Through GWR Bedwyns to be axed from May 2022

[Bletchleyite]

Playing devil's advocate, if you look at other outer suburban terminators from London, a town of Newbury's size to be the natural end point would make the most sense, wouldn't it?

It does, yes. I've always considered Bedwyn odd. It would be like LNR terminating the Crewe services at Norton Bridge (when it existed), or Northamptons at Long Buckby, or Chiltern's High Wycombe stoppers at Denham Golf Club. Westbury is the next "sensible" terminus along.

Generally the best way to plan local services is to have them run as far as an interchange with faster services (so you can interchange to/from them in both directions) rather than to terminate them in the middle of a field with no other service.

 

[swt_passenger]

It does, yes. I've always considered Bedwyn odd. It would be like LNR terminating the Crewe services at Norton Bridge (when it existed), or Northamptons at Long Buckby, or Chiltern's High Wycombe stoppers at Denham Golf Club. Westbury is the next "sensible" terminus along.

Generally the best way to plan local services is to have them run as far as an interchange with faster services (so you can interchange to/from them in both directions) rather than to terminate them in the middle of a field with no other service.

Indeed Westbury ticks other boxes as being a crossing place of two regional routes, it is even more useful than a linear interchange…

 

[JonathanH]

Westbury is the next "sensible" terminus along.

Generally the best way to plan local services is to have them run as far as an interchange with faster services (so you can interchange to/from them in both directions) rather than to terminate them in the middle of a field with no other service.

Westbury is the best part of 30 miles west of Bedwyn. Newbury is the sensible terminus but the trains (subject to a suitable power source) can efficiently get to a local station a little bit further on.

Newbury is the interchange for the faster services, with a further change at Taunton or Exeter for the next level of faster services. There are trains from Newbury to Westbury.

If Bedwyn was a proper terminus on a branch from Hungerford, no one would think it odd to terminate trains there. If the trains actually went to Marlborough on a branch, no one would think it odd to terminate trains there. The fact that Bedwyn is a station on a through line seems to trouble people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Bedwyn was a proper terminus on a branch from Hungerford, no one would think it odd to terminate trains there. The fact it is a station on a through line seems to trouble people.

Given the size of Bedwyn, if it was on a branch Beeching would certainly have shut it. Chathill (the other similar example) similarly.

 

[Glenn1969]

It does, yes. I've always considered Bedwyn odd. It would be like LNR terminating the Crewe services at Norton Bridge (when it existed), or Northamptons at Long Buckby, or Chiltern's High Wycombe stoppers at Denham Golf Club. Westbury is the next "sensible" terminus along.

Generally the best way to plan local services is to have them run as far as an interchange with faster services (so you can interchange to/from them in both directions) rather than to terminate them in the middle of a field with no other service.

Presume the best place for these to terminate would be Hungerford, Westbury, Trowbridge or Frome but infrastructure prevents that?

 

[JonathanH]

Presume the best place for these to terminate would be Hungerford, Westbury, Trowbridge or Frome but infrastructure prevents that?

Only if Bedwyn was shut.

Weymouth but infrastructure prevents that as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only if Bedwyn was shut.

The case for Bedwyn even existing is very weak, the population is tiny, so pretty much all its users drive there, and could just as easily (in some cases more easily) drive to Hungerford or even Newbury. I don't doubt that many choose Bedwyn because boarding at the terminus gives you the best choice of seats.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Out of interest, was there any reference to maintaining services at Bedwyn as a railhead in the closure notice for Marlborough itself in the 1960s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, was there any reference to maintaining services at Bedwyn as a railhead in the closure notice for Marlborough itself in the 1960s?

Good point - and was a bus service operated - and indeed has it ever been called "Bedwyn for Marlborough"?

To be fair, in 2022, if you wanted a dedicated railway bus to/from Marlborough, you'd run it to/from Hungerford, not Bedwyn. It's a better road and only a couple of kilometres further so probably quicker. It's a bit like "Cark and Cartmel", where if you want to go to Cartmel by onward transport (occasional buses or a taxi) you want to go to Grange, not Cark.

Closures are too difficult these days, but withdrawing the stopper entirely, giving it a couple of IETs a day at useful "day in London" times for the 1500 or so locals, and stopping more IETs at Hungerford all day would probably be a plan worth looking at. There's a bus service which could be used for local journeys, and due to ENCTS this is probably preferred by most non-driving locals anyway.

Then, once it eventually gets wired, extend the EMU stopper back out.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I have heard that from two independent GWR sources on the basis that DfT want the HSTs withdrawn ASAP.

I'm not saying this in the hope we cling onto the HST's but why when they've been not long DDA-compliant and must be ok for now?

5-car IET's on the Castle HST services would be welcome as it means about 23 more seats per train and presumably declassified First Class. I wonder if a catering service will be provided given these have a kitchen?

Also, are there enough 940hp 802's to replace them vs 750hp 800's?

 

[JonathanH]

Good point - and was a bus service operated - and indeed has it ever been called "Bedwyn for Marlborough"?

To be fair, in 2022, if you wanted a dedicated railway bus to/from Marlborough, you'd run it to/from Hungerford, not Bedwyn. It's a better road and only a couple of kilometres further so probably quicker. It's a bit like "Cark and Cartmel", where if you want to go to Cartmel by onward transport (occasional buses or a taxi) you want to go to Grange, not Cark.

Closures are too difficult these days, but withdrawing the stopper entirely, giving it a couple of IETs a day at useful "day in London" times for the 1500 or so locals, and stopping more IETs at Hungerford all day would probably be a plan worth looking at.

There have been various buses over time, although the current incarnation isn't aimed at meeting trains.
https://www.swindonbus.co.uk/services/TDTR/20?date=2022-03-10&direction=outbound

 

[The exile]

The case for Bedwyn even existing is very weak, the population is tiny, so pretty much all its users drive there, and could just as easily (in some cases more easily) drive to Hungerford or even Newbury. I don't doubt that many choose Bedwyn because boarding at the terminus gives you the best choice of seats.

Whether ,pre-Covid, parking (or indeed road) capacity at either would have been sufficient is another matter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether ,pre-Covid, parking (or indeed road) capacity at either would have been sufficient is another matter.

Parking can be expanded by double-stacking etc. I would be very surprised if passenger numbers would cause a road capacity issue, they simply won't be that high. Even in most of commuterland there aren't traffic jams to the station in the morning.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

There have been various buses over time, although the current incarnation isn't aimed at meeting trains.
https://www.swindonbus.co.uk/services/TDTR/20?date=2022-03-10&direction=outbound

Indeed, and at times has been available in rail journey planners, with through ticketing. It was withdrawn a few years ago when the bus service became so infrequent and slow that it lost any value as a connecting/feeder route. I believe it was around the time George Osborne as chancellor cut a huge chunk out of council subsidies for rural transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2022 ==

The case for Bedwyn even existing is very weak, the population is tiny, so pretty much all its users drive there, and could just as easily (in some cases more easily) drive to Hungerford or even Newbury. I don't doubt that many choose Bedwyn because boarding at the terminus gives you the best choice of seats.

Pre Covid numbers for Bedwyn are in the order of 130k passengers per year, so it’s not ‘dead’ but certainly not as busy as other stations with hourly London services. For the Covid period it’s dropped to 20k/year so that indicates the level of commuting I guess, and how much of that may not return? Not sure I would support full reduction of service to a token amount, but I suspect there will be a new middle ground somewhere. There must be a reason people drove to Bedwyn not Hungerford, as presumably a Hungerford-Paddington season ticket was cheaper…

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pre Covid numbers for Bedwyn are in the order of 130k passengers per year, so it’s not ‘dead’ but certainly not as busy as other stations with hourly London services. For the Covid period it’s dropped to 20k/year so that indicates the level of commuting I guess, and how much of that may not return? Not sure I would support full reduction of service to a token amount, but I suspect there will be a new middle ground somewhere. There must be a reason people drove to Bedwyn not Hungerford, as presumably a Hungerford-Paddington season ticket was cheaper…

It's certainly no Cheddington (78K, almost all of whom could probably use Tring or Leighton Buzzard instead), but because it only has about 1500 locals, everyone else is driving there, and if they could just as well drive somewhere else (e.g. Hungerford) the case is weaker than if those 130K were all locals.

It wouldn't surprise me if they chose Bedwyn because getting on at the terminus gives you a better pick of the seats. When they existed at a reasonable time, I always used to go for Bletchley starters in the morning peak for that same reason, despite there being far faster trains.

 

[Glenn1969]

It's certainly no Cheddington, but because it only has about 1500 locals, everyone else is driving there, and if they could just as well drive somewhere else (e.g. Hungerford) the case is weaker than if those 130K were all locals.

I suggested Trowbridge or Frome as possible termini because these stations have considerably higher usage than Bedwyn despite a pretty poor London service . That would also allow IETs to stop less at Pewsey because it could have an hourly service from the extended Bedwyns. Presume the IETs would continue to serve Westbury in this cases

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I suggested Trowbridge or Frome as possible termini because these stations have considerably higher usage than Bedwyn despite a pretty poor London service . That would also allow IETs to stop less at Pewsey because it could have an hourly service from the extended Bedwyns. Presume the IETs would continue to serve Westbury in this cases

Its an extremely long way from Bedwyn to Heywood Road Jcn at Westbury, in the order of 30+ mins journey time. The resource requirement would massively outweigh the benefit and you'd struggle to fit the passenger service between the preceding 45mph freight and the 110mph fast passenger following. The B&H is an extremely difficult route to timetable.

 

[Wychwood93]

Its an extremely long way from Bedwyn to Heywood Road Jcn at Westbury, in the order of 30+ mins journey time. The resource requirement would massively outweigh the benefit and you'd struggle to fit the passenger service between the preceding 45mph freight and the 110mph fast passenger following. The B&H is an extremely difficult route to timetable.

General point taken - although Bedwyn/Westbury, with a Pewsey stop is sub-30 - see: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L87076/2022-03-10/detailed#allox_id=0 - slightly quicker for an up morning service: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L86932/2022-03-10/detailed#allox_id=0

 

[158756]

It's certainly no Cheddington (78K, almost all of whom could probably use Tring or Leighton Buzzard instead), but because it only has about 1500 locals, everyone else is driving there, and if they could just as well drive somewhere else (e.g. Hungerford) the case is weaker than if those 130K were all locals.

It wouldn't surprise me if they chose Bedwyn because getting on at the terminus gives you a better pick of the seats. When they existed at a reasonable time, I always used to go for Bletchley starters in the morning peak for that same reason, despite there being far faster trains.

I'd be surprised if many trains were full at Hungerford given the passenger figures. If they were there can't have been many people travelling off-peak.

I do notice that Bedwyn appears to have free parking.

 

[nw1]

Playing devil's advocate, if you look at other outer suburban terminators from London, a town of Newbury's size to be the natural end point would make the most sense, wouldn't it?

Maybe if the through Bedwyn hadn't existed from 1992-2020 that would be a fair point. On the other hand I do agree that the service would have been better extended to Westbury, as suggested by some others - but recognise that if they're struggling with Bedwyn, we're not going to get Westbury.

Re the Bedwyn user group, I think they are right to be annoyed at the loss of a through service which lasted 28 (?) years (assuming it was stopped at Covid). On the other hand their opposition to electrification was a bit silly as that would have made life so much easier.

One question has (unless I missed it) still remained unanswered though: if they have the IET stock to run peak services to Bedwyn, could the same unit(s) not provide some kind of through off-peak service? Even if it's just two-hourly, as it was for much of the nineties? It could for instance perhaps run in the hour the Exeter doesn't, and if the Exeter stops at Hungerford, then that station would at least have an hourly service to London.

 

[Horizon22]

I'd be surprised if many trains were full at Hungerford given the passenger figures. If they were there can't have been many people travelling off-peak.

I do notice that Bedwyn appears to have free parking.

They certainly aren't, it only used to get substantially loaded by Newbury.

 

[JonathanH]

One question has (unless I missed it) still remained unanswered though: if they have the IET stock to run peak services to Bedwyn, could the same unit(s) not provide some kind of through off-peak service? Even if it's just two-hourly, as it was for much of the nineties?

Not really. The nature of the peak trains on the Bedwyn route has been for them to run beyond Bedwyn as they have longer formations and there is demand for Pewsey, Westbury etc.

The nature of the arrangements with Hitachi appear to be for units to go onto the depot during the day, especially if they have been outberthed overnight so there will always be units available in the peaks which aren't available at other times. As a result, if GWR are looking to diagram units, they can remove an 'all day' one from the Bedwyn route and use a 'peak only' one to maintain the service.

It all comes back to the availability of a Turbo that does peak work between Newbury and Bedwyn that can be used between the peaks to do the same thing, which in the process releases three 80x units.

 

[nw1]

Not really. The nature of the peak trains on the Bedwyn route has been for them to run beyond Bedwyn as they have longer formations and there is demand for Pewsey, Westbury etc.

The nature of the arrangements with Hitachi appear to be for units to go onto the depot during the day, especially if they have been outberthed overnight so there will always be units available in the peaks which aren't available at other times. As a result, if GWR are looking to diagram units, they can remove an 'all day' one from the Bedwyn route and use a 'peak only' one to maintain the service.

It all comes back to the availability of a Turbo that does peak work between Newbury and Bedwyn that can be used between the peaks to do the same thing, which in the process releases three 80x units.

OK - thanks for clarifying. I think I probably based my thoughts on the philosophy of the last 10 years or so, which was to keep peak units out in revenue service in the off-peak where possible.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

OK - thanks for clarifying. I think I probably based my thoughts on the philosophy of the last 10 years or so, which was to keep peak units out in revenue service in the off-peak where possible.

800s (as opposed to 802s) are effectively hired for 36 hours at a time so if they are outstabled overnight they must be back at a Hitachi depot within 36 hours of their last visit.

Explains why you need sets on after the morning peak of come out for the evening peak.

 

[Watershed]

800s (as opposed to 802s) are effectively hired for 36 hours at a time so if they are outstabled overnight they must be back at a Hitachi depot within 36 hours of their last visit.

Explains why you need sets on after the morning peak of come out for the evening peak.

Yep. Whoever signed off on that clause deserves to be fired; it's an absolute stinker. Witness the ludicrous number of ECSs that GWR, LNER etc. run, particularly during engineering works - compared to the other intercity TOCs such as Avanti, GA or EMR. You end up with nonsense like a 3 hour ECS from Leeds to Heaton.

 

[cactustwirly]

Yep. Whoever signed off on that clause deserves to be fired; it's an absolute stinker. Witness the ludicrous number of ECSs that GWR, LNER etc. run, particularly during engineering works - compared to the other intercity TOCs such as Avanti, GA or EMR. You end up with nonsense like a 3 hour ECS from Leeds to Heaton.

Heaton isn't a Hitachi facility though...

Bounds Green, Craigentinny and Doncaster Carr are however.

North Pole, Stoke Gifford and Swansea Maliphant are the GWML ones

 

[Watershed]

Heaton isn't a Hitachi facility though...

Bounds Green, Craigentinny and Doncaster Carr are however.

North Pole, Stoke Gifford and Swansea Maliphant are the GWML ones

It doesn't have to be a Hitachi-owned or run facility to qualify for the purposes of the 36 hour rule. It just needs to be on the 'approved list'.

The point is, this rule causes no end of problems and makes it almost impossible to have efficient diagrams that outstable.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Yep. Whoever signed off on that clause deserves to be fired; it's an absolute stinker. Witness the ludicrous number of ECSs that GWR, LNER etc. run, particularly during engineering works - compared to the other intercity TOCs such as Avanti, GA or EMR. You end up with nonsense like a 3 hour ECS from Leeds to Heaton.

The DfT procured these units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2022 ==

Bounds Green, Craigentinny and Doncaster Carr are however.

Hasn’t Clayhills transferred to Hitachi, seems strange to have an LNER depot still there.

 

[Watershed]

The DfT procured these units.

Yes, and this particular issue is one of the innumerable bungles they committed during the procurement process. What I'm alluding to is that a clause like that should never have been accepted in the negotiations.

Clearly, whichever civil servant or lawyer agreed to its inclusion in the contract had no appreciation of the operational realities of running a railway. Or perhaps they simply thought "it won't be my problem to live with it".

 

[Horizon22]

800s (as opposed to 802s) are effectively hired for 36 hours at a time so if they are outstabled overnight they must be back at a Hitachi depot within 36 hours of their last visit.

Explains why you need sets on after the morning peak of come out for the evening peak.

Certificates last 48 hours now. As with many things Hitachi - as Southeastern found out - the terms start very strict and get (very slowly) slightly more reasonable as the impact on customers and clients (i.e the paying passengers) is unreasonably disrupted.