SWR Consultation for December 2022 - for members only

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Need to bear in mind that farebox extraction services aren't likely to survive now that all farebox money goes one way - to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).

But what the DfT now need to realise is what happens to the customers currently being carried on these services - they are still likely to travel, so unless the 'main' services on the route(s) can currently cope with these additional pax, then they'll need to retain services that can.

On the Bristol services, I wonder whether the "via Warminster and Salisbury" SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) fares will survive for very long or whether it will soon become part of "any permitted" tickets set by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) as part of a process of "simplification"



Now
... 25 passengers per train from a combinations of stations from Bristol to Trowbridge headed for London
... on 4 trains per day (5th being too late for London)
... spending an average of £25 less for their return journey than they would via Reading into Paddington
... for 7 days a week
... 50 weeks per year
works out as £875,000 per annum extra income if those fares are abolished and everyone still travels to London anyway by train.

[Surrey 455]

Unfortunately it was reduced to an hourly service last year both peak and off peak. Page 17 of that document wrongly shows 2 trains in the May 2021 timetable for Guildford to Waterloo via Bookham and Leatherhead. I'm mildly pleased that they hope to re-introduce a half hourly service in the peaks but would have been happier if that were off-peak too.

Not great they are trying to make a Covid cut - completely understandable during lockdowns - permanent.  I do hope there is a big local campaign which makes the point about promoting the service too. 

Chris Grayling and local councillors are objecting to the proposal.

From Leatherhead Living

Former Transport Minister and Ashtead/Epsom MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Chris Grayling has drawn attention to the proposed permanent reduction in the rail service by South Western Railway into Waterloo.

This would see Bookham reduced to a single SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) service every hour, and a reduction of two trains an hour from Dorking to Waterloo via Leatherhead.

Mr Grayling advised rail users and local representatives to look at the proposal from SWR in response to reduced demand during the pandemic and anticipated reduction in full time commuting in future with flexible working. SWR have highlighted only around 5 users of each service at Bookham in 2019 pre-pandemic.

Bookham councillor Nancy Goodacre and Ashtead councillor Patricia Wiltshire have also mentioned the knock on affect of Bookham commuters driving to Leatherhead or Ashtead to park. This was at the Mole Valley Development Management Committee 4 August in the context of agreement to use the Randalls Road Leatherhead car park opposite the station for construction worker parking for Transform Leatherhead riverside redevelopment works.

My journeys to and from work are probably about an hour before the peaks so I'm not sure what the current usage is. My trains see at least 20 people get on in the morning and similar get off in the afternoon.

[Mark A]

Hi - first post in a while, please be gentle - I've slung a cut and paste from the consultation PDF below. There are a number of aspects to the announcement of a prior decision on the Bristol - Waterloo services which... stink:

* The cessation of the (popular) Bristol-Waterloo service is not part of the December 2022 consultation so should not have been announced via a single paragraph 37 pages into a report on something completely different - a very Vogon-like tactic. This approach is (surely deliberately) damaging to the prospects that travellers will see this decision reversed.

* A previous attempt to cease this service resulted in an early day motion in the House of Commons and a pile-on from 30 MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) who lent their name to the cause.

* It may only be the Department for Transport that thinks this service duplicates other trains. Its users are very well aware that it does not.

* It is poor practice to cut services in an unconsidered way during a pandemic.

* This is an example of an organisation (the Department for Transport) making changes under cover of a national crisis (Covid) and this should be called out and not encouraged.

* There is very little awareness of the withdrawal of the Bristol to Waterloo trains among the travelling public and indeed with, now, a three month lead time, reduced opportunity for people to make adjustments to their travel mode when these services cease. Perhaps the first thing that should happen is this proposed change should be postponed to 2022 to match those in the rest of this document in order that a proper consultation can be followed through on what is a valued service that has been known to load to capacity.

* The untruth in the concluding sentence: 'Great Western Railway will continue to meet demand on the line' has angered me - often, the railway has done anything but 'meet demand' for travel between Salisbury and Bristol.

Perhaps the cessation of this service deserves its own thread on this forum - and would the thread be better off in a public part of the site?

Mark

"SALISBURY TO BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS
The route between Salisbury and Bristol Temple Meads has historically been served by both SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) and Great Western Railway, with SWR running  ve of the average 25 daily services in the May 2019 timetable.
Following a separate review with the Department for Transport, SWR will withdraw its current three daily services from December 2021 as duplicating services between the two operators does not provide good value for the taxpayer.
Great Western Railway will continue to meet demand on the line and services will connect into London bound trains at Salisbury, Bath and Westbury."

[grahame]

Perhaps the cessation of this service deserves its own thread on this forum - and would the thread be better off in a public part of the site

Yes, that's probably now appropriate. The news came, as you suggest, from the wider 2022 consultation which is not (why not, I wonder!) public.

Your intro post is excellent - I'm going to suggest you start a new thread in SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) services (any member can start a thread there - quick link http://www.passenger.chat/b42 .  I and others can then follow up with some 'intelligence' and a public discussion.   By YOU starting the thread it will have more weight - not "there goes Graham ... again!"

Your points are all excellent - let's answer them in public, where all the decision makers can read them if they happen to visit - and you might be surprised ... 

[Mark A]

Thanks for this - I'll do just that and start a public thread.

Mark

[stuving]

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) South Today had a short piece on this consultation last night. It just had the basic facts in it, with one big exception - the dates. Of course, letting on this introductory mention was six weeks into a seven-week consultation period would have made them look rather inept.

The piece ended with the half-truth that passengers could not contribute. Of course those that were, or could be, members of one of those mysterious "stakeholder" organisations could contribute. But, in some cases, only if they knew about it six weeks ago.

[grahame]

Note to forum members - TravelWatch SouthWest has submitted inputs today with major comment and request on the Bristol and West Wiltshire to Waterloo through services.  Thanks to the various members who have individually checked our comments on that matter - you'll know who you are.  Steps taken to ensure the message for this December reaches the key players strong and prompt.

[anthony215]

I used the morning Bristol TM^‡(resolve)  to london Waterloo service regularly i have ever since Wakes and Borders/ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) ran services as it was ideal.tp get to south London.

SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) have had a rather choice response from me  along with some ideas on how to keep the service and further improve it.

I've written to the Welsh government as I know I'm not the only person from South wakes who traveled to Bristol TM to connect with itin fact theres been requests for it to be extended to Cardiff.  We were told Rolling stock was one reason why we couldn't get our wish.

Welsh government coming under pressure about the sky high fares charged by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and  there's anger about Grandunions original application being rejected.  Competition would help operators long term and I think a regular 2 hourly Cardiff to London waterloo service offering cheaper fares would be well used especially for customers wanting south London especially Clapham Junction. Since I drive for NX on the 507/509 Cardiff to London coach services ive found a large amount of customers are requested get off at Earls Court and a few have said they either getting a local bus or walking to Olympic get a service to Clapham.

Since GWR Portsmouth services leave Bristol TM  around 20 past each hour the Swr service left at like 0850 that offereca 2tph to Salisbury etc

I'm.hoping SWRhave sense, can't help thinking if we still had SWT^▸ (South West Trains) this wouldn't be up for the chop

[IndustryInsider]

I'm.hoping SWRhave sense, can't help thinking if we still had SWT^▸ (South West Trains) this wouldn't be up for the chop

Given all operators currently dance to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)’s tune, what makes you think that SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) have any real involvement in the decision, and what makes you think that it would have been any different under SWR?

[grahame]

I used the morning Bristol TM^‡(resolve)  to london Waterloo service regularly i have ever since Wakes and Borders/ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) ran services as it was ideal.tp get to south London.

SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) have had a rather choice response from me  along with some ideas on how to keep the service and further improve it.

I've written to the Welsh government as I know I'm not the only person from South wakes who traveled to Bristol TM to connect with itin fact theres been requests for it to be extended to Cardiff.  We were told Rolling stock was one reason why we couldn't get our wish.

A couple of years back there was talk of a real need for extra Bristol - Cardiff services (and remember http://www.sewweb.info - asleep but not deceased! )  - and with MetroWest, logic is 4 trains an hour Cardiff to Bristol - two all stations services, one carrying on to Weston-super-mare and one to Basingstoke (all stations to there) then Woking, Clapham Junction and Waterloo.  Other trains in the pattern are of course the Cardiff - Penzance and the Swansea - Portsmouth, skipping many of the new stations proposed in South Wales, Pilning, Patchway, Horfield and Lawrence Hill.

I'm.hoping SWRhave sense, can't help thinking if we still had SWT^▸ (South West Trains) this wouldn't be up for the chop

Railfuture (Wessex Branch) took the lead for Railfuture in answering the consultation and here is what they wrote:

Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads.
                                                                                                                                                             
We note firstly that you propose to withdraw this service from December 2021 (page 37). This proposal will result in a significant loss of connectivity between Bristol and the other stations on the route and destinations between Salisbury and Waterloo, especially Clapham Junction. Many rail users wish to avoid cross London journeys and this provides an essential link for passengers with luggage, wheelchairs etc. As referred to in item 27, the logic of an alternative supplier appears to be applied selectively.                                                                                         

This route is very heavily used, especially between Bath and Trowbridge, with frequent crush loading. Given your assumptions about the return of leisure travel, we do not accept that these trains should be withdrawn without seeing precisely how GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will “meet demand” (page 37) on this section of route. It seems ironic that the proposal to withdraw this service will result in Salisbury traincrew losing some 23 miles of diversionary route knowledge required as part of the proposals in item 27.

It is significant that the former (retired) MD of SWT is a director of Railfuture and key active member of the Wessex Branch 

[grahame]

Looking for a case study - Members area as not quite in public ... I have posted this on social media:


Hi, do you (or have you) used the direct trains from Bradford-on-Avon or Trowbridge to London (Waterloo)? Would you be prepared to help the campaign to retain them by appearing on BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Points West next week to let viwers know how useful they are to you personally? 

The BBC are doing a story on my petition - which is at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/598397 - and are looking for a "case study". It's good fun doing TV like this, and the BBC look after you; their tough questions are typically reserved for the campaign organisers (that's to help us put the case across) and the organisations targetted by the campaign. 

Not everyone is happy to appear on TV - if you are, and have used the service, please let me know.  If you want to know more about what it might entail, please ask.

Please feel free to tell others / suggest people to get in touch with.  But I am not going quite as far as making this post public

[Mark A]

{Mods, this is a bit ranty: no offence taken if you find this is not helpful and put it in cold storage}

Pursuing the time-sensitive issue of the Bristol to Waterloo trains, I've found the conversation with Transport Focus has been hampered by long turnaround times (at their end, the issue of these trains seems to have them up a tree). I've pasted their latest reply at the end of this post.

Please, no-one should start digging into the document describing Transport Focus's statutory duties as that's probably a very deep and dark mine to enter - and in any case was last updated in 2015, so, in parts, it even has a European Union flavour to it (and one wonders if those requirements have been rolled over into UK^▸ (United Kingdom) law and are still in force).

(Here's a link to it, mind)
https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/migrated/Statutory%20duties%20of%20Transport%20Focus%202015.pdf

In their response to me, I'm not loving the phrase: 'Transport Focus hasn't got a formal role in the compilation of timetables' and not comforted by 'Transport Focus will definitely continue to keep a close eye on the situation'. If they're not able to do more than make sensible recommendations that can then be totally ignored (as continued responses to MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) from the secretary of state indicate) then as an individual passenger I do not feel 'Represented' by this organisation - but also concerned that they may have found themselves in a hostage situation and their staff are lying, hands bound, in a basement.

I'm also thinking 'What could Transport Focus do better here?'

Well, when presented with this behaviour by the Department for Transport, they could have a checklist to hand and could run through whether what is proposed meets the requirements of the equality act or would be looked upon unfavourably by the Markets and Competition Authority - rather than leaving this to individual passengers / campaigners / the likes of Graham, no matter how dedicated he is - and it appears that he is very dedicated.

It shouldn't be left to the customer to 'lawyer up' and if Transport Focus finds that they're making recommendations only to be ignored in the same way that, at the Trowbridge meeting, the public were ignored, it would be good if they had additional cards up their sleeves.

<rant>I'm sure they'll send a representative to accompany me as, in just six weeks time, I step down from the 19:20 departure from Waterloo at Salisbury, and instead of the 10 to 15 minute connection indicated in writing by the Secretary of State for Transport, there's the full 50 minutes or more to enjoy the ambience of a thinly populated interchange station.</rant>

<rant>Oh and the waiting room'll be closed so even more reason to be at the platform end, videoing the train crew taking the portion of the Exeter service that formerly headed usefully to Bristol, off to the depot.</rant>

<rant>I also note that while Transport Focus issues regular newsletters, these tend to be divided into three sections headed 'Scotland', 'Wales', 'London' - though October's was particularly bold and also included 'Birmingham'. I'm wondering if they care how this looks to... everywhere in the UK that is not in Scotland, Wales or the city state of London. We are after all jointly funding Transport Focus to the tune of around £6 million per annum.</rant>

So, I'm minded to respond and suggest that they flag with everyone, the organisation that funds them included, the potential that this breaches the Equality Act 2010 - and at least pretend that they've had the Markets and Competition Authority on the phone.

Mark

Transport Focus response:

"I’ve now received advice from my colleagues. I’ve been reminded that Transport Focus hasn’t got a formal role in the compilation of timetables. However, we encourage consultation with users but we have no rights in this regard. On this occasion SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) consulted and we would like to assure you that we raised concerns about the proposed withdrawal of services, making our position clear in our response, as indeed have lots of other people. We advised that the changes to the West of England services are deferred until 2022 to give the opportunity for proper consideration to passenger’s feedback.

As I mentioned earlier SWR consulted us and now we’re waiting for the results of that consultation. Though nothing’s been received as yet Transport Focus is pushing for an answer.

I appreciate this may seem a bit evasive but Transport Focus will definitely continue to keep a close eye on the situation."

[Lee]

I would leave that chocolate teapot to one side and get a better one, if I were you.

[TonyN]

I think they may have to much to do I recived this in an email today.

Dear Transport User Panellist,

This my be an odd request, but do you drive a heavy lorry in England or know anyone who does?

Transport Focus is the independent watchdog for transport users. As part of that we represent the interests of users of England's motorways and major A-roads.

To help improve conditions for lorry drivers, we want to know which existing roadside facilities in England would benefit from additional toilets, shower facilities and/or areas to rest.

If you are a driver of heavy lorries in England, please complete a short questionnaire on roadside facilities by clicking on the link which is on our website here:

www.transportfocus.org.uk/insight/transport-user-panel

If you do not drive a lorry in England, but happen to know someone who does, please forward this email to them so that they can complete it. Please note that this survey closes at 9am on Monday 8th November.

If you cannot help on this occasion, that is fine and please ignore my email.

Kind regards,

Toby

Panel Manager

[Mark A]

I would leave that chocolate teapot to one side and get a better one, if I were you.

Agreed: I've just bought a National Express coachcard, but am feeling sorry for rail users in Bradford on Avon, Trowbridge, Warminster etc as they do not have so many coach services on the doorstep.