London; that Tiverton stop would allow the semi-fast to make calls in the future at Wellington and/or Cullompton.

Tempted to start a sub-thread of this thread, The Forums Vision, and the above can be the first post on that thread.

My first post would be, complete the electrification to Bristol-part-on-Avon via Bath-on-Avon and then electrify the four tracked Filton-on-Bradley Brook Bank of Bristol Part-on-Frome followed by the Henbury-on-Trym Loop and the Branch to Severn Beach-on-Severn.