Cardiff-Portsmouth - Rolling Stock Solutions?

[Kremlin Stooge]

the Bristol-Cardiff leg transfering to TfW and doubling to half-hourly, possibly being extended to Swansea once an hour although keeping it as just Bristol-Cardiff would probably allow earlier introduction of EMUs)

Not sure I would go for ½-hourly local services between Cardiff and Bristol, I would need some convincing that there is a level of demand between, say, Lawrence Hill and Severn Tunnel Junction to support such a frequency. And as for Pilning...

Swansea extensions I would handle with the long-distance trunk services; since these would need some form of onboard traction power supply anyway, the (penny-pinching) lack of electrification should be less of an issue. Indeed, hazy memory tells me that, back in the days of Wales & West, some Pompeys got as far as Carmarthen!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2021 ==

I don't think GWR like the idea of Gloucester to Taunton - the idea of Cardiff to Penzance has been discussed in this thread.

But it is not clear to me what market Cardiff to Penzance is intended to serve. It seems to me to be another Jack-of-All-Trades route, like the Cardiff - Solent -South Coast axis. The idea of separating out the greater Bristol commuter radius from longer distance passengers was behind my suggestion of Gloucester - Taunton.

Separating various flows according to their function can then inform the choices made about replacement rolling-stock on the services being discussed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think GWR like the idea of Gloucester to Taunton - the idea of Cardiff to Penzance has been discussed in this thread.

To be honest Cardiff to Taunton has always seemed like a Cardiff to Bristol and Bristol to Taunton service joined together for operational convenience rather than any significant demand between say Newport and WSM.

Given the number of Welsh accents heard when working at Taunton Deane Motorway services, I often wondered if a summer-only Barry to Barnstaple ferry would work, but that's (a) off topic, and (b) a bit silly.

 

[Snow1964]

For those in the know, would the third rail electrification between Portsmouth and Redbridge be able to accomodate a hypothetical dual voltage bi-mode on the route? That would be ideal for any new stock.

To those suggesting end doors: you must not have been on any moderately well loaded 158 passing though Southampton, Bath or Bristol! The Pompey-Cardiff routinely loses a few minutes here and there, and it hasn't a hope of making up any time at stops with end door trains, quite the opposite in fact. Not worth the fairly marginal increase in comfort for longer distance passengers.

A decent refurb of the turbos, with 2+2 seating and some proper tables, will do just fine for the next few years. In the longer term, I would echo other posters suggesting that new stock should be gangwayed, able to take advantage of the (hopefully ever expanding) electrification at each end, and operate at least 5 carriages for the majority of the day.

Yes, the third rail is strong enough for single units, (the weak bit is Fareham - St Denys which was originally based on 2 x 4VEP), it would struggle if regular higher powered trains were using the line

There is very high passenger churn at some stations like Salisbury and Bath, so decent capacity doors or vestibuleS are needed to avoid station delays. It would be eased if trains were regularly nearer 7cars than 3-5cars

Although the turbos might get some form of internal facelift, I am not convinced anyone is planning a decent refurb (as in seriously replacing interior fittings with new high spec premium ones). The 165+166 fleet date from 1990-1993, so unlikely anyone will spend serious money upgrading anything that old.

Unfortunately it does rather seem the route is currently being lumbered with another routes cast-off stock, just to find them a home, however inappropriate, rather than any attempt at providing something appropriate for the variety of passenger flows.

 

[Mike Machin]

The Turbo fleet is just about life-expired, more or less the same age as the class 117 units were when they were replaced by the 165/166 fleet - so their time is just about up, and it really isn’t worth forking-out good money after bad. They have served their purpose very successfully, but it’s now time for them to be sent for recycling.

New class 195s would be just fine.

 

[Gloster]

Given the number of Welsh accents heard when working at Taunton Deane Motorway services, I often wondered if a summer-only Barry to Barnstaple ferry would work, but that's (a) off topic, and (b) a bit silly.

About a dozen years ago there was a project to open a Swansea-Ilfracombe service using the two former Wightlink FastCats, which were reportedly actually bought by the company. The project failed, but later related proposals included services from Ilfracombe to Penarth or Cardiff and from Minehead.

 

[JonathanH]

The Turbo fleet is just about life-expired

Structurally sound for a further ten years of operation.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...fication-progress.83452/page-290#post-3996588

 

[Diplodicus]

Forgive me for returning to the topic but...

Snow1964 siad: "There is very high passenger churn at some stations like Salisbury and Bath, so decent capacity doors or vestibuleS are needed to avoid station delays. It would be eased if trains were regularly nearer 7cars than 3-5cars."

Wouldn't the least expensive option to be to adjust the timings at busier times/places to anticipate the longer dwell?

Just sayin'

 

[The Ham]

Forgive me for returning to the topic but...

Snow1964 siad: "There is very high passenger churn at some stations like Salisbury and Bath, so decent capacity doors or vestibuleS are needed to avoid station delays. It would be eased if trains were regularly nearer 7cars than 3-5cars."

Wouldn't the least expensive option to be to adjust the timings at busier times/places to anticipate the longer dwell?

Just sayin'

Or run longer train with ASDO for the shorter platform stations.

For example SWR have quite a few stations (some with approaching 1 million passengers a year) which can't fit 12 coach trains but have several 12 coach trains each day.

As such a (say) 8 coach train (as long as you can walk through the whole train) would provide more doors at the busy stations but allow access to the smaller stations.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Theres a very pleasant bit of the 166s in the middle coach with the tables. All they had to do was ‘ringfence’ enough of those and a standard 165 attached on high-peak stuff and you’d be away. Good luggage capacity etc also.

Or make every single 166 like those, and every 165 a ‘Metro’ unit, and again then use 166s on other longer distance stuff such as Worcester and Exeter.

 

[JN114]

Theres a very pleasant bit of the 166s in the middle coach with the tables. All they had to do was ‘ringfence’ enough of those and a standard 165 attached on high-peak stuff and you’d be away. Good luggage capacity etc also.

Or make every single 166 like those, and every 165 a ‘Metro’ unit, and again then use 166s on other longer distance stuff such as Worcester and Exeter.

Which is exactly the aspiration

 

[nw1]

The 158s were probably the best fit for this route, the only issue being the trains weren't long enough. If they had run all services as four- or six-car formations (perhaps using a 150 for the latter for short-distance commuting) they would have been ideal.

The move to three-car sets relatively recently did help,in the days of two-car there were real problems.

A 185 would be a reasonable alternative - have only used these rarely but they are rather reminiscent of a 'diesel 444' which as others have said might be a good fit.

 

[sussexbythesea]

Think Turbostars would be a good fit for this route, with 2/3 doors and a decent interior layout for an inter-regional service. ISTR FGW considered ordering some 172s at some point for the route?

Only problem would be the lack of corridor connection between units, but if services were formed of 3 carriage sets that would be less significant as there would be less multiple working.

And of course, the elephant in the room: where can these turbostars come from?

 

[Snow1964]

Or run longer train with ASDO for the shorter platform stations.

For example SWR have quite a few stations (some with approaching 1 million passengers a year) which can't fit 12 coach trains but have several 12 coach trains each day.

As such a (say) 8 coach train (as long as you can walk through the whole train) would provide more doors at the busy stations but allow access to the smaller stations.

There is not much physically in the way of some relatively short platform extensions, even the shorter ones tend to be at least 100-120m long already.

A 6car 23m train needs 140m (preferably 145m), and fair proportion of the stations served have platforms that are 200m+ (and I think it includes every station served that has junctions)

So any notion that longer trains need ASDO, or that it would be the only financially viable solution are misleading. It is not that expensive to extend platforms approx one carriage length on plain line if there are no structures such as bridges in the way, and of course every station north of Salisbury was originally broad gauge so clearances tend to be more generous.

It may be that the route could even take 24m or 24.5m carriages which potentially could give another 24-48 seats in 2+2 formation 6car train. I know the 26m bi-modes have used the whole route north of Westbury on diversion so it is only the Portsmouth end where max carriage length might be restrictive.

I accept not that many lines need a cross country tri-mode, but isn’t going to be harmful if a common design was also used to replace the shortened HST castle sets

 

[swt_passenger]

Think Turbostars would be a good fit for this route, with 2/3 doors and a decent interior layout for an inter-regional service. ISTR FGW considered ordering some 172s at some point for the route?

Only problem would be the lack of corridor connection between units, but if services were formed of 3 carriage sets that would be less significant as there would be less multiple working.

And of course, the elephant in the room: where can these turbostars come from?

Pre COVID the general demand on the route is what led to using 5 car combinations of Turbos on nearly all services. 3 car Turbostars wouldn’t really be up to it.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't think GWR like the idea of Gloucester to Taunton - the idea of Cardiff to Penzance has been discussed in this thread.

GWR might be considering Cardiff-Penzance, but in this speculative topic it has also been suggested that we should "seperate the more local flows" so that we can "provide the longer distance passengers with suitable stock. Extending the GWR Cardiff-Taunton into a Cardiff-Penzance service would have the opposite effect - ie. combining long and short distance passengers on the same train.

But it is not clear to me what market Cardiff to Penzance is intended to serve. It seems to me to be another Jack-of-All-Trades route, like the Cardiff - Solent -South Coast axis. The idea of separating out the greater Bristol commuter radius from longer distance passengers was behind my suggestion of Gloucester - Taunton.

Separating various flows according to their function can then inform the choices made about replacement rolling-stock on the services being discussed.

You seem to be making a similar point to me here; Cardiff-Penzance (assuming it is an extension of the slow GWR stopper via Weston-Super-Mare) just seems to be a crazy hotch-potch. Gloucester - Bristol Temple Meads - Weston-Super-Mare - Taunton makes alot more sense as a service, that would clearly be the local stopper with XC being the fast service on the same route (save for bypassing Weston-Super-Mare and coming from Cheltenham rather than Gloucester - in fact the GWR service should probably start back from Cheltenham for that reason - to provide connections in/out of the XC).

Not sure I would go for ½-hourly local services between Cardiff and Bristol, I would need some convincing that there is a level of demand between, say, Lawrence Hill and Severn Tunnel Junction to support such a frequency. And as for Pilning...

I was suggesting that the Cardiff-Bristol bit of the Cardiff-Taunton be transferred to TfW and doubled to every half hour (with the Cardiff-Portsmouth staying with GWR and possibly losing some stops). The Cardiff-Taunton doesn't call at Lawrence Hill and Pilning anyway (certainly not every hour) so neither would my service (not every train at every stop anyway - with EMU acceleratation there may be scope for 1tph to stop at Lawrence Hill and the other at Stapleton Road to give them a through service to Cardiff) but I think Severn Tunnel Junction and Cardiff Parkway could do with 2tph to Bristol Temple Meads. Stopping the Cardiff-Portsmouth at Cardiff Parkway would damage it's potential as a long distance service, hence why I suggested there needs to be a seperate 2tph local (outer suburban) service between Cardiff and Bristol.

Swansea extensions I would handle with the long-distance trunk services; since these would need some form of onboard traction power supply anyway, the (penny-pinching) lack of electrification should be less of an issue. Indeed, hazy memory tells me that, back in the days of Wales & West, some Pompeys got as far as Carmarthen!

I expect some Portsmouth services even made it to Pembroke Dock / Milford Haven / Fishguard Harbour in Wales & West days, but can't be sure. However, there is a dire need for additional capacity (particularly a facility for fast trains to overtake stoppers) between Cardiff and Bridgend / Port Talbot and competing demands for capacity between mainline and metro services over what is currently a two-track railway. Do you cut the Swansea-Manchester back to Cardiff-Manchester in order to protect the Portsmouth route through to Swansea? Given a choice between 3tph fast between Cardiff and Swansea or 2tph plus 1tph fast to Carmarthen (via Swansea District Line) I would choose the latter, meaning Swansea has to choose between Bristol and Manchester or have the Bristol service be part of the metro. My attempt at a compromise is a Bristol-Swansea semi-fast / outer suburban as part of the metro calling at Neath, Port Talbot, Pyle, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Cardiff Parkway, etc. But it needs doors at thirds because of the extra stops like Pyle, Cardiff Parkway, Patchway and Stapleton Road; and it needs electrification to Swansea in order to do it with an EMU.

To be honest Cardiff to Taunton has always seemed like a Cardiff to Bristol and Bristol to Taunton service joined together for operational convenience rather than any significant demand between say Newport and WSM.

In which case, joining the Taunton to Bristol bit up to a Bristol to Gloucester/Cheltenham for the operational convenience of not having too much terminate in Temple Meads makes alot of sense. In fact, if the bays in the old train shed (at one point intended for the Paddington - Bristol Parkway - Bristol Temple Meads fast IEP services) are still going to be built they are on the correct side of the layout to be used for terminating services from south Wales.

New class 195s would be just fine.

Don't 195s have ironing board seats, no unit end gangways, only one toilet per unit, poor alignment of seats to windows, huge amounts of standing room and the curse of blight on electrification prospects?

Snow1964 siad: "There is very high passenger churn at some stations like Salisbury and Bath, so decent capacity doors or vestibuleS are needed to avoid station delays. It would be eased if trains were regularly nearer 7cars than 3-5cars."

Wouldn't the least expensive option to be to adjust the timings at busier times/places to anticipate the longer dwell?

To me the best option would seem to be a combination of both; first make sure all trains are at least five coaches during the main part of the day (possibly reducing to 3 or 4 late in the evening when it's quiet), strengthened to 6 or 7 at times if it really needs it AND adjust the timings to anticipate the dwells. To paraphrase somebody else, capacity on regional express routes should be about number of carriages and seats, not compressing people and standing capacity.

It may be that the route could even take 24m or 24.5m carriages which potentially could give another 24-48 seats in 2+2 formation 6car train. I know the 26m bi-modes have used the whole route north of Westbury on diversion so it is only the Portsmouth end where max carriage length might be restrictive.

I accept not that many lines need a cross country tri-mode, but isn’t going to be harmful if a common design was also used to replace the shortened HST castle sets

While there aren't that many routes that need dual-voltage electro-diesels (using that term to avoid confusion with TfW's battery/electric/diesel tri-modes), aren't modern 3rd rail EMUs built to be 25kv AC overhead compatible/convertable? Is there much in the way of technical differences (ie. NOT interior specification differences) between class 450s, 350/1s, 350/2s, 350/3s and 350/4s, or could you (for example, I'm not sure why you would want to) take the third rail shoes off a 450 and put them on a 350/4 with little more than undoing/fastening a few bolts?

If one EMU is much the same as another on a technical level, then you could probably produce a batch of dual-voltage electro-diesels for Cardiff-Portsmouth as part of a much larger order for bi-modes which have only 25kv AC and diesel mode. Due to the need to decarbonise, we should have ended DMU production a few years ago (the Civity DMU family, with the possible exception of the 196s because they are only a small fleet, is an enormous mistake), meaning plenty of need for bi-modes as DMUs fall due for scrap.

If, on the other hand, the third rail requirement necessaitates something rather more bespoke then, on the subject of carriage lengths, I would like to throw 21.8m out there. If you did that, an 11-car formation (either a 5-car plus a 6-car or a 5-car plus two 3-car units) would be a similar length to a 12-car 450 and a bit longer than a 10-car 444 or 158/159. This I feel would be useful for SWR on the Waterloo-Exeter route, provided a 444-style door layout of course not cavenous doors at thirds, with GWR getting some units of the same type for Cardiff-Portsmouth as part of the same order. Throw a few electric-only ones on the order as well for the Portsmouth fasts (giving Southern the 458s to allow them to put something with toilets on the Coastway in place of the basically life-expired 313s) and job's a good'un.

 

[Energy]

should be about number of carriages and seats,

Not seats, Abellio focused on seat numbers and that has given the 720s an interior which has arguably too many seats.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not seats, Abellio focused on seat numbers and that has given the 720s an interior which has arguably too many seats.

Agreed, a spot of 'careless talk' on my part there - the point I was trying to make was that the available floor space should be used for comfortable seating (and other things that help to ensure a comfortable journey, like legroom and toilets) and that standing capacity shouldn't count.

 

[The exile]

To be honest Cardiff to Taunton has always seemed like a Cardiff to Bristol and Bristol to Taunton service joined together for operational convenience rather than any significant demand between say Newport and WSM.

Doubt there’s much demand for Newport- Weston (except on Summer Saturdays) but Yatton / Nailsea to Filton / Bristol Parkway is a different matter. Cross city services ( whether operationally convenient or not) / particularly where the main station isn’t exactly central, can help generate a lot of local journeys.

 

[Kite159]

Theres a very pleasant bit of the 166s in the middle coach with the tables. All they had to do was ‘ringfence’ enough of those and a standard 165 attached on high-peak stuff and you’d be away. Good luggage capacity etc also.

Or make every single 166 like those, and every 165 a ‘Metro’ unit, and again then use 166s on other longer distance stuff such as Worcester and Exeter.

Sadly a lot of those tables seem to have broken leaving the (3-1+2) seating as bays which suffer from people who missed the lesson at school on how to sit properly

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Sadly a lot of those tables seem to have broken leaving the (3-1+2) seating as bays which suffer from people who missed the lesson at school on how to sit properly

That’s down to the seats. I personally find those Networker seats impossible to sit in with the shape of them, and do indeed finding myself slouching just because they’re such an odd shape. And I’m very slim too, it’s probably worse for large people.

 

[southern442]

Pre COVID the general demand on the route is what led to using 5 car combinations of Turbos on nearly all services. 3 car Turbostars wouldn’t really be up to it.

A fleet of 3-car turbostars would be good if they had SDO, as you could run them as 6-car services if you needed. The other option is to have 20m 4-car units which could be doubled up to 8-cars for busy trains. I know they're out of fashion right now but if you had 20m stock, you might be able to get away with wide end doors, as then you'd then have more doors so the boarding and alighting could be a bit quicker compared to 23m units.

 

[nw1]

Could a case be made for splitting the various functions the route serves? At the moment it seems to be something of a Jack-of-All-Trades. With a route and timetable revision I could envisage the greater Bristol commute to work area served by Gloucester to Taunton and Westbury to Weston-super-Mare axes, using units with ⅓ and ⅔ door spacing, whilst the longer distance trunk routes using a modern equivalent of a 158, skip-stopping a good number of the intermediate stations, thus accelerating the journey times.

I dare say the industry insiders will have the numbers, but just from my observations (and personal usage), a surprisingly large number of passengers make medium-to-long distance journeys along this route. Perhaps the trick might be to separate these from the more local flows?

Sorry if this is rather a delayed post, have just seen this post.

I do remember a proposal for an overhaul of the Portsmouth-Cardiff axis a good while ago, perhaps the late 90s or the year 2000.

Proposal was to turn Portsmouth-Cardiff into an hourly express, calling only at major towns (unspecified what these were), an hourly semi-fast, referred to the 'market towns' service (which would imply Romsey, Warminster, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon), running Southampton to Bristol only, I think, and then local stopping services also hourly (Southampton-Salisbury, and Westbury-Bristol).

Perhaps that pattern is a bit extravagant, though Portsmouth-Cardiff could probably be sped up. In the late 90s they called EITHER Westbury OR Trowbridge (alternate hours) and Bradford-on-Avon was skipped entirely, the service being fully provided by the hourly Westbury stopper (continuing to Weymouth, Southampton or terminating at Westbury, depending on the hour).

The 'Trans Wilts' idea is a good one if it ever gets off the ground, so you could have an hourly Southampton-Swindon all-stations (from Romsey) which would fully provide the service at Dunbridge, Dean and Dilton Marsh. (The former two would be transferred from SWR)

Perhaps two tph Westbury-Bristol could then be introduced (hourly from Frome, some hours starting back at Weymouth), allowing the Portsmouth-Cardiff to skip Bradford-on-Avon, and either Westbury or Trowbridge in alternate hours, as was the case in the late 90s? Also seems sensible for Portsmouth-Cardiff to go fast Temple Meads-Newport-Cardiff, allowing other services to pick up the smaller stations.

2tph local trains from Westbury to Bristol would also give Oldfield Park and Keynsham a half-hourly service, which given they are in a highly-populated area, is perhaps appropriate. The Westbury-starters could take up the Avoncliff and Freshford stops, while the Frome or Weymouth starters would skip these.

 

[anthony263]

Was talk gwr wanted to run 4tph to Bristol TM with 2tph being Emus serving Cardiff Parkway, Magor , severn Tunnel Jct, Patchway etc speeding up the Taunton and Portsmouth hbr service by running them.non stop Newport to Bristol Tm

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Also seems sensible for Portsmouth-Cardiff to go fast Temple Meads-Newport-Cardiff, allowing other services to pick up the smaller stations.

Outside the peaks they only call at Filton Abbey Wood between Bristol and Newport, it’s all very well turning back the clocks 30 years but the markets have totally changed in 30 years and Filton is now a massive traffic objective.

The other calls such as Patchway, Pilning and Severn Tunnel Junction are already in the Cardiff / Taunton trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2021 ==

and either Westbury or Trowbridge in alternate hours, as was the case in the late 90s?

Westbury is now served hourly for connections towards the West of England, through services from Portsmouth to Exeter which existed in the 90s no longer exist.

Trwobridge is the County Town of Wiltshire and Administrative Centre, Salisbury is the largest settlement in Wiltshire, stopping the Portsmouth / Cardiff trains provides an hourly fast link between the two most arguably important settlements in Wiltshire.

The route is just as much Intercity as it is Inter-Urban.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There’s a lot of issues at play here. If the main Portsmouth and Fareham to Salisbury and Bristol axis is where the capacity crush is often found, the only solution is to slightly lessen the stops on that service and then add in one with more stops.

As an example, if we eventually get to a situation where we have 3/166 operating a Portsmouth to Cardiff “fast”, with only Southsea, Fratton, Fareham, Soton Ctl, Salisbury, Westbury, Trowbridge and Bath stops (before Bristol), it encourages some other journeys to be made on an alternative.

As GW already have a Fratton base, you can then use a 3/166 to operate an ‘overlay’ service, from Harbour to Bristol with stops at Southsea, Fratton, Cosham, Portchester, Fareham, Swanwick, Central, Romsey, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford, Bath and Keynsham stops.

That then leaves a situation whereby to cut the paths down you’d need a pair of skip-stop electric services, e.g. a Southern Brighton to Soton that does Fareham, Swanwick, Bursledon, Hamble, Netley and Central; and the Southsea to Bournemouth (or whoever it is going) “Solent Connect” that SWR wanted to run doing Fareham, Swanwick, Netley, Sholing, Woolston, Bitterne and St Denys.

Finally, you’ve got a ‘diesel island’ of the Marchwood so that could be a 2/158 that does Southsea, Fratton, Hilsea, Cosham, Portchester, Fareham, Swanwick, Woolston, St Denys, Central and stations to Marchwood.

This achieves 2tph Portsmouth / Southampton / Salisbury to Bath and Bristol; it achieves 2tph Portsmouth / Fareham to Totton; more stops at Netley and Woolston (which is needed); and the only consequential change is diverting the Victoria (or Brighton) to Southampton via Eastleigh and Airport which most could suggest is a positive anyway in each hour.

And then you’re left with an hourly Salisbury to Central via Romsey, Eastleigh and Airport that comes from Swindon (1tp2h) and Pen Mill via Junction and Gillingham (1tp2h). That in turn benefits Yeovil which gets 3tp2h to Salisbury instead of 1tph, and could allow a slight acceleration of 1tp2h between Salisbury and Exeter.

A combined 6/166 between Portsmouth and Bristol has the ability to ‘encourage’ people onto one or other based on their journeys and still represents a capacity uplift.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

There’s a lot of issues at play here. If the main Portsmouth and Fareham to Salisbury and Bristol axis is where the capacity crush is often found, the only solution is to slightly lessen the stops on that service and then add in one with more stops.

As an example, if we eventually get to a situation where we have 3/166 operating a Portsmouth to Cardiff “fast”, with only Southsea, Fratton, Fareham, Soton Ctl, Salisbury, Westbury, Trowbridge and Bath stops (before Bristol), it encourages some other journeys to be made on an alternative.

As GW already have a Fratton base, you can then use a 3/166 to operate an ‘overlay’ service, from Harbour to Bristol with stops at Southsea, Fratton, Cosham, Portchester, Fareham, Swanwick, Central, Romsey, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford, Bath and Keynsham stops.

That then leaves a situation whereby to cut the paths down you’d need a pair of skip-stop electric services, e.g. a Southern Brighton to Soton that does Fareham, Swanwick, Bursledon, Hamble, Netley and Central; and the Southsea to Bournemouth (or whoever it is going) “Solent Connect” that SWR wanted to run doing Fareham, Swanwick, Netley, Sholing, Woolston, Bitterne and St Denys.

Finally, you’ve got a ‘diesel island’ of the Marchwood so that could be a 2/158 that does Southsea, Fratton, Hilsea, Cosham, Portchester, Fareham, Swanwick, Woolston, St Denys, Central and stations to Marchwood.

This achieves 2tph Portsmouth / Southampton / Salisbury to Bath and Bristol; it achieves 2tph Portsmouth / Fareham to Totton; more stops at Netley and Woolston (which is needed); and the only consequential change is diverting the Victoria (or Brighton) to Southampton via Eastleigh and Airport which most could suggest is a positive anyway in each hour.

And then you’re left with an hourly Salisbury to Central via Romsey, Eastleigh and Airport that comes from Swindon (1tp2h) and Pen Mill via Junction and Gillingham (1tp2h). That in turn benefits Yeovil which gets 3tp2h to Salisbury instead of 1tph, and could allow a slight acceleration of 1tp2h between Salisbury and Exeter.

A combined 6/166 between Portsmouth and Bristol has the ability to ‘encourage’ people onto one or other based on their journeys and still represents a capacity uplift.

This seems to be suggesting lots of small trains instead of the current 5 car trains. This becomes very crew hungry and thus expensive!

 

[nw1]

Westbury is now served hourly for connections towards the West of England, through services from Portsmouth to Exeter which existed in the 90s no longer exist.

Trwobridge is the County Town of Wiltshire and Administrative Centre, Salisbury is the largest settlement in Wiltshire, stopping the Portsmouth / Cardiff trains provides an hourly fast link between the two most arguably important settlements in Wiltshire.

The route is just as much Intercity as it is Inter-Urban.

Though with the addition of an hourly Southampton-Swindon 'Trans Wilts' that would still maintain an hourly (actually 3 trains per 2 hours, if alternate Cardiffs stopped at one or the other) from Southampton and Salisbury to both Westbury and Trowbridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2021 ==

And then you’re left with an hourly Salisbury to Central via Romsey, Eastleigh and Airport that comes from Swindon (1tp2h) and Pen Mill via Junction and Gillingham (1tp2h). That in turn benefits Yeovil which gets 3tp2h to Salisbury instead of 1tph, and could allow a slight acceleration of 1tp2h between Salisbury and Exeter.

Wouldn't this mean cutting the Waterloo-Exeter to one train every two hours though?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

This seems to be suggesting lots of small trains instead of the current 5 car trains. This becomes very crew hungry and thus expensive!

In theory it is no more trains than were supposed to exist anyway, at least in the Solent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2021 ==

Though with the addition of an hourly Southampton-Swindon 'Trans Wilts' that would still maintain an hourly (actually 3 trains per 2 hours, if alternate Cardiffs stopped at each) from Southampton and Salisbury to both Westbury and Trowbridge.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2021 ==



Wouldn't this mean cutting the Waterloo-Exeter to one train every two hours though?

Well no. It is possible to take the existing infra and thread a train through every 2 hours as far as Yeovil.

 

[nw1]

Well no. It is possible to take the existing infra and thread a train through every 2 hours as far as Yeovil.

Ah right, sorry I misunderstood. Would the single track section at Tisbury cause a problem? Also is there actually demand for a more-than-hourly service in this section, which is pretty rural, other than at the peaks? (Don't know, just asking)

 

[JonathanH]

Though with the addition of an hourly Southampton-Swindon 'Trans Wilts' that would still maintain an hourly (actually 3 trains per 2 hours, if alternate Cardiffs stopped at one or the other) from Southampton and Salisbury to both Westbury and Trowbridge.

Stopping alternate trains at Trowbridge and Westbury is just confusing.