Notification of different standards - Bedwyn and Melksham

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Cancellations to services between Newbury and Bedwyn

Due to a points failure between Newbury and Bedwyn fewer trains are able to run.
Train services running through these stations may be cancelled. Disruption is expected until 11:30 24/03.

Customer Advice

Owing to an issue with a set of points (the means by which trains transfer from one line to another) we are currently unable to operate the local stopping train service between Newbury and Bedwyn. Arrangements are being made for long distance services to and from the West of England to call additionally at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn stations.

Excellent substitution and makes sense to me to put in extra stops at Hungerford (population 5,000), Kintbury (population 2,000) and Bedwyn (population 2,500 including Great and Little Bedwyn) in long distance trains.

So why is it we are told that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) cannot stop those same long distance trains at Melksham (population 25,000) when the local trains are cancelled there to let the long distance trains have the line.

Double standards!!  I wonder why ...

[Oxonhutch]

Is there a minimum platform length at which an 80x can stop? Could it be occupation time of the single line section?

But yes, double standards.

[IndustryInsider]

There are several reasons, but the key one, which IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) Mark Hopwood confirmed, is that trains diverted through Melksham are exactly that.  Diverted.  And already facing a lengthy delay as a result.

The likes of Hungerford are on the line of route, so the only delay is for the station stop.

Whether it’s right or wrong, Mark does not want a further 2-3 minute delay on an already very late service that would result from the station call at Melksham.  And of course that also affects the number of diverted trains that can be squeezed through per hour on the lengthy single line section, which is why the local service is axed in the first place.

[IndustryInsider]

Thinking about this a little more...

Do these diverted trains that pass through Melksham usually call additionally at Swindon, Chippenham, Trowbridge and Westbury as well?  Surely they would need to in order to replace the local service through Melksham...much more delay incurred as a result? 

A next stop of Reading or Taunton wouldn't be much use to many Melksham passengers!

[GBM]

There are several reasons, but the key one, which IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) Mark Hopwood confirmed, is that trains diverted through Melksham are exactly that.  Diverted.  And already facing a lengthy delay as a result.

The likes of Hungerford are on the line of route, so the only delay is for the station stop.

Whether it’s right or wrong, Mark does not want a further 2-3 minute delay on an already very late service that would result from the station call at Melksham.  And of course that also affects the number of diverted trains that can be squeezed through per hour on the lengthy single line section, which is why the local service is axed in the first place.

Similar but different!
When I was training (bus), I was told that when on diversion you do not stop at any other stops on the diversion route (because you are on diversion).
This of course caused much confusion and annoyance to passengers on board and those waiting at stops as to why when they rang the bell the driver refused to stop!
Still stick to that rule, but have no idea as to whether it has been rescinded or not.  Mushrooms.....

From what I've seen on journeycheck, Westcountry trains on diversions do not stop at anything other than those listed on their original diagram. Unless they're making additional stops because a train was cancelled.
Confusing.........

[grahame]

Is there a minimum platform length at which an 80x can stop? Could it be occupation time of the single line section?

Don't know the minimum length but I do know that Avoncliff is authorised and is shorter than Melksham.

Single line section occupation IS a pertinent matter.  Melksham Station is on a corner so the stop and restart time isn't "too bad", but station duties would take time.

When I was training (bus), I was told that when on diversion you do not stop at any other stops on the diversion route (because you are on diversion).

Interesting ... when the road outside our place was closed a few weeks back, we were advised to catch the (diverted) buses from the stops that are there on other routes on other roads.  Official ;-)

From what I've seen on journeycheck, Westcountry trains on diversions do not stop at anything other than those listed on their original diagram. Unless they're making additional stops because a train was cancelled.
Confusing.........

Diverted trains often / almost routinely call at Swindon and at Westbury, and I have seen Chippenham stops added. And, yes, we are only asking for extras stops when the local train is cancelled to make way for the long distance one.

Thinking about this a little more...

Do these diverted trains that pass through Melksham usually call additionally at Swindon, Chippenham, Trowbridge and Westbury as well?  Surely they would need to in order to replace the local service through Melksham...much more delay incurred as a result? 

A next stop of Reading or Taunton wouldn't be much use to many Melksham passengers!

They are already calling at Swindon and Westbury much of the time when diverted - so you're looking at three more which is the same number as the comparator - three, Hungerford, Kintbury and Bedwyn.  Agreed that Reading - Melksham - Taunton would not be helpful; not asking for that - sensible for selected (probably semi fast - calling at Westbury anyway) services to make the extra calls.

I appreciate (and think I understand) most of the issues.   I still think it's distinctly double standards.     Of course, 45% of Hungerford passengers are to / from London, whereas it's only 8% from Melksham - perhaps that makes a difference?  I will continue to promote the case for passengers for my home town who seem to often get a raw deal - sometimes the reasons for differences are valid, but perhaps at other times because we roll over where others shout.

[bobm]

Of course before any of this can happen on the day, someone needs to find the will, the case, the budget and the time to program Melksham's station characteristics into the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) database so trains can stop there.   Perhaps find other stations with a similar issue and benefit from economies of scale?  Are there any others?

[grahame]

Of course before any of this can happen on the day, someone needs to find the will, the case, the budget and the time to program Melksham's station characteristics into the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) database so trains can stop there.   Perhaps find other stations with a similar issue and benefit from economies of scale?  Are there any others?

indeed - a recent opportunity lost (or snubbed?) when places like Pilning were added.

There are some frighteningly short term choices being made in the rail industry at present with an absolute minimum being done. The Christmas works at Westbury (30 days!) with track work should at least be making passive provision / consideration for the fourth platform at Westbury.  Trains put into store at Papworth sidings or cut up at Sims where there are short forms ... and now three days on the run, a shortage of  train crew to run all the trains scheduled to call at Melksham their complete route.  Looking wider, a new high speed line to add extra capacity between London and Birmingham - planned to run on to Manchester and to Leeds,  but yet dumping the shorter trains onto older lines once they get to the Midland with innovative alternatives needed north thereof.

[IndustryInsider]

Just on Westbury’s platform 0, isn’t passive provision already there?  In other words a running line with main aspect signals and all routes available from it?   

It would just only need the existing platform face extending out a metre or two along with any other works required to make it suitable for passenger trains as well as goods ones?

[grahame]

Just on Westbury’s platform 0, isn’t passive provision already there?  In other words a running line with main aspect signals and all routes available from it?   

It would just only need the existing platform face extending out a metre or two along with any other works required to make it suitable for passenger trains as well as goods ones?

Yes - sort of.  But the extra track is (or has been) routinely used to harbour freight trains for significant periods, so would not be available for passenger trains.  I understand that with a change in the freight operator, there may have been changes in the use of Westbury yard, and if that's the case perhaps - just perhaps - the option to extend the platform out to the remaining line might be back on the table.   I do recall that when a train split the points to the west (knocking out platforms 1, 2 and 3) that a limited non-stop service was provided via the back line, so it may already be signalled for passenger trains.

[Bob_Blakey]

Since it does not appear to have been mentioned specifically in this thread a reminder of why the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) / Treasury are apparently refusing to countenance redoubling of the route between Bradford & Thingley Junctions would be helpful.

8.3 miles of pretty well used 'local' trains, fairly frequent heavily loaded aggregates freight services and a strategic diversionary route during planned engineering works and unexpected service disruptions.

At the very least an MKM^» (Melksham (Station code) - next trains) station loop should be possible.

[GBM]

Just on Westbury’s platform 0, isn’t passive provision already there?  In other words a running line with main aspect signals and all routes available from it?   

It would just only need the existing platform face extending out a metre or two along with any other works required to make it suitable for passenger trains as well as goods ones?

Probably in the wrong thread - please move as required.
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington due 13:29
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington due 13:29 will be diverted between Frome and Pewsey.
It will be delayed at Westbury.
This is due to a fault on a train in front of this one.

It looks as if 7A60 (1050 Merehead Quarry (Fhh) to Colnbrook Foster Yeoman Fh) has sat down at signal 807 just outside of Westbury (London bound),
This has resulted in 1A80 0815 Penzance to London Paddington parking at platform 3 Westbury (not scheduled to stop).
Also means 1A81 1055 Paignton to London Paddington is parked at platform 2 Westbury.
Reduced platform availability until 7A60 moves on
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington due 14:16

[GBM]

1A80 has now morphed into 5Z84 1320 Westbury to Exeter St Davids empty coaching stock.
As at 1330 still awaiting departure having deposited it's passengers on to 1A81.

7A60 seems to have limped along a few signals and into Woodborough loop 1335.
1A81 departed 49 minutes late.
5Z84 departed 20 minutes late.

[IndustryInsider]

Yes - sort of.  But the extra track is (or has been) routinely used to harbour freight trains for significant periods, so would not be available for passenger trains.  I understand that with a change in the freight operator, there may have been changes in the use of Westbury yard, and if that's the case perhaps - just perhaps - the option to extend the platform out to the remaining line might be back on the table.   I do recall that when a train split the points to the west (knocking out platforms 1, 2 and 3) that a limited non-stop service was provided via the back line, so it may already be signalled for passenger trains.

It's currently a PF^▸ (Penalty Fare) (Permissive Freight) line, so that excludes any passenger trains except by special arrangement (such as the case you mention).  There's also a tight radius at the western end which means Class 158s (and 153s, not that there are any of those in the area anymore) are barred at that end.