What would you like to see in the next Great Western Franchise?

[PHILIPE]

Would the demand be there for the Reading-Basingstoke services to be extended (if the paths exist) to Southampton Central? It could possibly mean that Weymouth/Poole-Waterloo trains (SWR) wouldn't need to stop at Basingstoke

Bearing in mind XC run over the route

 

[jimm]

From personal experience, they have got more popular over the last couple of years or so. A fair few board the morning Waterloo service from Bradford on Avon and Trowbridge and Warminster, with many remaining on the train past Salisbury. It also, of course provides an extra service between Bristol and Salisbury. Plus, they have fantastic advances from these stations; I got a first class advance Trowbridge - Waterloo for £12 this year. Standard class was £9!

But are the numbers at a consistently high enough level that direct services to and from points east of Salisbury are really justified?

Are they 'extra' services? Some of the slots they use between Bristol and Westbury are occupied the rest of the day by GWR services. Run more GW Bristol-Weymouth trains, as proposed back up the thread, and they will need paths between Bristol and Westbury - should they be instead of SWR services or on top of the SWR services? Do Westbury, Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon really need three trains to Bristol in the space of 30 minutes off-peak now? Should this happen for even more of the day?

There is a balance to be struck somewhere and a handful of 'off-piste' SWR trains are going to be looked at long and hard if there is a case to be made for GWR increasing its use of parts of the route between Bristol and Westbury (and Salisbury) for whatever reason.

Fantastic advances are often a sign of having plenty of empty seats to fill.

Would the demand be there for the Reading-Basingstoke services to be extended (if the paths exist) to Southampton Central? It could possibly mean that Weymouth/Poole-Waterloo trains (SWR) wouldn't need to stop at Basingstoke

There are already 2tph between Reading and Southampton operated by XC most of the day and I'm sure some better acquainted with the situation on the SWML can confirm that spare paths via Winchester are scarce, with pretty much any available spare capacity allocated to Alliance's proposed Waterloo-Southampton service.

 

[Kite159]

There are already 2tph between Reading and Southampton operated by XC most of the day and I'm sure some better acquainted with the situation on the SWML can confirm that spare paths via Winchester are scarce, with pretty much any available spare capacity allocated to Alliance's proposed Waterloo-Southampton service.

It's only 3 XC trains per 2 hours from Reading to Southampton.

----

What I would like to see in the new franchise bid - New regional DMUs to be ordered to allow the suburban layout 165s/166s to be focused on the urban routes out of Bristol.

 

[swt_passenger]

Bearing in mind XC run over the route

The remaining XC Reading terminators would be the obvious trains to extend, but as we know from previous discussions NR reckon there is no capacity to do that, which is why they only extend 2 hourly, as mentioned above.

Hence there must probably be no capacity to extend GWR services either. But if the question is about Reading - Basingstoke stoppers, surely after electrification they are more likely to be extended east of Reading on AC, potentially to Heathrow using the western access.

 

[greaterwest]

The remaining XC Reading terminators would be the obvious trains to extend, but as we know from previous discussions NR reckon there is no capacity to do that, which is why they only extend 2 hourly, as mentioned above.

Hence there must probably be no capacity to extend GWR services either. But if the question is about Reading - Basingstoke stoppers, surely after electrification they are more likely to be extended east of Reading on AC, potentially to Heathrow using the western access.

What will journey times be like vs going from Basingstoke to Heathrow via Woking and the RailAir Coach link? Right now it takes approximately an hour, even with the change at Woking.

 

[swt_passenger]

What will journey times be like vs going from Basingstoke to Heathrow via Woking and the RailAir Coach link? Right now it takes approximately an hour, even with the change at Woking.

No idea really, but I know it is mentioned in NR proposals, unlike most suggestions here...

 

[coppercapped]

The remaining XC Reading terminators would be the obvious trains to extend, but as we know from previous discussions NR reckon there is no capacity to do that, which is why they only extend 2 hourly, as mentioned above.

Hence there must probably be no capacity to extend GWR services either. But if the question is about Reading - Basingstoke stoppers, surely after electrification they are more likely to be extended east of Reading on AC, potentially to Heathrow using the western access.

Basingstoke to Heathrow via Bramley, Mortimer, (Green Park) and Reading West would seem a logical route, but...

...(sucks teeth!) by that time it is likely there will be four Crossrail trains per hour using the Relief lines between Reading and London as well as the 2tph outer Thames Valley limited-stop trains and reasonably frequent freights to Acton.

I am not suggesting that such a routing is impossible, but it might be quite difficult to schedule without affecting reliability. In any event a Basingstoke to Heathrow service might be better achieved using the proposed south western connection along the M25 corridor to Terminal 5.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Are you serious? Have you ever been on the Cotswold line?
Never in a million years will it compete on London to Birmingham flows. I mean its slow as hell, no one is going to spends 3+ hours on a train, when they can spend just 90 minutes on another route.

Droitwich might be an interesting possibility for extending the occasional Worcester terminator - journey times to Paddington would be easily competitive with Euston or Marylebone. Any further north wouldn't work, I agree.

For what it's worth, though, I frequently choose slower Cotswold Line services over faster alternatives. When travelling from my home station (Charlbury) to Birmingham or Bristol, I almost always go via Worcester. In both cases the fares are much cheaper (with an appropriate split), and I can work on any of these trains - even a 150 - more easily than I can on a Voyager.

 

[cle]

Basingstoke to Heathrow via Bramley, Mortimer, (Green Park) and Reading West would seem a logical route, but...

...(sucks teeth!) by that time it is likely there will be four Crossrail trains per hour using the Relief lines between Reading and London as well as the 2tph outer Thames Valley limited-stop trains and reasonably frequent freights to Acton.

I am not suggesting that such a routing is impossible, but it might be quite difficult to schedule without affecting reliability. In any event a Basingstoke to Heathrow service might be better achieved using the proposed south western connection along the M25 corridor to Terminal 5.

I can see the TV route really taking off as a metro and frequency going up even more. What that'd mean for GW Paddington terminators I'm not sure. But either way, there would be a lot of TPH stopping at Hayes to make Heathrow connections much better.

Longer term, I understood WRATH might take over HEX and then become Crossrail-esque west of there. Not convinced on the pathing synchronization but did read of Slough/Maidenhead/Reading at 2tph. Basingstoke I think was mentioned, but then also for the fast services (if wired) which could also make a lot of sense and be easier at Reading to weave in.

 

[jimm]

It's only 3 XC trains per 2 hours from Reading to Southampton.

Would it have been better if I had said 'much of the day', rather than 'most'?

Fact is that two-thirds of the XC services on the Reading-Birmingham axis continue to/come from south of Reading and I don't think 2tph first thing in the morning or in the middle of the evening would be worth bothering with, never mind adding a GWR service to the mix - though GWR and SWR really should look at improving some of the connections between their services at Basingstoke, e.g. northbound from Southampton in the late evening.

If their rolling stock resources had permitted, I expect XC would have liked to get more trains down to Southampton to fill in most of the gaps in the middle of the day, but I suppose the paths they would need south of Basingstoke are now where Alliance's proposed services would be running.

What I would like to see in the new franchise bid - New regional DMUs to be ordered to allow the suburban layout 165s/166s to be focused on the urban routes out of Bristol.

Depending on what rolling stock costs in a couple of years' time and whether DfT is still giving top marks to franchise bids that offer lots of shiny new trains, there could well be a wholesale clear-out of GWR dmus plus replacement of the mini-HSTs. The 150s will be past their 30th birthdays and counting by 2019-20, the 158s around theirs and the Turbos fast closing in on 30 as well.

Could provide good follow-on work for the likes of CAF to build after the orders they already hold and Stadler bi-modes could have the potential to be useful in various places, especially if Bristol Temple Meads wiring proceeds.

 

[swt_passenger]

If their rolling stock resources had permitted, I expect XC would have liked to get more trains down to Southampton to fill in most of the gaps in the middle of the day, but I suppose the paths they would need south of Basingstoke are now where Alliance's proposed services would be running.

The Western RUS a few years ago explained that additional infrastructure was needed to run a full 2 tph XC service "south of Reading". That was NR's position long before Alliance had ever been mentioned. Just cannot see how there can be no paths available for XC but paths for Alliance - unless of course the key bottleneck is just on the Reading to Basingstoke stretch...

All a bit academic in terms of the original suggestion to extend GWR DMUs though. I don't think anyone sees that as a goer...

 

[pompeyfan]

The Western RUS a few years ago explained that additional infrastructure was needed to run a full 2 tph XC service "south of Reading". That was NR's position long before Alliance had ever been mentioned. Just cannot see how there can be no paths available for XC but paths for Alliance - unless of course the key bottleneck is just on the Reading to Basingstoke stretch...

Surely the conflict is on the actual junction itself at Basingstoke, obviously the 10mph TSR there also further complicates the issues.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

If NR could be bothered to reopen platform 5 at Basingstoke to through trains you could then have minimal conflicts at Basingstoke as you could the build a flyover to take down trains to the down side just before Winklebury.

That would then allow them to remove the seemingly brittle Down Reading to Down Main crossovers.

 

[Hartington]

The comments about Heathrow make me wonder about something that isn't GWR specific. When I fly back to Heathrow (or even Gatwick) the ability to predict whether we'll be on time, how long UK immigration will take and when my baggage may appear rather puts me off buying an advance ticket.

What I'd like to see is a ticket specifically for airline passengers that allows travel to airports on an advance basis and from airports at all times (and at some discount level - probably somewhere between off peak and super off peak).

 

[coppercapped]

I can see the TV route really taking off as a metro and frequency going up even more. What that'd mean for GW Paddington terminators I'm not sure. But either way, there would be a lot of TPH stopping at Hayes to make Heathrow connections much better.

Longer term, I understood WRATH might take over HEX and then become Crossrail-esque west of there. Not convinced on the pathing synchronization but did read of Slough/Maidenhead/Reading at 2tph. Basingstoke I think was mentioned, but then also for the fast services (if wired) which could also make a lot of sense and be easier at Reading to weave in.

A higher Crossrail frequency may or may not come to pass in the next few years. But if it does then the consequences have to be seriously considered.

At the moment there are two trains per hour starting from Oxford calling at some or all of the intermediate stations to Reading and then making a limited number of stops from there to Paddington. These offer a good service to a wide catchment area along the Thames Valley.

There are also a number of freight trains running along the stretch between Acton to Reading. Some of these are heavy stone trains and their empties but there are a not inconsiderable number of other trains such as the car trains between Didcot and Purfleet for the BMW plant at Cowley and distribution for other manufacturers.

If Crossrail runs at a higher frequency then the number of paths for these other trains will be severely limited. It might be possible to path the freights at night but as Crossrail will also operate late into the night - and possibly all night - maintenance access to the GW lines will be severely limited. It will be an interesting exercise to path all these trains over a pair of tracks over a few hours in the middle of the night - even assuming Acton Yard can pump out or accept such a density of trains.

Increasing the Crossrail frequency - although useful to people living in or near London - will have consequences on trains services 50 to 100 miles or more from the capital. I would suggest that if Crossrail - which essentially only serves London and it immediate environs - wants to operate at higher frequencies it should buy its own segregated tracks at least as far as Airport Junction - if not further to avoid a lower quality service being offered further west.

 

[IanXC]

The comments about Heathrow make me wonder about something that isn't GWR specific. When I fly back to Heathrow (or even Gatwick) the ability to predict whether we'll be on time, how long UK immigration will take and when my baggage may appear rather puts me off buying an advance ticket.

What I'd like to see is a ticket specifically for airline passengers that allows travel to airports on an advance basis and from airports at all times (and at some discount level - probably somewhere between off peak and super off peak).

See TPE Airport Advance

 

[Starmill]

Increasing the Crossrail frequency - although useful to people living in or near London - will have consequences on trains services 50 to 100 miles or more from the capital. I would suggest that if Crossrail - which essentially only serves London and it immediate environs - wants to operate at higher frequencies it should buy its own segregated tracks at least as far as Airport Junction - if not further to avoid a lower quality service being offered further west.

I've pointed this out before and been told that it's nonsense, but the purchase of an additional 4 class 345 units has already been approved [July 2017]. If increase in frequency by 2 services per hour west of Paddington doesn't come to pass, these units will have no work to do. As the numbers of class 387s GWR are leasing was made firm prior to the purchase of these additional trains, presumably the number of 387s required by GWR will be reduced by a similar number. Again I've been told in the past that this is not true - perhaps my understanding of this is not correct.

I also do not know if there is a final plan for the stopping pattern of the 2tph between Reading and Paddington in question here. They would have been quite limited stop under GWR but skipping stops does not appear to be on the agenda of TfL. I suspect significant decisions are yet to be announced. The strong implication from the quote below appears to be that if these 2tph do run as Crossrail services, GWR won't operate any services on the relief lines and perhaps that there will not be any track capacity for them to do so.

No slow or semi-fast GWR services to Paddington
The second change, which should be no great surprise to anyone who has studied the previously-mentioned Reading-Paddington service interval table, is that TfL are proposing to take over the semi-fast Reading-Paddington 2tph service as well as the 2tph (almost) all stations service which is already part of the plan. This has all sorts of consequences, though. Again, the way the paper reads, this sounds like a done deal – presumably with the DfT. All that is needed, apparently, is for the TfL Board to approve the purchase of four new Crossrail trains to cover the service.

The advertised (almost) all stations running time from Paddington to Reading on the Elizabeth line will be 49 minutes. Any Elizabeth line semi-fast services should do this considerably quicker. Just cutting this down to 45 minutes should mean that only three trains ought to be needed to include this service as part of the Elizabeth line pattern. In fact, the proposal is to purchase four extra trains.

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/one-of-the-family-crossrails-transition-to-being-a-tube/

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I've pointed this out before and been told that it's nonsense, but the purchase of an additional 4 class 345 units has already been approved [July 2017]. If increase in frequency by 2 services per hour west of Paddington doesn't come to pass, these units will have no work to do. As the numbers of class 387s GWR are leasing was made firm prior to the purchase of these additional trains, presumably the number of 387s required by GWR will be reduced by a similar number. Again I've been told in the past that this is not true - perhaps my understanding of this is not correct.

I also do not know if there is a final plan for the stopping pattern of the 2tph between Reading and Paddington in question here. They would have been quite limited stop under GWR but skipping stops does not appear to be on the agenda of TfL. I suspect significant decisions are yet to be announced. The strong implication from the quote below appears to be that if these 2tph do run as Crossrail services, GWR won't operate any services on the relief lines and perhaps that there will not be any track capacity for them to do so.

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/one-of-the-family-crossrails-transition-to-being-a-tube/

That'll take some loadings off of the GWR services if that happens, as it will mean less faffing about with escalators/lifts etc on the interchange between mainline & underground.

 

[swt_passenger]

I've pointed this out before and been told that it's nonsense, but the purchase of an additional 4 class 345 units has already been approved [July 2017]. If increase in frequency by 2 services per hour west of Paddington doesn't come to pass, these units will have no work to do.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/one-of-the-family-crossrails-transition-to-being-a-tube/

AIUI from that article (and all its follow up comments), and discussions in this forum of a similar nature, I believe the TfL plan for 4 tph Crossrail to/from Reading is peak only. The eventual consensus was that there would still be through GWR services at least in the off-peak.

 

[devonexpress]

XC make groupsave tickets not valid on most of its services, GWR also try to encourage people at Didcot for example to take Paddington fast services, rather than slower ones by saying the slower ones only go to Ealing Broadway. Currently some of the Paddington to Penzance services are pick up only, so im sure that all GWR would need to do is not announce the train when it comes into the Platform at Reading, most people won't get on it if they don't know where its going!

 

[NewtScaramanga]

XC make groupsave tickets not valid on most of its services, GWR also try to encourage people at Didcot for example to take Paddington fast services, rather than slower ones by saying the slower ones only go to Ealing Broadway. Currently some of the Paddington to Penzance services are pick up only, so im sure that all GWR would need to do is not announce the train when it comes into the Platform at Reading, most people won't get on it if they don't know where its going!

There's a fundamental flaw in that. You have destination labels in the windows or digital destination display panels showing where the train is going and calling points.

 

[gallafent]

There's a fundamental flaw in that. You have destination labels in the windows or digital destination display panels showing where the train is going and calling points.

The latter (as per all newer rolling stock) make it easy to achieve: they just display “do not board this train”, “set down only” or even “not in service”, without the destination displayed at all, at set-down only stations

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The latter (as per all newer rolling stock) make it easy to achieve: they just display “do not board this train”, “set down only” or even “not in service”, without the destination displayed at all, at set-down only stations

Can they show something different on the outside ones than the inside ones? Otherwise you might risk everyone on board thinking they've just broken down and then they all get off...

 

[NewtScaramanga]

The latter (as per all newer rolling stock) make it easy to achieve: they just display “do not board this train”, “set down only” or even “not in service”, without the destination displayed at all, at set-down only stations

I can tell you now that there are certain trains which are set down only especially in the London area and the CIS screens say Not for public use or Stand Clear and they're blatantly ignored by the locals,I guess we shouldn't really be surprised by that after all its a free taxi for the local freeloaders.

 

[Wirewiper]

A few posters have alluded that a direct Barnstaple - London service might be on a few wishlists, but the only suggestions I have seen are as an extension of the SWR London Waterloo - Exeter St David's service. If I were in Barnstaple I would want something better for my London service than a class 158 for a 4-hour trundle around the Devon/Somerset/Dorset/Wiltshire borders.

I am surprised that no-one has come up with this suggestion, so here goes:

In the next couple of years, GWR will have nice shiny class 802 bi-modes racing down to the West Country.

I suggest that two five-car units running in tandem provide one or two daily services between London Paddington and Exeter St David's, calling at Reading, Taunton and Tiverton Parkway.

At Exeter St David's the two units are divided. The leading unit continues on to Paignton calling at Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot, Torquay and Paignton. The rear unit reverses out and heads for Barnstaple - I don't know that line well enough to suggest any intermediate stops other than Crediton.

Likewise two Up services doing the same in reverse.

In terms of the Barnstaple branch, I don't know how practical this would be. Could an IEP even operate on the branch? I would also imagine there to be pathing issues, presumably it would have to take the path of an existing local service, and this might have implications for the service at intermediate stops if it were not possible or desirable to stop the IEP there. I also don't know if there would be a safety issue that would prevent two services being joined together at Exeter St Davids if they were arriving from opposite directions.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If I were in Barnstaple I would want something better for my London service than a class 158 for a 4-hour trundle around the Devon/Somerset/Dorset/Wiltshire borders.

Then you have the choice at changing onto a GWR service at Exeter.
Running IEP's on the Barnstaple branch is not going to happen and would be a huge waste. It would be like suggesting they run up the South Wales Valley Lines!

 

[Wirewiper]

Then you have the choice at changing onto a GWR service at Exeter.
Running IEP's on the Barnstaple branch is not going to happen and would be a huge waste. It would be like suggesting they run up the South Wales Valley Lines!

So no better than the present status quo then when it comes to travel between Barnstaple and London.

I don't agree that it would be a waste. I am not talking about converting the whole Barnstaple line service to IEP, but of using units in marginal time to give an extra through facility.

 

[SwindonBert]

I can't see GWR considering putting IEPs on the Tarka line in the foreseeable future, I can't see the demand being there - although with the release of trains from elsewhere on the network there may be chance to increase the service (passing points allowing).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I can't imagine it's desirable to have such a reasonably tightly-timed branchline dependent on long-distance services.

Looking at a standard hour, trains have five minutes to cross at Eggesford (service waits northbound) and Crediton (service waits southbound). That being the case, if in this world of split trains the service from London is 20 late heading heading into Exeter, you have already screwed the southbound working awaiting it to clear south of Eggesford (and therefore potentially the later crossing move at Crediton), or leave them to cross at Crediton, by which time the service the hour after the IEP service also needs to be at Crediton...

Of course, the solution to that would be a reasonable dwell at Exeter to allow recovery time from the main line segment, or let it back onto the main line in its booked path, but then you reach a point at which journey times become no more attractive than they are with the existing change of train.

What a line as infrastructurally complex as Barnstaple needs is a clean, straightforward, clockface timetable - not to dissimilar from the one at present - which allows reasonably safe performance, whilst not penalising journey times or frequency too severely.

 

[Wirewiper]

I can't imagine it's desirable to have such a reasonably tightly-timed branchline dependent on long-distance services.

Looking at a standard hour, trains have five minutes to cross at Eggesford (service waits northbound) and Crediton (service waits southbound). That being the case, if in this world of split trains the service from London is 20 late heading heading into Exeter, you have already screwed the southbound working awaiting it to clear south of Eggesford (and therefore potentially the later crossing move at Crediton), or leave them to cross at Crediton, by which time the service the hour after the IEP service also needs to be at Crediton...

Of course, the solution to that would be a reasonable dwell at Exeter to allow recovery time from the main line segment, or let it back onto the main line in its booked path, but then you reach a point at which journey times become no more attractive than they are with the existing change of train.

What a line as infrastructurally complex as Barnstaple needs is a clean, straightforward, clockface timetable - not to dissimilar from the one at present - which allows reasonably safe performance, whilst not penalising journey times or frequency too severely.

Thanks, that's a useful summary. It seems that a self-contained Barnstaple - Exeter St David's service operating reliably is of more value than a direct link to London.