And 1tp2h omitting Taunton and Totnes, continuing to Penzance.
Why? Are you suggesting cutting out station stops at Taunton and Totnes purely for vanity purposes?
And 1tp2h omitting Taunton and Totnes, continuing to Penzance.
No, to speed up services for passengers from more popular stations. There are already limited services that run non-stop Reading-Exeter or NewtonAbbot-Plymouth, the latter including some XC services too.Why? Are you suggesting cutting out station stops at Taunton and Totnes purely for vanity purposes?
What XC services run non stop from Newton Abbot to Plymouth?No, to speed up services for passengers from more popular stations. There are already limited services that run non-stop Reading-Exeter or NewtonAbbot-Plymouth, the latter including some XC services too.
No, to speed up services for passengers from more popular stations. There are already limited services that run non-stop Reading-Exeter or NewtonAbbot-Plymouth, the latter including some XC services too.
But why is it around 15 minutes quicker when taking the fast padd to Plymouth trains than the standard ones? Clockface timetables can be very effective however I'm not convinced they are quite so great on longer distance routes.Yes, and they are a right nuisance if you happen to want to go to Taunton or Totnes and find it is the hour when those stations don't have a standard hour stop.
Non stopping at either Taunton or Totnes does not make services faster over the course of the route because the paths are reasonably fixed at both ends of the route. It therefore becomes no more than vanity to operate services which don't call at these stations.
Well id say I'm better placed to say what plymouthians want than you with the greatest of respect.As @HamworthyGoods so eloquently put it’s about balance, and tailoring innovation for the market.
The largely commuter-based Bristol, S Wales and Cotswolds routes Innovations have all been around reducing journey time to London and improving frequencies - because that is what those routes needed to be more competitive and is the best usage of the infrastructure upgrades that have foreshadowed this timetable change.
The West of England route in the other hand is and always will be a lot more tourist-based; however the innovation in the new timetable actually makes local commuting in Devon and Cornwall more attractive; with a doubling or even tripling of frequencies in places. That is where the change was needed. The largely leisure-based London to West Country market doesn’t give a hoot that they could shave 8 minutes off their overall journey if they missed out Taunton - if anything as a whole stopping at the major interchanges and feeder points is more desirable for improving connectivity and journey options.
Yes it’s entirely possible to make journey times a few minutes quicker to Plymouth, but it isn’t worth it; it isn’t what the customers are after.
And the old chestnut about the west country trains being for tourists just isn't true, with a population of 2.5 million in the 3 far south west counties, there are more than enough locals wanting to travel to London throughout the year, ..... The south west needs to stop being treated as some kind of second class cider drinking home for druids.
- Torbay, 1/2 hourly local service introduced between Exeter and Paignton
As @HamworthyGoods so eloquently put it’s about balance, and tailoring innovation for the market.
The largely commuter-based Bristol, S Wales and Cotswolds routes Innovations have all been around reducing journey time to London and improving frequencies - because that is what those routes needed to be more competitive and is the best usage of the infrastructure upgrades that have foreshadowed this timetable change.
The salient principle applies exactly the same to the North Cotswolds as it does to the West of England route.
GW bid for a timetable that had more Reading calls and consistent departure times; as you know. As you also know that timetable was rejected by NR - who again as you know have the final say on these matters. So GW had to decide whether what was offered back achieved the majority of its objectives or rewrite the entire thing from scratch and likely not realise any benefits in December at all.
Like the WoE route, that the innovations don’t benefit one niche group of customers that want x, that doesn’t stop it being innovations for the people that want a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h or j. There has to be compromises. Times are changing, that’s what happens when you rewrite a 40 year old base timetable from scratch.
The salient principle applies exactly the same to the North Cotswolds as it does to the West of England route.
GW bid for a timetable that had more Reading calls and consistent departure times; as you know. As you also know that timetable was rejected by NR - who again as you know have the final say on these matters. So GW had to decide whether what was offered back achieved the majority of its objectives or rewrite the entire thing from scratch and likely not realise any benefits in December at all.
Like the WoE route, that the innovations don’t benefit one niche group of customers that want x, that doesn’t stop it being innovations for the people that want a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h or j. There has to be compromises. Times are changing, that’s what happens when you rewrite a 40 year old base timetable from scratch.
Sorry if its been mentioned upthread, but I've just noticed that most of the off-peak fast Padd-Bristol services have been cancelled off in Real Time Trains from the start of the new TT until Friday 10th Jan - is there a reason for this?
Sorry if its been mentioned upthread, but I've just noticed that most of the off-peak fast Padd-Bristol services have been cancelled off in Real Time Trains from the start of the new TT until Friday 10th Jan - is there a reason for this?
The fast Bristol services are being introduced at a later date to reduce the risk of the timetable change on day 1.
Presumably to allow the rest of the timetable to settle in. This is the easiest service to cancel as it is additional to the current service.
Yes thanks, I know the process.
Or are you seriously trying to claim that shaving a few minutes off a few weekday runs between Paddington and Oxford is some kind of earth-shattering change that will transform the lives of the people travelling at that time of the day?
Yes thanks, I know the process.
And from what I know, it appears that no one within GWR paused much for thought about the impact at Reading in the late afternoon and early evening, both in terms of capacity from there to Oxford and on people travelling beyond Oxford to the Cotswolds and Worcestershire, before accepting Network Rail's late-in-the-process proposal - which must have come about a year into the to-ing and fro-ing - and which was then sprung on user groups as a fait accompli.
There are a limited number of “superfast” services using the 1Hxx code between Bristol and London via Parkway with most of them been the Weston-super-Mare extensions from day 1.Sorry if its been mentioned upthread, but I've just noticed that most of the off-peak fast Padd-Bristol services have been cancelled off in Real Time Trains from the start of the new TT until Friday 10th Jan - is there a reason for this?
Of course not. That is an absurd mischaracterisation typical of your strident style. But journey times are important. One of the reasons often given for the difficulty in justifying opening new stations is that DfT (or Network rail or whoever it is) when calculating the cost-benefit of a new station proposal includes as a cost a material reduction in fare income from other stations on the line to reflect passengers discouraged from travelling because their journey is slowed by an extra stop.
The loss of journey opportunities Reading to Oxford clearly is an adverse change, but there are benefits for others from dropping some Reading stops. Whether the detriment outweighs the benefit is debatable. Lets see what happens when the timetable settles down in the new year. If there is a noticeable increase pressure on the XC service then this may need to be looked at again.
If there is a noticeable increase in pressure on the XC service?
TOC commercial teams are typically *incredibly* hot on the revenue and cost impacts of stopping pattern changes like this.
For example, a few minutes' saving on a Paddington-Oxford run may mean a hefty ORCATS swing back from Chiltern....
No wonder I'm strident when people bandy about words like 'innovation' in an apparent attempt to justify a long-standing aspect of a timetable being butchered
...that are benefit from another TOC's fast service between them to cover the flow, unlike pretty much every other pair of GWR long distance network stations.And too right it's an adverse change. Nothing of the sort is being imposed anywhere else on GWR next month, so far as I can see, never mind between two major settlements just 27 miles apart by rail and stations further out that are well within commuting range of Reading.
If 'long standing' were an important feature in a timetable, we'd still be running Sans Pareil at 25mph between Manchester Liverpool Road and Liverpool Crown Street. Demand and timetables need to move an and be refreshed and updated for the greater good.
...that are benefit from another TOC's fast service between them to cover the flow, unlike pretty much every other pair of GWR long distance network stations.
Teeny bit triggered eh? Really, a shame that someone with such an expert knowledge of the situation has to spend their days putting people right on an internet forum rather than chairing the meetings at NR to iron everything out.
We arent bandying, butchering or talking irrelevant nonsense, we are discussing a new train timetable, the benefits or otherwise of which reasonable people can disagree about. In my view your emotive tone detracts from the useful substance of your contribution.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, the number of direct trains between Reading and Oxford, whether fast or slow, has already been cut back in recent years, due to the lack of overhead wires past Didcot.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. NR did not reject the GWR timetable; in fact it was offered broadly as-bid at D-26 weeks. However there were specifics that were problematic such as the lack of freight paths between Didcot and Swindon. Solving this involved reflighting the intercity paths (Mon-Fri only) which ultimately cost those Reading stops in the down evening peak.
Surely the freights should fit round the passenger trains (as passengers are much more time sensitive than freight), not vice-versa?
That's what happened in the joined up railway.
The question then arises, should the requirements of freight trains cause the removal of a popular Reading stop in the peak, albeit indirectly?
Surely the freights should fit round the passenger trains (as passengers are much more time sensitive than freight), not vice-versa? For starters, presumably they should try and time freight trains to avoid peak periods on busy lines line this as much as possible, i.e. avoid using the GW main line on the Didcot-Swindon section for a couple of hours, say 1730-1930.