Fewer local trains to Bristol Parkway

[whole diary]

[infoman]

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/cuts-to-local-train-services-hitting-some-of-bristols-poorest-communities/?utm_source=Bristol24%2F7&utm_campaign=dbe60c56c6-bristol247_newsletter_20.12.19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_67a9a4e1bd-dbe60c56c6-38758697&mc_cid=dbe60c56c6&mc_eid=86ae7efe71

[Red Squirrel]

To expand on infoman's post, Dave Redgewell is pressing for local trains to be restored

CUTS TO LOCAL TRAIN SERVICES HITTING SOME OF BRISTOL’S POOREST COMMUNITIES
Some of Bristol’s poorest communities will struggle to access jobs in the north of the city due to train timetable changes, warns a transport campaigner.

[...]

...the major changes have also seen a dramatic reduction in trains between some of the city’s smaller stations and Bristol Parkway, a key area for employment. The majority now terminate at Filton Abbeywood in order to free up space for the London service.

This means people travelling from Stapleton Road or Lawrence Hill must go to into Temple Meads in order to go back to Bristol Parkway. Commuters travelling from the Weston-super-Mare or Bedminster direction now have to change at Temple Meads, where they used to be able to get a through train.

Raising the issue at a full council meeting on Tuesday, Dave Redgewell, a campaigner and member of the mayor’s transport board, said: “I want to raise with you urgently the cuts in the Bristol train service.

“We are forced into a situation where local trains that used to cross the city between some of the poorest communities of Bedminster and Parsons Street, through to Lawrence Hill and Stapleton Road and through to the north fringe have now been cut back to run between Weston and Filton, leaving access to jobs and employment around the Bristol Parkway area very difficult for people to access outside of the few peak trains that run.

“It’s wonderful for us to have 68 minutes to London Paddington for those who can afford the high fares or can go to London.”

[...continues]

Source and full article: Bristol247

Meanwhile Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR^▸ (Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways)) chair Rob Dixon says:

To withdraw cross-city services from a city that’s infamous for traffic gridlock seems crazy.  The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) leaflet suggests alternative bus services, but this timetable change may drive people back to their cars.

Source: FOSBR

[Red Squirrel]

Sorry if this is a bit messy, but here's grahame's earlier reaction to this:

Problem of local trains stopping short of Filton Abbey Wood - update from Bristol shared with me

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have put the attached leaflet together and are working very closely with Network Rail to resolve, and they also have Meet the Manager events at both stations in the morning peak this week so customers are aware of the change.

To help GWR have a ticket easement allowing travel via Bristol Temple Meads, and the leaflet also details bus journeys through to key end destinations from Filton Abbeywood.

Apparently the London services and the Crosscountry services which are also an issue here, cannot be moved as they have to fit into tight slots at Paddington and Birmingham.  GWR had thought that they could still get their trains through to Bristol Parkway, but when NR^» (Network Rail - home page) System Operator assessed the paths their view was that they would not work. GWR reviewed each train as you can see from the leaflet they have together managed to find paths for several trains which do now go through to Bristol Parkway.  There is still an issue, especially in the off peak, but GWR have a ticket easement in place, and they will be happy to hear from customers to help find alternative bus routes to their final destination.  Network Rail Wales and Western are working with GWR on the solution and while this is not what either GWR or NR want to deliver in December, they are working hard to have a good solution in place in May.

The GWR leaflet is here: https://fosbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/20191215_GWR_Stapleton_Road_Lawrence-Hill.pdf

[ChrisB]

With the fare easement, the bit about affecting the poorest is equal to the affect on all ambulent customers....so why make the point about it? Agree it sometimes hits them harder, but not this time.

However, it definitely disadvantages the non-ambulent (in David's case, the wheelchair-bound) by causing a change of train....

[Celestial]

With the fare easement, the bit about affecting the poorest is equal to the affect on all ambulent customers....so why make the point about it? Agree it sometimes hits them harder, but not this time.

However, it definitely disadvantages the non-ambulent (in David's case, the wheelchair-bound) by causing a change of train....

I suspect it might be because the communities around Stapleton Road and Lawrence Hill are probably poorer (or maybe I should say less socio-economically advantaged) than many other parts of Bristol, and it is those who are hit hardest by having to double back. That's purely an observation viewed from the train however, so I might be wrong.

[Bmblbzzz]

Lawrence Hill is statistically the most deprived ward in the southwest of England. That's measured on "multiple scores of deprivation" so not just by income.

[ChrisB]

My point is that it isn't relevant to this story.

[Celestial]

The article starts with "Some of Bristol's poorest communities", which given Bmblbzzz's comment does seem relevant.  Those economically deprived are more likely to be reliant on public transport, and may not have a car to fall back on, nor the means to purchase one at short notice.

All very well saying they're not affected this time as they can double back via Temple Meads but their journey each way will be increased by up to 20 minutes, have the reliability affected by the need to change and have two trains not one to rely on.

[Red Squirrel]

My point is that it isn't relevant to this story.

It's not only relevant, it's the whole point.

[ChrisB]

How? With no additional cost - it'll affect everyone the *same*

[Red Squirrel]

How? With no additional cost - it'll affect everyone the *same*

So the time and inconvenience don't matter?

[ChrisB]

This don't affect the poorest any more than the non-poorest - that's my point. So mentioning the poorest is n't necessary - everyone is similarly affected!

[Red Squirrel]

This don't affect the poorest any more than the non-poorest - that's my point. So mentioning the poorest is n't necessary - everyone is similarly affected!

Except that this is about communities, not people. The communities living around the affected stations are the poorest in Bristol.

[ChrisB]

indeed they are, I don't doubt that.

But if they weren't, they'd still be affected in exactly the same ways....as I say, there's no need to include the word 'poorest' as it makes not the slightest amount of differwence whether those communities are poor or not in this case.

[Celestial]

Also, and I'll admit this is a bit of a generalisation, but the lower socio-economic groups are more likely to work in jobs where there is limited or no flexibility in start times. So the increase in unreliability brought about by having to rely on two trains is more important.