"We^ve tried to save link" - CENTRO

[whole diary]

[Btline]

OK - not FGW^▸ (First Great Western), but I thought that forum members who supported Lee's petition might want to read this, if they haven't already.

It's from Centro:

Letter: There have been lots of mixed messages from different parties about the future of the Walsall to Wolverhampton rail service.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify things.

Centro has fought to keep this vital rail link going on several occasions over recent years. Therefore, we were extremely disappointed when the Government again informed us of its intention to axe the service, especially after patronage has grown so significantly.

Since hearing this news, we have continually lobbied the Department for Transport to see if, together, we can find a way to retain the service.

Unfortunately, it is not only funding for the line that is preventing the rail link from continuing.

Due to rail timetable changes taking place in December related to the improved service to London, there will be no trains available to run the Walsall to Wolverhampton service, as they all need to be used elsewhere on the local rail network. If funding is provided by the Department for Transport or from local authorities, this problem will still stand in the way of retaining the service.

The only way to resolve this issue is for the Government to step in - they alone can provide the rolling stock - but unfortunately our appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

Because of this, the service will be taken off.

All Centro can do for passengers now is to look at how we can work with the Government and train companies to bring back the rail link as soon as possible.

This will involve looking at options for an even better service including the possibility of two trains an hour, a station at Willenhall and through trains to Birmingham, as part of a wider study to improve rail connections around Walsall.

Providing a rail service between Walsall and Wolverhampton has been a priority for Centro for many years, and will continue to be one.

Cllr Gary Clarke,

Chairman,

Centro-WMPTA.

Perhaps there could be a way to reintroduce the link next year - after all, the line isn't going anywhere.....

Let's stay optimistic!

[Btline]

They haven't reduced the services you say. Both are still every 10 mins.
The lm order is less than the current no of 150s. So there will be no extra stock when they arrive.

The 323s from northern will enable the cross city services to be 6 car (instead of 3). So no more stock from there either.

[Btline]

I agree, it's ridiculous!

Same for TransWilts.

[grahame]

Government propaganda perhaps??

It's a convenient simplification at the least.   Whenever you find a service that's running as a 150 + 153, it's a candidate for release of a 153 to provide a Walsall - Wolverhampton or a Swindon - Salisbury service.  And wherever you find a depot with a required availability of xx% across the units based there, you have a candidate to increase the delivery percentage to xx + a bit so provide one extra unit to provide that further service. So it's great news that Exeter can do so well with 14x units.  Interestingly, the fact that growth on some services may not be reaching the levels forecast in the franchise bids could means that there are 3, 4 and perhaps 5 car services which throughout their diagram could be reduced in a way not previously anticipated ... also to release the odd unit for the cases where an appropriate service is currently not provided.

But there *is* more to it - there's also the cost of crew, and crew availability.  Hiring a train costs a fearsome amount for a year, but crewing it (8 staff - 4 drivers + 4 conductors, I understand from FGW^▸ (First Great Western)) to run a 7 day, 2 shift per day service is also a lot of money.   And if that money's all got to be earned back from a single coach, running at quite slow average speeds on a line where the regulated fares are regulated down to a low pence-per-mile, then there's no chance of it breaking even, let alone providing profit to pass on to the shareholders.

[John R]

Government propaganda perhaps??

It's a convenient simplification at the least.   Whenever you find a service that's running as a 150 + 153, it's a candidate for release of a 153 to provide a Walsall - Wolverhampton or a Swindon - Salisbury service. 

Those who endure the 1754 Bristol to Weston may disagree with you on that point.

[grahame]

Government propaganda perhaps??

It's a convenient simplification at the least.   Whenever you find a service that's running as a 150 + 153, it's a candidate for release of a 153 to provide a Walsall - Wolverhampton or a Swindon - Salisbury service. 

Those who endure the 1754 Bristol to Weston may disagree with you on that point.

May I clarify - a candidate for consideration and in some cases the answer would be "don't be DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)".

I will add that there is an argument / discussion that we've been through before as to whether it's more important to provide (say) seats for everyone from Temple Meads to [name nearby station] at the peak of the evening rush hour, or to provide a journey that wouldn't have otherwise been possible by rail for (at first) a smaller number, saving those people around half an hour each at each end of the day. I'm aware that there are strong views both ways here, and also that the choice isn't really quite so stark as I have described it.

(Huge care is being taken to avoid stealing a needed train, I understand)

[John R]

Actually, if the only downside of releasing a 153 for a sensible Transwilts service was a bit of chronic overcrowding on the 1754 then my vote would be for the Transwilts. And that's not just because I rarely use it these days.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Those who endure the 1754 Bristol to Weston may disagree with you on that point.

I for one would most certainly disagree on that point! 

Actually, if the only downside of releasing a 153 for a sensible Transwilts service was a bit of chronic overcrowding on the 1754 then my vote would be for the Transwilts. And that's not just because I rarely use it these days.

On the other hand, John, remind me that I'm not speaking to you, next time we meet. 

[John R]

I would remind you, but I won't be able to , because you're not speaking to me. 

[Btline]

"don't be DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about)" - love it Grahame!

[Chris from Nailsea]

On a slightly more serious note: the 1754 from BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) to Nailsea this evening was certainly 'cobbled together'.  A lonely 153 waited at platform 4 for the 150 from Cardiff, when it was tagged on the back.  Even with three cars, we were full and standing.

However, if someone at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were to be brave enough to ban bicycles from 150s in the peak, that would release standing room for about four more passengers for each cyclist 'sacrificed'. And the cyclists (who pay no more for taking up the additional space of three adults standing with their wet and muddy bicycles) could catch the 1820 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) - which has plenty of space for the ruddy things!

Rant over. 

[Timmer]

However, if someone at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were to be brave enough to ban bicycles from 150s in the peak, that would release standing room for about four more passengers for each cyclist 'sacrificed'. And the cyclists (who pay no more for taking up the additional space of three adults standing with their wet and muddy bicycles) could catch the 1820 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) - which has plenty of space for the ruddy things!

Rant over. 

A rant it may be Chris but one that probably strikes a chord with quite a few peak time passengers who have to travel on cross-Bristol services that are at times not suited to carrying bikes.