Through GWR Bedwyns to be axed from May 2022

[Horizon22]

Cotswold Line off-peak services have been remarkably resilient. Peak services are significantly down, but off-peak is, if anything, busier than it was pre-Covid.

I would say I've only seen it once or twice post-pandemic at Oxford but certainly pre-Covid and back in HST or 180 days, the majority of the train got off/on. Oxford starters and terminators of course balance things out too.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Excellent idea as that will free up some more 387's to use on the Cardiffs and they can spare some more IETs to go down West to get rid of Castles anythings on the table now with the DofT!

Just my personal opinion but why use suburban 387s on inter-city services like PAD-CDF. Likewise why foist undesirable IETs on WOE stoppers,it’s not what they were bought for.

 

[JonathanH]

Just my personal opinion but why use suburban 387s on inter-city services like PAD-CDF. Likewise why foist undesirable IETs on WOE stoppers,it’s not what they were bought for.

If the units are spare and have to be paid for anyway, then it makes sense to utilise them even on slightly imperfect services and displace old stock that is costly to maintain and operate.

 

[nw1]

Yep, just a shame that 'we don't need to electrify, we have bi-modes' has now been trumped by 'we don't have bi-modes, tough'. Answer all along was: electrify or make a solid go of a Reading-Westbury 'local'. They've done neither, we get a 4 station 'branchline'. Next step..

I presume you mean the 'C' word. Cynically I do wonder whether that's not beyond the realms of possibilty, at least regarding Kintbury and Bedwyn (Hungerford being served by longer distance services) as an isolated diesel shuttle will be presumably pretty expensive to run.

The more optimistic view is that once this post-Covid period of economic difficulties has passed, they'll find more bi-modes to re-start the service in a few years.

 

[Towers]

The 'C' word being.... closure?!

 

[Mag_seven]

Surely the line is crying out for an hourly Paddington - Taunton "stopper" service using a Class 800 /Class 802?

 

[Towers]

Surely the line is crying out for an hourly Paddington - Taunton "stopper" service using a Class 800 /Class 802?

There was indeed such a thing back in HST days, although I can't recall if if featured Bedwyn or not! Newbury, Pewsey, Westbury, Cary rings a bell...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Just my personal opinion but why use suburban 387s on inter-city services like PAD-CDF. Likewise why foist undesirable IETs on WOE stoppers,it’s not what they were bought for.

Don't disagree but DofT aren't interested in passenger ambience just saving money and as we can observe the GWR 387's can achieve an IET schedule. All in all its turning into a dogs breakfast across the network with no real coherent plan or long term vision for what services should be.

 

[Horizon22]

Surely the line is crying out for an hourly Paddington - Taunton "stopper" service using a Class 800 /Class 802?

What you’d probably want to do is add that onto the current semi-fast services, although Exeter and Plymouth would get less of a service although most peak get the fast trains anyway.

Alternatively covered by the current gap in the xx37 departures, but then again if we were adding another 802/800 service then Bedwyn service wouldn’t need to be removed!

 

[nw1]

Nor would Worcester / Hereford be going down to 1tp2h or indeed splitting at Oxford. Splitting at Oxford does have some merit though, as the train often really empties out at Oxford, but that just adds operational complexity.

Splitting would presumably save units though - units that could be used to restore Bedwyn. I think it needs three units for the off-peak service, is this correct?

There does seem to be an averseness to operational complexity these days compared to the relatively recent past (80s and 90s); when you look at multiple-unit CWNs from the 80s there was all manner of splitting and joining going on, often at fairly random stations at random times during the day - all carefully designed to ensure that the right stock would form the right services in the peak while keeping peak ECS moves to a minimum. For example, a midday Portsmouth to Waterloo stopper would have coaches attached at Woking around lunchtime, which might then work an afternoon Waterloo-Guildford round trip, as this could cut down on ECS workings (with scarce paths available for such) in the height of the peak.

I do think GWR need to carefully examine all their diagrams to see if there is any way the Bedwyn could be restored. Indeed, if they can continue to work it in the peak, that might imply that it won't be that hard to keep it running off-peak, as the peak is when stock is most scarce and traditionally there has always been lots of spare stock to go around off-peak.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely the line is crying out for an hourly Paddington - Taunton "stopper" service using a Class 800 /Class 802?

In the 2015 franchise brief they intended a 2 hourly Paddington to Exeter from 2018, but did that ever happen?

 

[nw1]

What you’d probably want to do is add that onto the current semi-fast services, although Exeter and Plymouth would get less of a service although most peak get the fast trains anyway.

Alternatively covered by the current gap in the xx37 departures, but then again if we were adding another 802/800 service then Bedwyn service wouldn’t need to be removed!

I already suggested Hungerford calls: contentiously one could even add Kintbury and Bedwyn calls into the Exeter semi-fasts, though I suspect Westbury passengers wouldn't be so happy. But then, to compensate, you could call alternate Plymouth fasts (the ones which don't continue to Penzance) at Westbury, like they always used to...

After all Waterloo-Exeter semi-fasts call at Tisbury and Templecombe, so why not Paddington-Exeter semi-fasts at Kintbury and Bedwyn?

 

[Acton1991]

Kintbury locals could easily drive to Newbury for train service - many live in villages around the area (Inkpen etc) with Newbury being their nearest town for shopping etc - it’s easy and part of their routine anyway.

Hungerford on the other hand is the big loser. Whist locals are used to driving to Newbury for certain services, it’s a larger town that should really have a direct link to Paddington (or at least Reading!)

 

[davetheguard]

Bedwyn is an utterly arbitrary terminus in the middle of a field. In many ways it's actually amazing, being on a mainline, Beeching didn't shut it.

Bedwyn is traditionally the railhead for Marlborough, which presumably explains why Beeching didn’t shut it, given the demographic and it’s traditional voting patterns?

When I learnt the road from Reading to Bedwyn in the the late 70s, I was told by a driver that it had been intended to close Bedwyn at the same time as the other small stations on the Berks & Hants that did close. However, a minor derailment at Hungerford, damaged the crossover there, so trains had to continue on to Bedwyn to reverse. This was never later changed, so Bedwyn remained open.

I have no idea if this story is correct but it sounds plausible, and it stuck in my memory. Certainly a lot of the class 117 DMU sets used at the time had "Hungerford" as a destination on their roller blinds, but not "Bedwyn".

 

[nw1]

When I learnt the road from Reading to Bedwyn in the the late 70s, I was told by a driver that it had been intended to close Bedwyn at the same time as the other minor stations on the Berks & Hants that did close. However, a minor derailment at Hungerford, damaged the crossover there, so trains had to continue on to Bedwyn to reverse. This was never later changed, so Bedwyn remained open.

I have no idea if this story is correct but it sounds plausable, and it stuck in my memory. Certainly a lot of the class 117 DMU sets used at the time had "Hungerford" as a destination on their roller blinds, but not "Bedwyn".

I guess Kintbury was lucky to survive too, as it seems very rural round there. (Not advocating closing it in the slightest BTW, just imagining that the railway economics of the time could easily have ended up with it closing). One can imagine them reducing the local Kennet Valley service to a Reading-Newbury shuttle, closing Kintbury and Bedwyn, and making the occasional IC service to the southwest call at Hungerford.

Not advocating this at all BTW but I can see that it would be a typically Beeching-like step to have been taken.

 

[Deepgreen]

Don't disagree but DofT aren't interested in passenger ambience just saving money and as we can observe the GWR 387's can achieve an IET schedule. All in all its turning into a dogs breakfast across the network with no real coherent plan or long term vision for what services should be.

It turned into that decades ago when the network was fragmented. It was as inevitable as night following day.

A sure bet to lose money and need subsidy I'd imagine.

As with virtually every railway operation. The railway does not turn a genuine profit and can never do so.

 

[davetheguard]

Surely the line is crying out for an hourly Paddington - Taunton "stopper" service using a Class 800 /Class 802?

Or Paddington to Exeter IET stopper given Somerset's aspirations for new stations at Somerton & Wellington, and Devon's at Cullompton? You could also then give Frome a decent service to a range of destinations, rather than just running (very slowly) to Bristol & Weymouth.

I don't know if Bedwyn would be served by such a service, but Hungerford, at least, presumably would be.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

When I learnt the road from Reading to Bedwyn in the the late 70s, I was told by a driver that it had been intended to close Bedwyn at the same time as the other small stations on the Berks & Hants that did close. However, a minor derailment at Hungerford, damaged the crossover there, so trains had to continue on to Bedwyn to reverse. This was never later changed, so Bedwyn remained open.

I have no idea if this story is correct but it sounds plausible, and it stuck in my memory. Certainly a lot of the class 117 DMU sets used at the time had "Hungerford" as a destination on their roller blinds, but not "Bedwyn".

It would not surprise me at all. That being said, wasn’t Beeching’s initial proposal to close the B&H as a through route entirely, as it ‘duplicates’ the GWML via Bristol? Hungerford would probably have been seen as an optional terminus, if Newbury itself was deemed too far (politically) from Marlborough.

 

[nw1]

It would not surprise me at all. That being said, wasn’t Beeching’s initial proposal to close the B&H as a through route entirely, as it ‘duplicates’ the GWML via Bristol?

That would have been an incredibly silly idea as via Bristol is very roundabout for the SW, and you'd get the Plymouth services filling up with Bristol passengers unless the proposal was to make Plymouths pick-up-only at Bristol.

Or Paddington to Exeter IET stopper given Somerset's aspirations for new stations at Somerton & Wellington, and Devon's at Cullompton? You could also then give Frome a decent service to a range of destinations, rather than just running (very slowly) to Bristol & Weymouth.

I don't know if Bedwyn would be served by such a service, but Hungerford, at least, presumably would be.

Yes, probably no need for an extra service west of Bedwyn, just have the existing Exeter make the calls (with additional Westbury calls on the Plymouth fasts, so Westbury's service isn't slowed down too much, remembering it's a key interchange station).

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Couldn't some of the London Paddington - Exeter St. David's (xx:35 not the xx:04ish departures) make an extra stop between Newbury and Bedwyn and leave the Reading to Newbury stops to the 387's?

 

[irish_rail]

I already suggested Hungerford calls: contentiously one could even add Kintbury and Bedwyn calls into the Exeter semi-fasts, though I suspect Westbury passengers wouldn't be so happy. But then, to compensate, you could call alternate Plymouth fasts (the ones which don't continue to Penzance) at Westbury, like they always used to...

After all Waterloo-Exeter semi-fasts call at Tisbury and Templecombe, so why not Paddington-Exeter semi-fasts at Kintbury and Bedwyn?

Adding Westbury to Plymouth fasts wouldn't really be palatable. We have a very slightly improved journey time between Plymouth and London since IETs came in, and don't want to lose that journey time benefit to stop at Westbury.

Also, adding Kintbury and Bedwyn stops to the Exeter semi fasts would be problematic as the Plymouth fast would catch it up on the b and h and thus would need to be slowed down.

All in all, a couple of extra 5 car 80x should be found to retain the current Bedwyn operation, even if they need to come from LNER or TPE where utilisation I believe isn't quite so tight.

 

[Irascible]

If the units are spare and have to be paid for anyway, then it makes sense to utilise them even on slightly imperfect services and displace old stock that is costly to maintain and operate.

What does a 5 car IET cost to run vs a 4-car HST? ( it's almost undoubtably less, but how much? ). Vs a pair of 158s?

 

[Towers]

The four car 769s would be ideal for

All in all, a couple of extra 5 car 80x should be found to retain the current Bedwyn operation, even if they need to come from LNER or TPE where utilisation I believe isn't quite so tight.

With head firmly above the parapet, I'm inclined to suggest that an 80x is not the ideal traction for the service.

Aside from the fast dash from Pad - Reading the Bedwyn is essentially a local stopping service, regardless of the (understandable) aspirations of those living along the route. The IETs aren't set up for this; they struggle with the volume of cycles during the peaks, and of course they defy the RailForums law that end doors are a Bad Thing on a train making regular stops (see also: Class 158s on Portsmouth - Cardiff). A 769 on the other hand....hmm!

Runs away.

 

[nw1]

All in all, a couple of extra 5 car 80x should be found to retain the current Bedwyn operation, even if they need to come from LNER or TPE where utilisation I believe isn't quite so tight.

Furthermore if they are still running one (?) Bedwyn in the peaks, that would presumably be two units needed for that (as I'd guess 5-car would be inadequate for the peak). Given that 3 units are needed to run the off-peak service (I think) then presumably that would end up only one extra unit being needed (if you are prepared to sacrifice one or two post-morning-peak and pre-evening-peak trips to allow doubling-up on the prime peak service).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The four car 769s would be ideal for

With head firmly above the parapet, I'm inclined to suggest that an 80x is not the ideal traction for the service.

Aside from the fast dash from Pad - Reading the Bedwyn is essentially a local stopping service, regardless of the (understandable) aspirations of those living along the route. The IETs aren't set up for this; they struggle with the volume of cycles during the peaks, and of course they defy the RailForums law that end doors are a Bad Thing on a train making regular stops (see also: Class 158s on Portsmouth - Cardiff). A 769 on the other hand....hmm!

Runs away.

The choice to operate bi-mode 80x on the Bedwyn services was a political one, not an operational one. It also doesn’t help matters that they have been guarded throughout since day one - Hitachi never sorted out the functionality of the bodyside DOO cameras in a satisfactory manner.

I’m not keen on the thought of a 769 in diesel mode grinding up the bank from Newbury to Kintbury…

 

[Towers]

The choice to operate bi-mode 80x on the Bedwyn services was a political one, not an operational one. It also doesn’t help matters that they have been guarded throughout since day one - Hitachi never sorted out the functionality of the bodyside DOO cameras in a satisfactory manner.

I’m not keen on the thought of a 769 in diesel mode grinding up the bank from Newbury to Kintbury…

Well, the route the 769s are intended for is hardly flat! And they would, in my humble opinion, be a more suited device for shifting large volumes of short distance commuters, complete with plenty of bikes, a few stops down the B&H than an IET. They won't rival an IET's acceleration, but I imagine they'd load a fair bit quicker.

Outside of the peaks the service runs pretty lightly loaded most of the time, so the choice of traction would seem not to be a major issue.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

But then, to compensate, you could call alternate Plymouth fasts (the ones which don't continue to Penzance) at Westbury, like they always used to...

Looking at the May 22 timetable there only appear to be 2 WoE fasts that don’t run into Cornwall, the 11.04 and 13.04 so not sure where you got the fact alternate fasts terminate at Plymouth from.

Up Road it seems to be only the 15.15 ex Plymouth which doesn’t start in Cornwall.

 

[cactustwirly]

Well, the route the 769s are intended for is hardly flat! And they would, in my humble opinion, be a more suited device for shifting large volumes of short distance commuters, complete with plenty of bikes, a few stops down the B&H than an IET. They won't rival an IET's acceleration, but I imagine they'd load a fair bit quicker.

Outside of the peaks the service runs pretty lightly loaded most of the time, so the choice of traction would seem not to be a major issue.

It isn't a short distance commuter route though.
It's 30 miles from Reading to Bedwyn.

A 769 is completely unsuitable for reading to Paddington anyway

 

[mmh]

I have no idea if this story is correct but it sounds plausible, and it stuck in my memory. Certainly a lot of the class 117 DMU sets used at the time had "Hungerford" as a destination on their roller blinds, but not "Bedwyn".

Certainly if you ask someone with good knowledge of Britain where either place is, far more will know Hungerford (and not only from the bad reason.) Put a "which country is Bedwyn in" question on The Chase or your favourite TV quiz show and watch the contestants say Wales.

 

[Towers]

It isn't a short distance commuter route though.
It's 30 miles from Reading to Bedwyn.

A 769 is completely unsuitable for reading to Paddington anyway

I'm not sure what you'd consider to be a short commuter route then, 30 miles is hardly cross country?

Agree about running 769s RDG - PAD though.