Faster Services from London to Cardiff?

[mmh]

It should be done relatively close to the end - i.e. not congesting the whole network or slowing down the main journeys. E.g. Parkway split to TM and Cardiff is a time-suck and bad.

Splitting at Plymouth to send 5 cars hourly to Penzance? Makes sense! Or Swansea to go onwards... Edinburgh to head north etc etc etc. It doesn't penalize the core 'mission' - especially if one set goes ahead and one terminates. Vs going off in two directions.

I don't think splitting does make much sense where the only purpose of it is to send half a train to the final destination, reverse and then join back up to the half that remained stationary doing nothing. Why not just send the whole thing?

I don't think anyone would suggest making a London - Bristol TM journey require a splitting service!

 

[Dai Corner]

It does make you wonder why splitting and joining only works in some places. Why do we continue to buy multiple units for the places where they somehow don't work?

I think the only place Cl800s are joined/split in service at the moment is Swansea (Carmarthen portions). They had some problems early on but seem to have mastered it now. Maybe it's just a matter of training and familiarity and we'll see it happening at places like Plymouth, Cardiff, Oxford and Temple Meads in future?

I don't think splitting does make much sense where the only purpose of it is to send half a train to the final destination, reverse and then join back up to the half that remained stationary doing nothing. Why not just send the whole thing?

I don't think anyone would suggest making a London - Bristol TM journey require a splitting service!

There may be infrastructure restraints. For example I don't think Carmarthen can accommodate ten car Cl800s.

Evening Paddington - Bristols initially split at Temple Meads with the front 5 going on to Weston or Taunton releasing the rear to go to Stoke Gifford earlier for maintenance.

 

[30907]

I don't think splitting does make much sense where the only purpose of it is to send half a train to the final destination, reverse and then join back up to the half that remained stationary doing nothing. Why not just send the whole thing?

You don't leave it doing nothing - you use the stock more economically (assuming you split consistently through the day - not so good if you sometimes need to send a full length train to the country destination in the middle of the day though.)

 

[aar0]

Perhaps don’t send the Cardiff express to Swansea, I’m not sure I see a need for it.

Living in Swansea but often needing to be in London, I’m dead keen on a speedier service!

 

[cle]

I don't think splitting does make much sense where the only purpose of it is to send half a train to the final destination, reverse and then join back up to the half that remained stationary doing nothing. Why not just send the whole thing?

I don't think anyone would suggest making a London - Bristol TM journey require a splitting service!

Whole thing: platform lengths and frankly, sending too much carriage capacity to a lower demand route. It might also be a better use of stock, for example, the 5 car terminating at Plymouth could combine with a 5 car incoming from Penzance - and head back to London.

And re Bristol, somebody earlier in the thread suggesting splitting at Parkway. I agree, it's too short and too solid a route to need it. A Weston - Taunton/Exeter portion however... it's that type of thinking that might be applicable here.

Selfishly I'd love quicker journeys to Cheltenham, but that split really would be silly

 

[HST43257]

Living in Swansea but often needing to be in London, I’m dead keen on a speedier service!

But does Swansea warrant 2tph to London?

As a general Swansea resident, would you prefer a current speed service to Reading and Swindon, or a faster service to London?

 

[JonathanH]

But does Swansea warrant 2tph to London?

Swansea already gets 2tph to London when they are needed (and not when they aren't needed)

 

[HST43257]

Swansea already gets 2tph to London when they are needed (and not when they aren't needed)

True, so perhaps the fast could just extend in the busiest hours as the 2nd service

 

[irish_rail]

The issue with splits is no longer the reliability of it , more the staffing costs. It is surprising just how driver heavy it has turned out to be to do the multitude of ECS moves of 5 car sets to and from Laira and at Plymouth Station.
There is also the time penalty where trains from Cornwall must be allowed 8 minutes at Plymouth. Intercity passengers are by their very nature often infrequent rail users and there are continuing problems of passengers not being in the correct portion of the train, and upheaval it causes.
Also two times 5 car sets means twice the number of on board staff, and we are in a world now where extra staffing is hard to justify...

 

[aar0]

But does Swansea warrant 2tph to London?

As a general Swansea resident, would you prefer a current speed service to Reading and Swindon, or a faster service to London?

Oft… this is of course where the GWR or NR planners earn their keep. I reasonably often (pre covid) took the 0559 to London, which shot through Reading and post 800s took about 2hrs 40. But I also appreciate changing at Reading for Southampton and Gatwick. Really I want the line in Wales sped up I suppose… and 140mph running..!

 

[JKF]

I don't think anyone would suggest making a London - Bristol TM journey require a splitting service!

We’ll have a portion to Clifton Down please!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Really I want the line in Wales sped up I suppose

Yes please... but we also need extra tracks to allow fast trains to overtake stoppers or the fasts will just get stuck behind a Maesteg or Swanline service. The cheap(er) way of doing that is probably the Miskin station (provided it is built on Miskin loop and not on a 2-track section) promised in some of the documentation when KeolisAmey took over the W&B franchise in 2018 - but a better way would be building a new 100-125mph double-track line between Bridgend and Cardiff which could be quite a bit shorter than the existing circuitous route and effectively provide a 4-track railway between Cardiff and Bridgend (I'm not counting the Vale Of Glamorgan since the metro will clog that up at the Cardiff end). Another place that needs 4-tracking is of course Swindon-Didcot, which would allow the introduction of Bristol-Oxford services (I suggest both regional expresses using something like a 444 via Bristol Parkway and suburban stoppers using 387s via Bath). Didcot stops in London services could then be largely limited to Oxford trains, plus 1tph to Cardiff (which would also stop at Swindon, the Swansea service could perhaps then be Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading, Paddington - Swansea to Swindon would require a change of train but the Bristol-Oxford services would ensure Swindon still has plenty of trains calling).

The issue with splits is no longer the reliability of it , more the staffing costs. It is surprising just how driver heavy it has turned out to be to do the multitude of ECS moves of 5 car sets to and from Laira and at Plymouth Station.
There is also the time penalty where trains from Cornwall must be allowed 8 minutes at Plymouth. Intercity passengers are by their very nature often infrequent rail users and there are continuing problems of passengers not being in the correct portion of the train, and upheaval it causes.
Also two times 5 car sets means twice the number of on board staff, and we are in a world now where extra staffing is hard to justify...

As well as more on-board staff, where two 800s are coupled together you also have to pay the fuel and track access costs for 10 coaches while providing only about the same seating capacity as a 9-car set. With something like a class 195 you don't have the same problem of streamlined noses and kitchens taking up space and with a class 158, 450 or 444 you also have end gangways making it much easier for passengers to move to the correct portion of the train if they board the wrong one. This is why I think the concept of multiple working works well with suburban and regional units, and portion working works well with gangwayed units, but 125mph intercity units just don't work well except as single-unit trains (and so you might as well make your intercity units have a good number of carriages, not 5-car sets).

 

[HST43257]

the Swansea service could perhaps then be Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Bristol Parkway, Reading, Paddington - Swansea to Swindon would require a change of train but the Bristol-Oxford services would ensure Swindon still has plenty of trains calling).

Just call Swansea - London at Swindon. If you’re calling at Reading you may as well call at Swindon as well.

 

[Rhydgaled]

If you’re calling at Reading you may as well call at Swindon as well.

Why? Reading seems to be a more important destination both in it's own right and as an interchange than Swindon (not saying Swindon isn't important, but I made sure a Swindon call was retained in the slower London-Cardiff service).

 

[Ianno87]

The issue with splits is no longer the reliability of it , more the staffing costs. It is surprising just how driver heavy it has turned out to be to do the multitude of ECS moves of 5 car sets to and from Laira and at Plymouth Station.
There is also the time penalty where trains from Cornwall must be allowed 8 minutes at Plymouth. Intercity passengers are by their very nature often infrequent rail users and there are continuing problems of passengers not being in the correct portion of the train, and upheaval it causes.
Also two times 5 car sets means twice the number of on board staff, and we are in a world now where extra staffing is hard to justify...

Additional Vehicle mileage of running a full length train further also comes with a cost, particularly for higher speed rolling stock.

Sometimes spending on crew saves money on vehicle mileage-associated costs.

 

[anthony263]

A new line between bridgend and Cardiff certainly is a good idea

 

[JonathanH]

A new line between bridgend and Cardiff certainly is a good idea

It would seem a bit difficult to justify on the basis of one or two trains an hour though with stopping services still needing to use the existing route.

 

[Rhydgaled]

A new line between bridgend and Cardiff certainly is a good idea

It would seem a bit difficult to justify on the basis of one or two trains an hour though with stopping services still needing to use the existing route.

It could be quite a bit more than 2tph though, and certainly not as low as 1tph.

There are 2.5tph already (or were pre-COVID) running non-stop between Cardiff and Bridgend, although I think the 0.5 (the Swanline stoppers) should probably call at all stations (and run hourly) rather than running fast between Cardiff and Bridgend. At least pre-COVID, I felt that the service pattern (with full electrification and the improved acceleration of EMUs to deliver more calls on the suburban services) should be something like this:

• 2tph Maesteg - Ebbw Vale / Abertillery (all stops)
• 1tph Swansea - Hereford (all-stops)
• 1tph Swansea - Bristol Temple Meads (calling at Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Pyle, Bridgend, Cardiff Central*, Cardiff Parkway*, Newport*, Llanwern*, Magor*, Severn Tunnel Junction*, Plining*, Patchway*, Filton Abbeywood* and Stapleton Road*)
• 1tph Swansea - London Paddington
• 1tph Swansea - Manchester Piccadilly
• 1tph Carmarthen - Portsmouth Harbour** (calling at Llanelli, Morriston Tawe Valley Parkway, Port Talbot Parkway, Cardiff Central, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction, Filton Abbeywood, Bristol Temple Meads, Bath Spa, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Romsey, Southampton Central, Fareham and Portsmouth & Southsea) with extensions in some hours to/from Milford Haven and Fishguard Harbour (twice a day in the case of the latter, to provide ferry connections)

* These stations would also be served by a GWR Cardiff-Bristol/Taunton service, giving them a half-hourly pattern
** I wouldn't be at all bothered if this terminated at Cardiff Central with the Cardiff-Portsmouth remaining a seperate service

That is 3tph stopping (in red above), 1tph semi-fast (in orange) and 3tph express. Combine that with freight and I doubt it could all be accomodated on the existing 2-track railway between Cardiff and Bridgend so you would either need full/partial four-tracking of the existing route or a second route. A new line would have the advantage of being shorter, helping to acheive the Welsh Government's very ambitious journey time targets for Cardiff-Swansea and Cardiff-Carmarthen.

On the basis of my list above, you could have 4tph passenger and possibly some of the freight use the new line. If you were to have 2tph between London and Swansea (one with Didcot and Swindon calls and one without - the latter possibly ommiting Reading and/or Bristol Parkway as well) AND keep the Manchester (which in my view is more important than a second London) then you might be able to run a 20min interval fast service between Swansea and Cardiff, which would take passenger services on the new route between Cardiff and Bridgend up to 5tph.

 

[Irascible]

We’ll have a portion to Clifton Down please!

And of course Exeter via Westbury & Yeovil ( good grief I've actually done that on a service train once ).

What's the straight-through speed at Swindon these days? presumably Bald Rick's 5 mins is vs a train not slowing down at all? which does also raise the point that 5 mins shorter time on a longer journey does not seem as much utility as a stop at a major station, too.