SWR timetable consultation - a suggestion

[whole diary]

[Mark A]

Apart from being mortified that I've not joined, I wonder if the WWRUG^» (West Wiltshire Rail Users Group - about)  has a category of membership for the likes of organisations. A 'Corporate' class of membership as it were..

Mark

I don't believe we have such a class - we are a USER group - but we would love to have you as a member, Mark.   On the other way round, WWRUG *is* a member of organisations which have corporate memberships.

That's reasonable. I was thinking that a move to reinstate this service could really do with backing from the organisations that would benefit. For starters, that's further and higher education. Universities promote sustainable travel and their marketing departments certainly keep tabs on the 'catchment areas' they serve. They shouldn't be averse to backing a move to reintroduce through services via Salisbury if its something that would directly benefit their students and also their bottom line.

Perhaps such organisations should task a member of staff to contribute to SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)'s timetable consultation, but they can also use their links with local politicians and MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament, or Mile Post (a method of measuring the railway in miles and chains from a starting point - usually London), depending on context). It would be good to provide information on the lines of communication they should pursue on this. WWRG members may be able to say what would be most effective. The Scottish Borders Railway campaign really took off when people started discussing at the hairdressers, so to speak - out in the community and among people who wouldn't think of themselves as 'Rail campaigners'. Wiltshire's trains to Waterloo may already be in that fortunate position.

Mark

[Mark A]

Looking to the pre-2021 timetable, the 19:20 from Waterloo saw the train split at Salisbury, the front portion went off out West and the rear portion headed for Bristol and then returned to Salisbury.

2026, and its nearest equivalent in the timetable splits at Salisbury, the front portion heads for the likes of Yeovil Junction and the rear portion heads for the depot for the night, so while there's still the issue of train staff and route knowledge Westbury to Bristol and back, for that service at least there's no need to be coupling 159s and 158s. Also, I believe on its late evening return from Bristol to Salisbury that train wasn't exactly carrying fresh air. Anecdotally, the only time I saw it at Bath Spa it was around 80% full. In the 2026 timetable, is there even an equivalent service?

Mark

[grahame]

In response to a number of follow ups on Faceplant saying "they're not going to give you more trains ...."

Read my lips - NO MORE TRAINS.  Sorry to shout, but I have read so many social media posts in the last fortnight telling me that asking GBR^▸ (Great British Railways)|SW for more trains in their timetable review is unlikely to be delivered.   WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR MORE TRAINS - we are asking for existing trains to be retimed and joined up to make a better network product. It seems I have not got this message across; we know this is a timetable review and not an investment plan.

Current:
Bristol to Salisbury - 12 stations = 66 direct station to station flows each way
Salisbury to Waterloo - 9 stations = 35 direct flows (not CLJ to WAT as CLJ is set down / pick up only)
Total - 101 direct flows

Proposed:
Bristol to Waterloo - 20 stations = 189 direct flows each way (still not between CLJ and WAT)

I grant you that many flows (both current and future) are thin but look at some of the direct service gains:
* Basingstoke - that hidden hive of industry half way to London - gets direct Bath and Bristol trains
* Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon get direct trains to London
* Oldfield Park gets trains to Clapham Junction and Waterloo - great for student population from south of The Thames

It stikes me that this change of timetables is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to join things up into a network for the passengers, and bring us the gain from nationalisation as we move away from competitive fiefdoms which caused friction and poor service provision across regional territories.  A win-win chance.

Carla Denya, Dan Norris, Wera Hobhouse, Anna Sabine, Brian Mathew, Andrew Murrison, Caroline Noakes, Kit Malthouse, Luke Murphy, Will Forster, Marsha De Cordova and Florence Eshalomi - please take note; this will provide residents and businesses around stations in YOUR constituency with better travel options.

Pictures - current express Sprinter trains along the line.  Different paint jobs, maybe

[grahame]

and someone adds

and extra bloody carriages!

No and yes - the overcrowding is from West Wiltshire into Bath and Bristol at present. The trains that terminate at Salisbury from Bristol are much less heavily loaded as they get further from Bristol and this is an opportunity to help even out loads. Likewise, the Salisbury to London services that start at Salisbury start quieter and are picking up people all the way. So the though trains extra passengers would be biased towards the quieter section of the line.

Having said that, we were promised 5 carriage trains as routine on the Cardiff to Portsmouth service preCovid but they typically run with just 3 carriages (sometimes 2 or 4, very occasionally 5) these days even though traffic levels are back to where they were. There will be an element of relief once the Cordoba (175) fleet is properly in service in Devon and Cornwall and allows some 158 units of the type pictured to be transferred up to Bristol - but this is NOT part of the timetable update request, and we are being careful to ask for something reasonable and achievable in its own right and under the guidelines of it being a timetable change.

[Mark A]

"Direct flows": what a revealing way to present the gains - and stands the argument "This is a duplicate service between Bristol / Bath and London" on its head, lays it on a stretcher, and carries it out of the room.

Mark

[grahame]

"Direct flows": what a revealing way to present the gains - and stands the argument "This is a duplicate service between Bristol / Bath and London" on its head, lays it on a stretcher, and carries it out of the room.

Mark

Here are some of the numbers on some of those flows ... there are 2024/25 ticketed journeys made with changes needed because there is no direct train but there could be ... the 50,000 or so shown here would, on the old "loose 40% of passengers if they have to change", be 90,000 journeys.  Are our railways really happy to loose the income from 40,000 journeys - over half a million pounds of income as these are mostly long distance journeys - by a failure to join up?



How about multiple-change and awkward journeys that would be reduced to single change?  I had a look purely at Bradford-on-Avon and came up with:
384 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Gatwick
184 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Twickenham
158 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Surbiton
120 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Guildford
132 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Wimbledon
122 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Richmond
56 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Orpington
42 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and East Croydon
42 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Ashford
40 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Epsom
20 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Ramsgate
14 journeys between Bradford-on-Avon and Tonbridge
They've all been small flows - but my goodness they are mostly challenging journeys with multiple changes at present.

[grahame]

Here - https://www.facebook.com/reel/1417551663754377 - is Councillor Sam Blackwell's take on it

[grahame]

On 21st, Wiltshire Council passed a motion calling for through services from Bradford-on-Avon and Trowbridge to London (Waterloo) to be provided by the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) timetable revision, linking the Bristol -> Salisbury local service into the Salisbury -> Waterloo service.  And important considering especially that Wiltshire Council is the LTA^▸ (Local Transport Authority) (Local Transport Authority).

Unanimous - Cross party

A "friendly amendment" from Cllr Holder, saying [the] motion had "missed a trick" and added that there should be a letter to Heidi Alexander too