Off peak trains from Bedwyn replacement by Newbury shuttle to be permanent

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From Steve Smith of Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group - circulated to all the group, so now "public domain"

Message from Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group
 
On March 2nd Bill Wells and I participated in a conference call with GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway). The MD of GWR, Mark Hopwood, spoke first and delivered some very bad news. Our Paddington direct IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) off-peak services are permanently being axed from May and replaced by diesel shuttle services to Newbury.
 
In short the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), who took financial control of the railways from the start of the pandemic, have told GWR to cut costs. To do this GWR have decided to retire older diesel trains in the West Country and replace them with the three IET trains that serve Bedwyn, Hungerford and Kintbury. You may recall these trains are something we fought hard for from the announcement, in 2009, of electrification to Newbury to their rollout some ten years later. Initially, when electrification was announced, our entire service would have been a diesel shuttle service to Newbury. It was a long fight and in December 2019 we ended up with the best service we ever had. This was then hit by Covid in March 2020 and cracks in the IET fleet. We were hoping our IETs would fully return to service in May and end the additional diesel shuttles to Newbury we have been enduring. But instead we are an easy target and we are being sacrificed again. Add to that we often get sacrificed by missed connections at Newbury and it doesn't bode well.
 
It will leave us on the worst timetable since June 1992 (when the pre-Turbo fleet was retired). The direct commuter peak morning service will be fairly good (with stops on through trains), but we will only have two direct trains back in the evening. Everything else will be hourly diesel shuttles between Bedwyn and Newbury only, some of which have decent connections to and from Paddington, while some have journey times between Bedwyn and Paddington of up to two hours and in one case more.
 
The diesel shuttles from Bedwyn will connect in with the Class 387 Paddington to Newbury service. These latter trains are electric only. Ironically our three IET trains (which are bi-mode, running on electric to Newbury and diesel beyond) will be redeployed to a non-electrified area of the network. So that’ll be circa £200m of rolling stock designed for electric traction unable to make use of it. Additionally the Bedwyn siding was extended, at a cost in excess of £1m, to accommodate the IETs. The extension will now be a white elephant. You couldn’t really make this up.
 
The MD of GWR acknowledged this was far from ideal and it would be an aim of his to get our service back. However, we did feel these were words of comfort when there is no plan for this. GWR would need to find extra rolling stock and, in the current climate, it’s unlikely to be found.
 
During our campaign to retain our direct Paddington service, post electrification, there were three options:
 
1.       Extend electrification to Bedwyn: This was something we didn’t champion. BTPG have always been very cautious about bringing the ugly overhead wires and gantries through the Kennet Valley.
2.       The bi-mode IET solution: This was the one that was implemented and we thought would be with us for many years.
3.       Kitting the Class 387 trains with batteries so they could run onto Bedwyn. GWR were seriously considering this before going for option 2.
 
Given the Class 387s are now operating to Newbury, Bill and I feel point 3 is what we will now campaign for.
 
The last two years have shown us that connections at Newbury don’t work. The connections are not guaranteed and the fact you even have to change trains is off-putting. We have made it very clear to GWR how unhappy we are and that connections at Newbury are not reliable enough. GWR have promised to look at better ways of getting the connections to work. But, given we have campaigned on this point since we formed sixteen years ago, we can’t see any great improvement.
 
Beyond May Bill and I will campaign for additional stops on through services and improved connections at Newbury. We will additionally start a campaign to get batteries added to the Class 387 units so the Paddington / Newbury service can be extended to Bedwyn.
 
What can you do?
 
1.       Please let us know which trains are currently essential for school and college travel. We are awaiting the ‘final’ May timetable from GWR and we want to be sure this works for school and college children.
2.       Write to your MP^▸ (Member of Parliament): laura.farris.mp@parliament.uk or danny.kruger.mp@parliament.uk
3.       We’ll need more support for our campaigns so we need to expand our email list. If you know of fellow commuters/users please can you ask them to contact us and be added to our email list: info@bedwyntrains.org.uk
 
Best wishes
 
Steve Smith
Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group

[Timmer]

Hmmmm, this back ups this:
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=26072.0

[paul7575]

At least they managed to avoid getting the route wired, that must be a relief…

[IndustryInsider]

At least they managed to avoid getting the route wired, that must be a relief…

It does seem like they still don’t want to campaign for the most logical solution rather perversely.

A great shame to see the all-day direct service permanently go.  A Hungerford stop on the 2-hourly semi-fasts that pass through would be a sensible gesture IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

[infoman]

I think the wires are ugly as well,but what is the solution in the many years too come for "the wires"

Batteries

Digging a trench where the train lines are,so the wires can't seen?

[nickswift99]

I think the wires are ugly as well,but what is the solution in the many years too come for "the wires"

Batteries

Digging a trench where the train lines are,so the wires can't seen?

I believe the trench was already dug before the railway arrived. The Kennet and Avon canal isn't particularly suited to electrification though.

[Robin Summerhill]

Sorry to be downbeat, but if the Bedwyn Rail Users opposed electrification, this might be a classic example of "be careful what you wish for"

Edit - by Graham - they did not ... see later in thread ...

[Reading General]

Yes, I think this was inevitable post electrification. The Bedwyn run is clearly a special use for the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train). As I’ve said before if it didn’t turn short at Bedwyn and instead terminated at Westbury, you would save a Pewsey stop on faster trains, create an hourly frequency at Pewsey, and a key hourly link west for Newbury.

I guess the service has been restored to what it was in the locomotive hauled, NSE^▸ (Network South East),  network express days and it was only convenience that Bedwyn got its link, through the arrival of the turbos and less coaches being required.

[didcotdean]

According to this Newbury News article the Bedwyn Train Passengers Group was circulating a petition in 2015 campaigning for electrification to be extended as far as Bedwyn supported by the then MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Newbury Richard Benyon.

[paul7575]

According to this Newbury News article the Bedwyn Train Passengers Group was circulating a petition in 2015 campaigning for electrification to be extended as far as Bedwyn supported by the then MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Newbury Richard Benyon.

Good that they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet, (or wiring diagram)… 

[grahame]

Sorry to be downbeat, but if the Bedwyn Rail Users opposed electrification, this might be a classic example of "be careful what you wish for"

I don't think they did, Robin - I have known them for many years and was around and looking / listening at the time that the studies were being done about extending electrification to Westbury from Newbury, from Bathampton and from Thingley.  There may have been a (very, very very) few voices against that got reported and perhaps given a weight out of all proportion to their support, in very much the same way we have seen the rubber road surface for Portishead getting publicity very much beyond the supporters it has or sanity.

[Robin Summerhill]

That's not exactly what it says here Graham, although I agree the precise wording is ambiguous

During our campaign to retain our direct Paddington service, post electrification, there were three options:
 
1.       Extend electrification to Bedwyn: This was something we didn’t champion. BTPG have always been very cautious about bringing the ugly overhead wires and gantries through the Kennet Valley.

Edit by Graham - exceptoionally, I'm adding to a post "in situ".

YES - the wording is ambiguous ... electrification was not opposed and if you look forward to reply no. 16 you'll find. BIG piece from me!

[eightonedee]

Just realised - I posted to the wrong thread earlier today 

This is symptomatic of the disgrace of where the most recent phase of the GW^▸ (Great Western) system has left us.

You have to ask which fool  signed off not extending this through to Bedwyn, the destination of many London commuter services on the Kennet valley line. It is almost as foolish as the decisions not to take it through to Bristol Temple Meads and Oxford.

...should have been posted here.

And although it is a dangerous thing for a resident of the Goring Gap to say, I think we all have to accept that if we are to have low emission public transport it inevitably means OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line). For an example of how it might be done more sympathetically - see - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18592.msg249179#msg249179

[didcotdean]

It isn't too difficult to find blogs of individuals that were opposed to Bedwyn electrification not so much on aesthetic grounds but a feeling that it would increase road traffic to the station (& associated parking problems) for the improved service. No indication this was related at all to the Passenger Group though.

[Robin Summerhill]

It isn't too difficult to find blogs of individuals that were opposed to Bedwyn electrification not so much on aesthetic grounds but a feeling that it would increase road traffic to the station (& associated parking problems) for the improved service. No indication this was related at all to the Passenger Group though.

Many years experience tells me that those opposed to anything will always find what they think is a "good reason"

The simple fact is that many people don't like change. Any change.

I recall a story from an old boy in the pub in Studley near Calne some years ago.

“They came to my door and asked me to sign their petition to stop the new housing estate being built. I said I signed a petition back in the 60s to stop them building your house, and what good did it do me?”

But more on topic, I was on the Great Central during the weekend of closure and there were many people still protesting about losing their trains. Of course, they never actually used them; presumably they just liked to watch the trains go by.

Now the children and grandchildren of those protesters are now protesting about having to watch the trains go by again...