Future AT300 deployment plans in the South West

[freetoview33]

There is no way these trains won't be stopping at Kemble or Stroud. The two local MPs would have a fit. I could see the rationale behind them not stopping at Stonehouse but AFAIK the proposed GWR timetable for 2018 only includes local Swindon-Gloucester trains in the peaks so if they remove Stonehouse it's service would go from hourly to two hourly during the day.

Gloucester County Council wants 1 service to not call at Kemble or Stroud

BUT

Either a new service Gloucester - Swindon - Westbury
Or Swindon - Gloucester - Worcester service
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but that was hourly to Plymouth in the context of more Paignton trains splitting from a Penzance service, which would likely lead to overcrowding west of Exeter or Newton Abbot. And isn't going to happen.



There aren't that many GWR HST services doing that run now and that's not going to change when the new trains arrive. Though most passengers wedged into a Voyager would probably welcome an increase...



It's not about Exeter, this service is mainly about the intermediate stations, so that the Plymouth and Penzance services will be non-stop between Reading and Taunton and no longer have to make stops along the Berks & Hants.



What about it? It seems to be just the same outline as your earlier post.

As Noddy says, Kemble, Stroud and Stonehouse stops are not going to be dropped. They have been promised an hourly service to and from London already. The bulk of the Cotswold Line/Worcester service will be worked by Class 800s unless an order for more 802s is confirmed. You still don't seem to want to recognise that the London-Worcester service is not some neat and tidy shuttle. The extensions to/from Great Malvern and Hereford need to be factored in and aren't at neat regular intervals either, never mind the half-hourly service in the direction of the main peak flows. And that contra-peak services, such as the early morning trains out of London, will be fine with a five-car train, as they are now with 180s working them.

I can't find a pdf of the slides from the full GWR presentation from last year online but there is a cutdown version that was used at a Travelwatch Southwest event, which does give the broad outline of all future GWR long-distance service patterns from December 2018 and more detail on the West Country services generally.

http://travelwatchsouthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Travelwatch-Presentation-October-2015.pdf

GCC also would like the London Services to Gloucester to extend to Hereford! So I don't think things are as clear cut as they seem!

 

[bramling]

Yes, sorry - west of Penzance would have been interesting!

The day to day loadings are being kept under close review by GWR so they can plan the December 2018 diagrams with some confidence. Getting summer 2019 right with such a step up in service provision is going to be a fair old job for the planners.

Incidentally, a PRM 2 car cl.158 has around 132 seats.

Must admit I'm still to be convinced as to the suitability of short trains into Cornwall.

At certain times trains can be extremely busy into Cornwall, at least with today's HST the passenger is guaranteed a long train. GWR will have to be very responsive to potential spikes in demand around holiday times, good weather and events - maybe I'm being cynical but I have a feeling in a few years time we'll be reading complaints about overcrowding on here and how lengthening "can't be easily done" for one reason or another.

 

[freetoview33]

Must admit I'm still to be convinced as to the suitability of short trains into Cornwall.

At certain times trains can be extremely busy into Cornwall, at least with today's HST the passenger is guaranteed a long train. GWR will have to be very responsive to potential spikes in demand around holiday times, good weather and events - maybe I'm being cynical but I have a feeling in a few years time we'll be reading complaints about overcrowding on here and how lengthening "can't be easily done" for one reason or another.

Hopefully if they are worked by 2x5car that split at Plymouth. Then in the Summer there could be more services to Cornwall (Newquay ect)

 

[Noddy]

Gloucester County Council wants 1 service to not call at Kemble or Stroud

BUT

Either a new service Gloucester - Swindon - Westbury
Or Swindon - Gloucester - Worcester service
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


GCC also would like the London Services to Gloucester to extend to Hereford! So I don't think things are as clear cut as they seem!

I'm not sure where you are getting your info from but the first part of your post would suggest GCC is asking for exactly the same service as present, only with (5 car) 800s and 16Xs (probably) instead of 7/8 car HSTs and 15Xs. Even though the GWR franchise extension says they will run hourly services on the London-Gloucestershire route. Even GCC aren't that stupid.

Re the second part I could understand why they are asking for an extension as Stroud/Glos/Cheltenham-Ashchurch-Worcs/Great Malvern is extremely poorly served. Although I have no idea why the would need to be extended to Hereford. Unless they are planning on reopening the direct line-must have missed that one!

 

[jimm]

Gloucester County Council wants 1 service to not call at Kemble or Stroud

BUT

Either a new service Gloucester - Swindon - Westbury
Or Swindon - Gloucester - Worcester service
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gloucestershire County Council doesn't set the train service requirement and has usually shown precious little interest in rail services.

If it was that bothered, it would have done something about the dismal service between the county and Worcester a long time ago. And the market between Worcester and Swindon would be tiny compared with the potential between Worcester and Bristol/South Wales if a decent service, either direct or with slick changes at Cheltenham or Gloucester, was organised.

As for Gloucester-Westbury, what would the point be? Just linking services together because you can doesn't make it a good idea. And the Transwilts campaigners' priority is extending services from Westbury to Salisbury, not going to places beyond Swindon.

GCC also would like the London Services to Gloucester to extend to Hereford! So I don't think things are as clear cut as they seem!

What would the point be? Gloucester to Worcester extensions I could understand. Network Rail's last route study talked about the potential for more services between London and Worcester via Gloucester, but Gloucester-Hereford by rail, whether via Worcester or Newport, is beaten hands down by road.

Must admit I'm still to be convinced as to the suitability of short trains into Cornwall.

At certain times trains can be extremely busy into Cornwall, at least with today's HST the passenger is guaranteed a long train. GWR will have to be very responsive to potential spikes in demand around holiday times, good weather and events - maybe I'm being cynical but I have a feeling in a few years time we'll be reading complaints about overcrowding on here and how lengthening "can't be easily done" for one reason or another.

With today's HST the operator is also guaranteed to have to foot the bill for running some largely empty long trains through Cornwall at certain times (ie rather a lot of the year). GWR might just have a plan for handling periods of higher demand, same as they do now.

 

[RobShipway]

Is it not the case that the 5 car 800x have the same number of seats as an 8 car HST? If that is the case, then Cornwall will actually be gaining more seats on more trains which will be more regular.

 

[freetoview33]

Possible options to increase the basic daily service to hourly include:
 Extending some or all of the proposed post-2017 hourly direct services from
London Paddington to Gloucester / Cheltenham Spa, to Worcester Shrub Hill.
 Extending the existing Bristol Temple Meads to Gloucester service to Worcester
Shrub Hill. The future electrification of the Great Western Main Line may lead to
the availability of cascaded diesel rolling stock for these services.
 Extension of the Arriva Train Wales’ service, between Maesteg and Cheltenham
Spa, to either Worcester Shrub Hill or Birmingham New Street.
 Extension of the London Midland service from Birmingham New Street to
Worcester Shrub Hill, to Cheltenham Spa or Gloucester.
A through service from Swindon to Birmingham New Street, via Stroud, Gloucester
and Cheltenham Spa may also help connectivity between the county and Worcester
/ West Midlands.


The introduction of hourly direct services from Cheltenham Spa and Gloucester to
London Paddington (from 2017) will provide a clear benefit to the county’s
connectivity with the capital. Further options for improvements, which will need to be
subject to a business case assessment, include:
 Introduction of a second train per hour on the Stroud Valley line – either a shuttle
service to Swindon or extended to either London Paddington or Heathrow Airport
(via the proposed western access route), or to Oxford, to link with the future EastWest
Rail scheme.
 Provision of additional morning and evening peak “flyer” services from
Cheltenham Spa and Gloucester to London Paddington, ommitting intermediate
station stops on the Stroud Valley line.
 A through service from Swindon to Birmingham New Street, via Stroud,
Gloucester and Cheltenham Spa.

Don't know if this helps

 

[jimm]

Is it not the case that the 5 car 800x have the same number of seats as an 8 car HST? If that is the case, then Cornwall will actually be gaining more seats on more trains which will be more regular.

No, even with a 26m coach there isn't quite that much space for seating...

There will be about 320 seats in a five-car 800. Even the low-density HSTs used on West Country services have more than 500 seats. High-density HSTs are more than 580, probably more now with the composite coaches,

 

[The Ham]

Sorry, but this Torbay thing just looks like another solution in search of a problem.

FGW/GWR has years of data on traffic to/from Torbay to refer to, which presumably shapes the current timetable as much as it does the plan for December 2018. I'd hardly describe Torbay as hard done by, with three London trains each way and three XC services each way all year, plus summer extras, and lots of connections at Newton Abbot throughout the day.

My comment was directly in response to the point about if trains spilt there would be overcrowding West of Exeter, I was showing that you would end up with the same number of seats over the day but with a more frequent service.

 

[jimm]

Don't know if this helps

Not really, it's just a long wishlist, not a considered strategy, with realistic ideas and any sense of priorities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My comment was directly in response to the point about if trains spilt there would be overcrowding West of Exeter, I was showing that you would end up with the same number of seats over the day but with a more frequent service.

You might end up with the same number of seats over the day but would they be at the times when people want to travel?

Future Torbay services are most likely to be extensions of Exeter semi-fasts or go via Bristol, as happens now, so would be deeply unattractive to Plymouth passengers with the extended journey times involved.

 

[The Ham]

You might end up with the same number of seats over the day but would they be at the times when people want to travel?

Future Torbay services are most likely to be extensions of Exeter semi-fasts or go via Bristol, as happens now, so would be deeply unattractive to Plymouth passengers with the extended journey times involved.

At present how do we know that people are traveling at a time that is most convenient for them? It is more likely that they are just traveling when there is a train, so if there where more trains to choice from they would be able to travel at more convenient times.

With regards the longer journey times, as the service is hourly there is scope to still leave later and get there sooner even if it takes longer. As an example the 07:06 arrives at Exeter at 09:30, if there were another train (which there currently isn't the next is quite a bit later) at 08:06 it would arrive at 10:30, yet the service to Paignton which leaves London at 07:30 arrives at 10:10. That means that people could leave 24 minutes later or arrive 20 minutes earlier. Which could be more convenient timings for them.

It would be different if the trains were half hourly or more frequent, as then yes everyone would just get the faster services. With the Exeter semi fats you may see some use those and then local services to Plymouth, but I doubt they would be much than via Bristol and even if they were a lot of people value direct trains over speed.

Then there's the point that by going via Bristol it would release pressure on the XC services as well as making that more frequent which would attract more passengers. Add that and a few extensions to the Exeter semi fats )to both Plymouth and Paignton) and you could have a near hourly direct service to Paignton and a near half hourly service to Plymouth (although the wrong half hour service would take longer and may only change your arrival/departure times by about 15 to 20 minutes rather that the full 30 minutes (however that is likely to be enough that people would still use it).

It should be noted that with faster under the wire running it could reduce the gap a little more, especially once 140mph linespeeds are allowed. Although that would swing back again once the B&H gained wires.

 

[jimm]

What is the deal with Torbay? Are you fixated on the place? Where is there any evidence that people there are crying out for London trains all day long? If there was, might GWR have noticed by now and acted accordingly?

I seem to recall that amid speculation about Class 222s being used to the West Country you had a fixation about running pairs of them into Cornwall, then sending several to Newquay every day instead of the branch dmu, even though traffic on the branch is as dead as a dodo outside the holiday season and a 153 would be generous provision most of the time.

 

[Rapidash]

I would say that just saying 'Torbay' is disingenuous, as that route also cover Teignbridge as well.The pax numbers for the main stations certainly equal those of Plymouth, and most stations in Cornwall, and that's with very few IC services stopping there.

.I'd argue there's more demand for increased Bristol/Brum bound services, personally, as the existing ones are busy year round.

 

[Mintona]

I would like to see one of the London - Bristol Parkway - Bristol TM trains each hour extended to Exeter, as the current hourly XC service can be awfully busy, so it would provide a good relief. If there's not platform capacity at Exeter then maybe extend it to Paignton so it's out of the way to change ends. However that's just a personal idea, and I'm not aware of any current plans for this to happen (certainly not on an hourly basis).

The MP for Cheltenham has said recently that he wants London trains to avoid Gloucester due to the time penalty, but I'm not sure if this could be achieved. A possible idea could be 1tph with the current service pattern (minus Gloucester) and 1tph from Gloucester with the current service pattern (except Cheltenham). Maybe even coming from Cardiff with stops at Newport, Chepstow and Lydney. I'm not saying this is viable or necessary, I'm more thinking as I type here I don't know if there would be enough capacity at the London end of enough units for such services. The only thing lost would be a train between Gloucester and Cheltenham, but there's plenty of them every hour anyway.

In addition, as somebody from Ross-on-Wye, I'd love to see the line from Gloucester to Hereford re-opened! But I can't see it ever happening.

 

[Class 170101]

The MP for Cheltenham has said recently that he wants London trains to avoid Gloucester due to the time penalty, but I'm not sure if this could be achieved. A possible idea could be 1tph with the current service pattern (minus Gloucester) and 1tph from Gloucester with the current service pattern (except Cheltenham). Maybe even coming from Cardiff with stops at Newport, Chepstow and Lydney. I'm not saying this is viable or necessary, I'm more thinking as I type here I don't know if there would be enough capacity at the London end of enough units for such services. The only thing lost would be a train between Gloucester and Cheltenham, but there's plenty of them every hour anyway.

Divide / join at Swindon for the London to Swindon jouney would get around that problem.

 

[The Ham]

What is the deal with Torbay? Are you fixated on the place? Where is there any evidence that people there are crying out for London trains all day long? If there was, might GWR have noticed by now and acted accordingly?

I seem to recall that amid speculation about Class 222s being used to the West Country you had a fixation about running pairs of them into Cornwall, then sending several to Newquay every day instead of the branch dmu, even though traffic on the branch is as dead as a dodo outside the holiday season and a 153 would be generous provision most of the time.

All I am thinking is that the number of paths into London is the thing that limits the number of paths and so it's better to try and maximise the number of destinations which can benefit from those paths, especially if pairs of units are being used.

The thought behind Newquay is that by using the intercity units it would then free up the regional unit to be used elsewhere, when I was making the suggestion there was a distinct possibility that there could be a shortage of regional units.

 

[jimm]

I would say that just saying 'Torbay' is disingenuous, as that route also cover Teignbridge as well.The pax numbers for the main stations certainly equal those of Plymouth, and most stations in Cornwall, and that's with very few IC services stopping there.

.I'd argue there's more demand for increased Bristol/Brum bound services, personally, as the existing ones are busy year round.

If a clear pattern of ever-growing numbers of London tickets being sold at stations in Teignbridge (where pretty much everything stops at Newton Abbot anyway) and Torbay was evident, do you not think GWR might have acted accordingly when drawing up plans for what is pretty much the biggest timetable change on the West Country route since HSTs were introduced?

The importance placed by the local authorities on the Devon Metro scheme suggests that the more urgent priority locally is focusing on where most people actually want to travel, most of the time - within Devon.

And it's not really GWR's job to bail out XC on the Bristol axis, is it?

The MP for Cheltenham has said recently that he wants London trains to avoid Gloucester due to the time penalty

And the MP for Gloucester said...?

There probably isn't the demand to sustain an all-day 2tph London service even if both trains served Gloucester and Cheltenham, never mind splitting it between the two places.

All I am thinking is that the number of paths into London is the thing that limits the number of paths and so it's better to try and maximise the number of destinations which can benefit from those paths, especially if pairs of units are being used.

And what if there simply aren't enough long-distance passengers to justify greater provision of London services for Torbay? What makes most sense if your 2x5-car train leaves Exeter with 400 people wanting Totnes and Plymouth and 100 for Torbay? Split those sets at Newton Abbot and squash the Plymouth lot into a 320-seat train, or ask the 100 to change to get to Torbay?

The thought behind Newquay is that by using the intercity units it would then free up the regional unit to be used elsewhere, when I was making the suggestion there was a distinct possibility that there could be a shortage of regional units.

What distinct possibility? It was known back then that the Turbo fleet would move west, allowing a reshuffle of the rest of the FGW diesel unit fleet, never mind that sending a 125mph-capable express unit seating 250 people grinding its way on a souped-up mineral tramway across the Cornish moors for two hours there and back carrying a couple of dozen people each way most of the year makes no sense.

Whereas sending express sets to Newquay in the summer makes sense, because lots of people are travelling long distances then - and providing capacity from local resources to handle them would indeed create a shortage of regional units.

 

[Mintona]

And the MP for Gloucester said...?

There probably isn't the demand to sustain an all-day 2tph London service even if both trains served Gloucester and Cheltenham, never mind splitting it between the two places.

No, I don't think there is either. Was just trying to work out a way of keeping everyone happy. The MP for Gloucester is currently campaigning for all XC trains to serve Gloucester, and I rather can't see that happening either.

There is potential for a new station in the south of Gloucester, as detailed in this article: http://m.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/La...on-Quedgeley/story-13404710-detail/story.html
However, I don't believe that trains would bypass Gloucester's central station to stop at a new station miles away from the city centre. That said, a second station would be rather useful anyway for the ~25000 people who live in that part of the city.

As for Torbay, as I said before I think the only legitimate way of serving it from London would be as an extension of one of the Bristol terminating trains. Trying to split a Plymouth or Penzance service at Newton Abbot would cause more problems than it's worth. And I think more people from Exeter and Torbay would be interested in direct Bristol services than London via B&H services.

 

[D1009]

Generally, a dramatic improvement to regular services such as what is proposed between Plymouth and Penzance usually leads to a dramatic increase in the number of regular passengers, even on a wet Tuesday in January.

Discussion of workings into Cornwall at holiday times is interesting to those who remember what happened at Plymouth on Good Friday.

On Summer Saturdays currently, GWR is able to operate additional HSTs into Cornwall using stock made available by the fact that there is only an hourly service to South Wales. Are we going to see something similar in the Dec 2018 timetable, presumably resulting in class 800s working into Cornwall on Saturdays?

 

[devon_metro]

What is the deal with Torbay? Are you fixated on the place? Where is there any evidence that people there are crying out for London trains all day long? If there was, might GWR have noticed by now and acted accordingly?

The current figures are arguably suppressed by the poor service, given that the timings of the 3 direct trains are pedestrian at best.

Not to mention that Totnes and Newton Abbot passenger figures will be inflated by people driving from Torbay to catch the faster Plymouth - Paddington trains. Using station usage figures isn't really a fair argument for discounting improvements to Torbay's rail service, particularly when you consider the population of Torbay exceeds the city of Exeter.

 

[The Ham]

And what if there simply aren't enough long-distance passengers to justify greater provision of London services for Torbay? What makes most sense if your 2x5-car train leaves Exeter with 400 people wanting Totnes and Plymouth and 100 for Torbay? Split those sets at Newton Abbot and squash the Plymouth lot into a 320-seat train, or ask the 100 to change to get to Torbay?

In the example I gave up the thread the Paignton service from London is in a two hour gap between Plymouth services, as such to go from 0 to >320 would be quite spectacular growth. Yes one of the services either side of that could be fairly busy, but it is doubtful that if it were to go ahead that it would have to be one of those services.

In fact I would argue that it would only happen on services to Plymouth which were known to have lower levels of passengers, maybe one later at night.

What distinct possibility? It was known back then that the Turbo fleet would move west, allowing a reshuffle of the rest of the FGW diesel unit fleet, never mind that sending a 125mph-capable express unit seating 250 people grinding its way on a souped-up mineral tramway across the Cornish moors for two hours there and back carrying a couple of dozen people each way most of the year makes no sense.

Whereas sending express sets to Newquay in the summer makes sense, because lots of people are travelling long distances then - and providing capacity from local resources to handle them would indeed create a shortage of regional units.

For GWR it may well have been known that the Turbos were heading west, however until the Northern Franchise was announced there could have been more repeats of DMU's being taken from franchises that were in need of them but couldn't sign a long term lease for them and so they would nice elsewhere. As it is although it could be useful to have more we should be good for some time.

 

[Master29]

Yes, and journey time squeezed into a 5 car 222 to Nottingham or Sheffield is about 2 hours. London to Plymouth is 3 hours 15ish with the new trains, its a very different route to the MML.

You also neglect to add that Sheffield has an hourly 7 car 222 to London, supplemented by a 5 car hourly service as well, so hardly a fair comparison.

There are more seats on a 5 car AT300 than on a 5 car 222. Yes, they do use 7 car 222`s but why will Plymouth not get 9 or 10 car 300`s. Why is it completely different on the MML? One extra hour hardly justifies "completely different" or "not a fair comparison".

 

[irish_rail]

There are more seats on a 5 car AT300 than on a 5 car 222. Yes, they do use 7 car 222`s but why will Plymouth not get 9 or 10 car 300`s. Why is it completely different on the MML? One extra hour hardly justifies "completely different" or "not a fair comparison".

Most journeys on the London - SW axis are between three and five hours, therefore comparing the route to the MML where most people are travelling to Leicester, Derby or at the longest Sheffield, taking between 1 to 2 hours.

so id say the MML is not a proper Intercity route, and the only comparable routes with Padd to Penzance would be the WCML and ECML...

 

[jimm]

Generally, a dramatic improvement to regular services such as what is proposed between Plymouth and Penzance usually leads to a dramatic increase in the number of regular passengers, even on a wet Tuesday in January.

Discussion of workings into Cornwall at holiday times is interesting to those who remember what happened at Plymouth on Good Friday.

On Summer Saturdays currently, GWR is able to operate additional HSTs into Cornwall using stock made available by the fact that there is only an hourly service to South Wales. Are we going to see something similar in the Dec 2018 timetable, presumably resulting in class 800s working into Cornwall on Saturdays?

Well, we'll just have to wait to see what happens, won't we? No one is going to go out and order lots of expensive nine-car trains just in case the entire population of Cornwall develops a sudden desire to travel to Plymouth all the time as a result of an improved timetable, because the prospects of that actually happening are slim.

A large factor in what happened at Plymouth on Good Friday was a gap in the current timetable. Had there being an onward working after the earlier arrivals, then things might have been rather different when the HST turned up.

Additional HSTs come from places other than the South Wales service. Such as the Cotswold Line, where the Saturday service uses rather fewer HSTs than on a weekday, so you will have the AT300s allocated to that route available to use on a summer Saturday. Use of Class 800s on services to Exeter and Torbay has long been planned anyway. Plus there is now the possibility of more GWR AT300s being ordered, which again could be replaced for the day in the Cotswolds by 800s freed from other duties that don't need 2x5 formations on a Saturday.

The current figures are arguably suppressed by the poor service, given that the timings of the 3 direct trains are pedestrian at best.

Not to mention that Totnes and Newton Abbot passenger figures will be inflated by people driving from Torbay to catch the faster Plymouth - Paddington trains. Using station usage figures isn't really a fair argument for discounting improvements to Torbay's rail service, particularly when you consider the population of Torbay exceeds the city of Exeter.

There are all sorts of factors that need to be considered, such as the large number of pensioners in Torbay's population and proportionally lower proportion of working age people, which inevitably impacts on demand for travel. If lots of London tickets were being sold from Torbay stations and the connecting services to and from Newton Abbot and Exeter were bursting at the seams on a regular basis, I think GWR might just notice and act accordingly.

In the example I gave up the thread the Paignton service from London is in a two hour gap between Plymouth services, as such to go from 0 to >320 would be quite spectacular growth.

It may be a spectacular growth in seating provision, but it needs to be accompanied by spectacular growth in passengers in the Torbay area to justify it.

For GWR it may well have been known that the Turbos were heading west, however until the Northern Franchise was announced there could have been more repeats of DMU's being taken from franchises that were in need of them but couldn't sign a long term lease for them and so they would nice elsewhere. As it is although it could be useful to have more we should be good for some time.

What? Northern grab all the GWR West fleet dmus? I think at that point even the DfT might have stepped in and said no.

Most journeys on the London - SW axis are between three and five hours, therefore comparing the route to the MML where most people are travelling to Leicester, Derby or at the longest Sheffield, taking between 1 to 2 hours.

so id say the MML is not a proper Intercity route, and the only comparable routes with Padd to Penzance would be the WCML and ECML...

If the MML isn't a 'proper intercity route' then what does that make the EC and WC services to West Yorkshire, Manchester, Liverpool or the West Midlands - or much of the GWR high-speed services group - where journeys take rather less than three to five hours and which account for a great deal of the traffic on those routes?

 

[The Ham]

In the example I gave up the thread the Paignton service from London is in a two hour gap between Plymouth services, as such to go from 0 to >320 would be quite spectacular growth. Yes one of the services either side of that could be fairly busy, but it is doubtful that if it were to go ahead that it would have to be one of those services.

It may be a spectacular growth in seating provision, but it needs to be accompanied by spectacular growth in passengers in the Torbay area to justify it.

Read what I have said, I was talking about a gap in Plymouth train provision, as such the spectacular growth would be in passengers to/from Plymouth at the time.

As it doesn't appear that you have read what I said up the thread here it is again:

At present how do we know that people are traveling at a time that is most convenient for them? It is more likely that they are just traveling when there is a train, so if there where more trains to choose from they would be able to travel at more convenient times.

With regards the longer journey times, as the service is hourly there is scope to still leave later and get there sooner even if it takes longer. As an example the 07:06 arrives at Exeter at 09:30, if there were another train (which there currently isn't the next is quite a bit later) at 08:06 it would arrive at 10:30, yet the service to Paignton which leaves London at 07:30 arrives at 10:10. That means that people could leave 24 minutes later or arrive 20 minutes earlier. Which could be more convenient timings for them.

As such there is likely to be a number of passengers who would swap from the services either side of the new service so as to achieve a better arrival/departure time.

As such in the example you gave up the thread about there potentially being more passengers at a given time who wanted to go to Plymouth than there were seats (400 vs 320), that would only require 20% of people to switch.

Also the other thing to bear in mind is that from when the 80x's have fully replaced the GWR HST's, then there will be more services then there are at present which will further dilute the number of people wanting to travel at any given time. Both to Exeter and west of it, again if the timetabling is able to be spaced well it could be quicker (depending on when people can get to the station) to get a semi fast to Exeter rather than wait for the next express service. Very rarely do people have the choice of when they can travel and so aim for the one that suits them most, even if it means travelling on a slower train.

As such under the current time table in the example above where there is a two hour gap (07:06 and 09:06 departures from Paddington) there may be an additional service (08:06), even if one of the existing services were very busy then the provision of the extra service would lower it. Then add in the possibility of an extra (indirect) service which means you can still get to Plymouth sooner than the later train or you could still leave Paddington later than the earlier train (even though the length of time on the train was longer) and you are hardly going to have a lot of passengers west of Exeter during that 2 hour period.

Likewise some of the peak hour services out of Paddington with lots of passenger heading to Exeter there could well be enough seats west of Exeter to run to both Plymouth and Paignton.

For GWR it may well have been known that the Turbos were heading west, however until the Northern Franchise was announced there could have been more repeats of DMU's being taken from franchises that were in need of them but couldn't sign a long term lease for them and so they would nice elsewhere. As it is although it could be useful to have more we should be good for some time.

What? Northern grab all the GWR West fleet dmus? I think at that point even the DfT might have stepped in and said no.

I didn't say that Northern would grab the GWR fleet DMU's. I was implying that if Northern didn't get as many DMU's as they did then GWR could have felt that it was hard to justify keeping a single unit which could have been in high demand from other TOC's or other passengers in its own area when it would be carrying relatively few passengers and replaced it with the less in demand IC 125mph units. Especially if by doing so they thought that it was possible that they could attract a few more passengers by removing the need for one change of train. It is worth bearing in mind that the Newquay branch only sees 6 return trips a day.

If you had to a unit which wasn't very highly utilised and could be fairly easily replaced by an IC train (although it didn't need it) for a route which doesn't generate much income for much of the year, in doing so it could enable you to run a much more profitable service attracting a LOT more income with the possibility of generating some more income from the original route you are likely to consider it. Yes it may not be worth doing, but I wouldn't just discount it out of hand just because it hasn't been done before.

Yes during the winter it is unlikely to make any difference to passenger numbers but I could see that having six direct services a day to/from London every day during the Summer Holidays could be VERY profitable. Enough to justify it all year round? Maybe maybe not, but that is another matter than it shouldn't be done because it wouldn't be justified if you look at just what the line needs in the winter.

 

[jimm]

So rather than have a simple and straightforward train plan for December 2018 and giving it a chance to bed in and see how people's travel patterns change and develop - or not or whether it just reinforces demand on existing flows - we should forget all that and have a fiendishly complicated timetable from the off instead. No thanks.

Re Newquay, you really should take a look at the times some of the branch trains depart from and arrive back at Par, then factor in the running time from and to Paddington and the departure and arrival times in London that would result before you get ideas about them all operating as through services.

The peak hour Plymouth services out of Paddington all have a nasty habit of also running into Cornwall, so the chances are sending bits of them off to Paignton will not work out too well. And the current 17.33 semi-fast already provides one of the Paignton through services, which presumably will still be the case in 2018.

 

[The Ham]

So rather than have a simple and straightforward train plan for December 2018 and giving it a chance to bed in and see how people's travel patterns change and develop - or not or whether it just reinforces demand on existing flows - we should forget all that and have a fiendishly complicated timetable from the off instead. No thanks.

Re Newquay, you really should take a look at the times some of the branch trains depart from and arrive back at Par, then factor in the running time from and to Paddington and the departure and arrival times in London that would result before you get ideas about them all operating as through services.

The peak hour Plymouth services out of Paddington all have a nasty habit of also running into Cornwall, so the chances are sending bits of them off to Paignton will not work out too well. And the current 17.33 semi-fast already provides one of the Paignton through services, which presumably will still be the case in 2018.

I have never said that GWR must or even should do any of it, I have said that it would be possible and explained why I think that it might be a good idea.

The whole point was that the 2018 timetable is likely to be going back to first principals as it's not just a case of introducing new trains or getting a path or two extra, it is new trains with different acceleration patterns, with altered requirements at stations (I.e. no slam doors), with extra parts needed. As such why not consider if there are ways of increasing frequencies of services for places West of Exeter without impacting on the number of paths into London.

Other companies (I.e SWT with their Exeter/Bristol services) manage it and it works well.

With Newquay the timetable on that line is defined by when the train is available, I would suggest that if it were to happen then it would be worked out the other way around. Which trains to/from London would work well on the line. Although some of the early/late services could run to Plymouth/Exeter.

Yes the Peak hour services may go to Cornwall, that means that there could be some demand for them then if they only go to Plymouth, however it could still be 3 trains to Paignton and Penzance (if the current Paignton service could be timetabled so it had a similar journey time as the morning train) could mean that the departure of people from London was spread out and the trains would then be less busy.

For instance the 17:03 is unlikely to attract a lot of commuters unless there working day stopped long enough before that for then to get there (given that they are unlit to arrive into London early due to the time taken to get there this would be less likely), meaning that it is likely that the 18:03 is likely to be the busier service. Add a service in at 17:33 which (if it were able to be sped up) may only get to Plymouth marginally before the 18:03 and you will see some people switch to it. In doing so the loads become more balanced.

I think that it is always potentially dangerous to have a long period of time between services in the peaks as that can lead to some trains being very full and others less so.