Poor Connections Planned from December at Cardiff - westbound.

[craigybagel]

I think it's rather more than a disappointment, given how poor a customer experience 153s offer, especially when compared to 170s - which from a passenger perspective remain the gold standard of regional trains.

It also simply kicks the can down the road. Why couldn't the 197 order be increased instead? There is no chance the line will ever be electrified, and it's far too long for battery trains. As for hydrogen trains, well let's not even go there.

More 197s would have cost more, when we're talking about a basket case of a line financially. Incidentally, the timetable is also getting increased on the HOWL, with 7 trains a day on the busier end sections of the line and new later last trains. I suspect that even with (refurbished PRM compliant) 153s rather than 170s the HOWL passengers are going to be pretty happy going forward.

It's absolutely a compromise (hence why the current hourly through service can't continue) - but it's the lack of attention to detail here that's causing significant inconvenience to passengers. I haven't looked at the graph, but I'd be amazed if there weren't some way to make all of the connections work.

Have a look at the times, and then come back with some suggestion as to how you could make the connections work better

Given there's only a two-hourly through service for most of the day at present, which isn't actually changing, it's very unlikely to be noticed. However, the commercial disadvantage arising from losing traffic on the Swansea Bay - Liverpool / Manchester / Leeds / Edinburgh / Glasgow flow is definitely going to be noticeable to TfW.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

Hourly from Carmarthen, and in my experience the demand for the likes of Carmarthen to Cardiff is quite high and an enforced connection at Swansea would not go down well. I would argue this would be a bigger priority than Swansea to the North of England, especially when the latter is still retaining a 2 hourly through service (plus a MKIV set at business hours).

To be fair trying to make them work at Cardiff Central probably is a hiding to nothing, because even if you found 7 minutes they'd never hold the connections anyway so people would quickly learn they cannot be trusted. However, offering an 8 - 10 minute connection at Swansea looks much more achievable to me.

TfW are pretty good at holding connections - I should know, I've organised a lot of them in a former role. Bear in mind as well that most of the time at Cardiff it will be a same platform or cross platform interchange, and 7 minutes won't actually be necessary.

 

[anthony263]

Hopefully we will get a hourly swanline service next may which might help the situation a little

 

[Starmill]

Hourly from Carmarthen, and in my experience the demand for the likes of Carmarthen to Cardiff is quite high and an enforced connection at Swansea would not go down well. I would argue this would be a bigger priority than Swansea to the North of England, especially when the latter is still retaining a 2 hourly through service (plus a MKIV set at business hours).

Railway people fall into this trap all the time, where towns which are served frequently by trains for historical and operational reasons are considered to be of similar importance to large metropolitan areas.

If you take the population in a 13km radius from Swansea station, which includes the Bay, Pontardulais, and only leaves out a small bit of Port Talbot, but doesn't include Llanelli, that's ~360k people. Furthermore a good part of this catchment is actually the sea, so the population is densely clustered around the three major stations. The same area from Carmarthen is ~45k people, less than half of which (~20k) is within the town itself. The population outside the town itself is very thin and dispersed. The data are from 2015.

Now obviously Carmarthen has a slightly stronger aggregation of traffic because so many towns and villages further than 13km away don't have an alternative station to use, and because it has its long-distance bus connections for which it is a central hub. However that won't count for more than a single figures percentage uplift in rail demand. The Swansea Bay area generates between 6 and 8 times as much rail demand as Carmarthen does, which is precisely what is borne out by the industry model.

 

[Jez]

If everything ran to time then a 3 minute connection would be achievable (on paper at least!) at Cardiff particularly if both trains were using the same platform or the one opposite (i.e. platform 3 or 4). However as far as timetables go it wouldn't be a valid connection due to the 7 minute minimum connection time at Cardiff Central.

At least if a 7 minute connection could be done then TFW would have to put alternative arrangements in place if it were to be missed due to a late running train from Manchester. Most likely replacement road transport or another train to Swansea and hold the connection there. As it is, a 3 minute connection time and not a valid connection they aren't obliged to do anything if its missed as it isnt a connection in the first place.

I notice they are very good at holding connections at Swansea. Particularly for West Wales trains when the GWR is late.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

Hopefully we will get a hourly swanline service next may which might help the situation a little

That will certainly be welcome and long overdue! Also from the December TT the Manchester trains still appear to be picking up the Swanline stops every two hours. At least if they weren't picking up Swanline stops there would be more scope for a later departure from Cardiff providing valid connections for other services without a later arrival at either Milford or Carmarthen.

 

[craigybagel]

Railway people fall into this trap all the time, where towns which are served frequently by trains for historical and operational reasons are considered to be of similar importance to large metropolitan areas.

Obviously Swansea is a much bigger market than Carmarthen, even us blinkered "railway people" can see that. My argument is that it's more important for Carmarthen and beyond to retain a direct link to Cardiff than it is to not reduce the direct Swansea - North of England link from hourly to 2 hourly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

Operationally, it would make everyone's life a lot simpler to just run an hourly service Swansea - Manchester all day long and keep West Wales entirely separate and make everyone change at Swansea. The fact the railway has chosen not to take the easy option surely should show there's a demand for it?

 

[Starmill]

Obviously Swansea is a much bigger market than Carmarthen, even us blinkered "railway people" can see that. My argument is that it's more important for Carmarthen and beyond to retain a direct link to Cardiff than it is to not reduce the direct Swansea - North of England link from hourly to 2 hourly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

Operationally, it would make everyone's life a lot simpler to just run an hourly service Swansea - Manchester all day long and keep West Wales entirely separate and make everyone change at Swansea. The fact the railway has chosen not to take the easy option surely should show there's a demand for it?

I know that's what you were saying. And I was equally saying that the sales data are very clear that Carmarthen - Cardiff is a smaller market both by volume and value than Swansea Bay - Northern England and Central Belt. Obviously the latter paragraph about the political imperative to keep Haverfordwest and Milford Haven directly connected with Cardiff is a big part of the influence here, but of course that's all just stakeholder pressure. It's not actually an economic or commercial dimension.

Then again, the draft changes proposed by Transport for Wales for WelTAG will put less and less emphasis on value for money going forward anyway. My personal view is that this means it's more likely that future Welsh investment decisions will be made on where has the better organised and loudest stakeholders, and its unavoidable that outturn value for money will be lower. So from that perspective it all fits in quite well with the government's priorities, if that's what Welsh voters really want, then who am I to make criticism of that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

That will certainly be welcome and long overdue! Also from the December TT the Manchester trains still appear to be picking up the Swanline stops every two hours. At least if they weren't picking up Swanline stops there would be more scope for a later departure from Cardiff providing valid connections for other services without a later arrival at either Milford or Carmarthen.

The 1230 from Manchester Piccadilly connects with the Fishguard Harbour service from Cardiff Central, so it does fit slightly better in some hours already.

 

[Watershed]

More 197s would have cost more, when we're talking about a basket case of a line financially. Incidentally, the timetable is also getting increased on the HOWL, with 7 trains a day on the busier end sections of the line and new later last trains. I suspect that even with (refurbished PRM compliant) 153s rather than 170s the HOWL passengers are going to be pretty happy going forward.

The increased timetable is certainly a step forwards, but that is a separate matter from the rolling stock used. Whilst more 197s would of course cost more - as I say it's just a question of kicking the can down the road.

Given the decisions TfW have taken, in ~5 years' time exactly the same issues will arise, and it'll be a question of pouring yet more money into clapped out 153s, to put them through another round of overhauls to keep them in service - or procuring new rolling stock. Having ruled out the option of 170s, I fail to see why they would be feasible in 5 years, when they aren't now.

And whilst CAF would probably still be willing to make more 197s at that point, the price per unit is going to be a hell of a lot higher than a follow-up order made while the production line is still rolling. Choosing any other type of stock would be absolute madness, seeing as it would be a micro-fleet.

Have a look at the times, and then come back with some suggestion as to how you could make the connections work better

To be honest, I'm don't think there's any point. I've seen this sort of thing many times, where relatively minor changes can make connections work - but after proposing those changes, they're rejected because of a stubborn insistence on adhering to a particular clockface pattern or whatnot, even if inconvenient to passengers.

More importantly, looking into it isn't going to fix the broken connections in the December timetable!

I know that's what you were saying. And I was equally saying that the sales data are very clear that Carmarthen - Cardiff is a smaller market both by volume and value than Swansea Bay - Northern England and Central Belt. Obviously the latter paragraph about the political imperative to keep Haverfordwest and Milford Haven directly connected with Cardiff is a big part of the influence here, but of course that's all just stakeholder pressure. It's not actually an economic or commercial dimension.

Then again, the draft changes proposed by Transport for Wales for WelTAG will put less and less emphasis on value for money going forward anyway. My personal view is that this means it's more likely that future Welsh investment decisions will be made on where has the better organised and loudest stakeholders, and its unavoidable that outturn value for money will be lower. So from that perspective it all fits in quite well with the government's priorities, if that's what Welsh voters really want, then who am I to make criticism of that?

It's the Southport problem all over again! Railways are always going to be subject to political meddling given the subsidies involved, but this is a particularly disappointing example.

 

[Envoy]

I see that we will often have the just missed connections going the other way. For example; 12.48 train from Carmarthen arrives in Cardiff. 12.49 Cardiff to Manchester departs. (Previous arrival into Cardiff will be a GWR Swansea to London at 12.18).

14.49 Cardiff to ~Manchester departs. 12.58 Carmarthen to Cardiff train arrives. (Previous arrival into Cardiff from the west is at 12.18 GWR Swansea to London).

I note that mention has been made about the finances of The Marches line being not good. I see that whenever a search is made on the national rail website for a journey from south Wales to anywhere on the WCML north of Crewe to say Preston or Glasgow, that Cross Country come up as the fare setter. Presumably they get a cut of the revenue for this route even though people are travelling on TfW and Avanti. This is totally ridiculous that a company that people would not travel on can set the fares and take a cut of the revenue that should be going to fund the railways in Wales - as well as Avanti West Coast Trains. Of course, many people have now realised that they should split the tickets to get the best fares by splitting at Crewe (& sometimes at other places en-route). Hopefully the money is then split accordingly between TfW and Avanti.

Mention has been made of passenger flows between different start and end points. How can the flows be known if the public are now having to split the tickets - sometimes several times -in order to get the price down?

 

[Watershed]

I note that mention has been made about the finances of The Marches line being not good. I see that whenever a search is made on the national rail website for a journey from south Wales to anywhere on the WCML north of Crewe to say Preston or Glasgow, that Cross Country come up as the fare setter. Presumably they get a cut of the revenue for this route even though people are travelling on TfW and Avanti. This is totally ridiculous that a company that people would not travel on can set the fares and take a cut of the revenue that should be going to fund the railways in Wales - as well as Avanti West Coast Trains. Of course, many people have now realised that they should split the tickets to get the best fares by splitting at Crewe (& sometimes at other places en-route). Hopefully the money is then split accordingly between TfW and Avanti.

You've raised this point multiple times in previous threads, and every time you've been told that revenue distribution (ORCATS) is in no way influenced by the fare setter - but is purely based on which operators feature in the fastest itineraries, as well as those with the fewest changes. Nothing has changed since the last time you raised it, and XC being the fare setter still makes sense for the reasons previously explained !

Mention has been made of passenger flows between different start and end points. How can the flows be known if the public are now having to split the tickets - sometimes several times -in order to get the price down?

Whilst I don't doubt that there is some distortion of the true passenger numbers as a result of splitting, the reality is that only a small percentage of passengers buy split tickets. That percentage has probably increased a little as Trainline have begun offering splits (being as they are the biggest retailer), but Trainline only splits once to my knowledge, and even then they won't always find splits that other retailers do. The vast majority of people still use through tickets.

 

[craigybagel]

I know that's what you were saying. And I was equally saying that the sales data are very clear that Carmarthen - Cardiff is a smaller market both by volume and value than Swansea Bay - Northern England and Central Belt. Obviously the latter paragraph about the political imperative to keep Haverfordwest and Milford Haven directly connected with Cardiff is a big part of the influence here, but of course that's all just stakeholder pressure. It's not actually an economic or commercial dimension.

Fair enough, my apologies for misunderstanding you. But my question is, whilst the Swansea - Northern England market may be bigger than the West Wales to Cardiff market, is it bigger enough that it's more important to retain an hourly direct service on the former and nothing on the latter?

I'm glad we're agreed on the politics of the matter how ever. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it in terms of the actual passenger market, ending the direct direct services would never be acceptable to the folks in Cardiff Bay, and that's probably a bigger barrier than anything else.

The increased timetable is certainly a step forwards, but that is a separate matter from the rolling stock used. Whilst more 197s would of course cost more - as I say it's just a question of kicking the can down the road.

Given the decisions TfW have taken, in ~5 years' time exactly the same issues will arise, and it'll be a question of pouring yet more money into clapped out 153s, to put them through another round of overhauls to keep them in service - or procuring new rolling stock. Having ruled out the option of 170s, I fail to see why they would be feasible in 5 years, when they aren't now.

And whilst CAF would probably still be willing to make more 197s at that point, the price per unit is going to be a hell of a lot higher than a follow-up order made while the production line is still rolling. Choosing any other type of stock would be absolute madness, seeing as it would be a micro-fleet.

I think the expectation was always that the 230s wouldn't last till the end of the franchise - that they're a decent place holder until longer term plans can be arranged when more data is available. I think the same can be said of the 67s and MKIVs. Through cascading, new stock could actually reduce not increase the microfleets at TfW, with enough ordered to replace the 67s and simultaneously cascade 197s to the HOWL.

Any decision on what to replace the 230s with will probably rely on future plans for Merseyrail, but that's getting off topic.

I note that mention has been made about the finances of The Marches line being not good. I see that whenever a search is made on the national rail website for a journey from south Wales to anywhere on the WCML north of Crewe to say Preston or Glasgow, that Cross Country come up as the fare setter. Presumably they get a cut of the revenue for this route even though people are travelling on TfW and Avanti. This is totally ridiculous that a company that people would not travel on can set the fares and take a cut of the revenue that should be going to fund the railways in Wales - as well as Avanti West Coast Trains. Of course, many people have now realised that they should split the tickets to get the best fares by splitting at Crewe (& sometimes at other places en-route). Hopefully the money is then split accordingly between TfW and Avanti.

AFAIK the Marches line finances are actually very good. It's a commonly accepted view that it's the cross border services at TfW that make the most money. It was the HOWL I was referring to as a basket case financially (but a worthwhile line to keep open all the same for other reasons).

Mention has been made of passenger flows between different start and end points. How can the flows be known if the public are now having to split the tickets - sometimes several times -in order to get the price down?

My own comments have been made based on many years of working some of the lines in question as a guard and seeing what journeys passengers have been making.

 

[Starmill]

A part of the reason why it looks like most people get off trains via Hereford at Cardiff Central is because of Cwmbran and Abergavenny, which generate large numbers of people going to Cardiff City Centre, including people parking there because they have better journey times. There's also a small slice of the very large Newport - Cardiff Central flow on every train. The value of this market is still low compared to the number of long-distance passengers.

For many years there has been a recognition of the need to create more commuter capacity for the three stations between Hereford and Newport, and its rightly seen as a prerequisite to the stakeholder aspiration for a station at Caerleon. The M4 study also recommended further stations near Newport. Unfortunately, though there will be a slight improvement, this is once again unlikely to be achievable on the current rolling stock and crew pipeline. It is unfortunate that every train has to stop at Cwmbran and Abergavenny but it's probably unavoidable without any short services.

 

[Envoy]

You've raised this point multiple times in previous threads, and every time you've been told that revenue distribution (ORCATS) is in no way influenced by the fare setter - but is purely based on which operators feature in the fastest itineraries, as well as those with the fewest changes. Nothing has changed since the last time you raised it, and XC being the fare setter still makes sense for the reasons previously explained !

How can XC make sense in being the fare setter for journeys between south Wales and places north of Crewe on the WCML or even Edinburgh? Firstly, it does not operate any trains that link these places directly. The nearest it gets to a total Cross Country service between Edinburgh and Cardiff is the 13.05 from EDB with a change at Birmingham to a Nottingham to Cardiff XC service. This total journey takes a whopping 7 hours 21 minutes. A 9.05 departure from EDB on XC direct to a change at Bristol Parkway via Newcastle would mean a journey of 7 hours 2 minutes to CDF.

The Marches route with TfW with a change at Crewe to/from Avanti is the shortest and quickest between Cardiff & Edinburgh. For example, 8.52 from EDB via a change at CRE to TfW would take 5 hours 53 minutes to CDF. A 9.56 or 11.56 TfW departure from CDF with a change at Crewe to Avanti would take 6 hours 25 minutes to reach Edinburgh. Not one XC route going via Birmingham comes close to these timings. ORCATS is therefore wrong as XC are not the fastest between south Wales and places north of Crewe - including Scotland. Using The Marches can also result in only one change. (Some schedules suggest going into Manchester and then using Trans-Pennine Express).

Mention has been made that many people don’t know about split tickets. I know of someone who wanted to go from Cardiff to Carlisle. Seeing the ridiculous fare set by Cross Country, they decided to drive. As I have said before, people going between south Wales and Edinburgh will probably fly with Easyjet from Bristol as it is far cheaper than travelling by train. Lumo now run lower cost train travel between London & Edinburgh in order to compete with air travel. Clearly ORCATS and XC are in favour of encouraging air and road travel?

Anyway, I guess we are going off my original topic here regarding connections at Cardiff from December but the fare structure does have bearing on the Manchester to south Wales service that we are discussing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

A part of the reason why it looks like most people get off trains via Hereford at Cardiff Central is because of Cwmbran and Abergavenny, which generate large numbers of people going to Cardiff City Centre, including people parking there because they have better journey times. There's also a small slice of the very large Newport - Cardiff Central flow on every train. The value of this market is still low compared to the number of long-distance passengers.

For many years there has been a recognition of the need to create more commuter capacity for the three stations between Hereford and Newport, and its rightly seen as a prerequisite to the stakeholder aspiration for a station at Caerleon. The M4 study also recommended further stations near Newport. Unfortunately, though there will be a slight improvement, this is once again unlikely to be achievable on the current rolling stock and crew pipeline. It is unfortunate that every train has to stop at Cwmbran and Abergavenny but it's probably unavoidable without any short services.

Perhaps they could eventually re-open the bay platform at Abergavenny and have a stopping service going south which would allow the speed up of expresses? Parking at Abergavenny is tight and some people leave their cars in lay-byes on the A465 and scramble down a bank to the station. A new car park is currently being built at Pontypool & New Inn station with direct access from the A4042. I think that this will prove very attractive with people using it from the eastern valleys and Usk. I agree that a station is desperately needed at Caerleon - which has difficult road access to the M4.

Anyway, we are going off topic here so perhaps if anyone wants to discuss this section of The Marches Line, they should start a new topic.

 

[Watershed]

How can XC make sense in being the fare setter for journeys between south Wales and places north of Crewe on the WCML or even Edinburgh? Firstly, it does not operate any trains that link these places directly. The nearest it gets to a total Cross Country service between Edinburgh and Cardiff is the 13.05 from EDB with a change at Birmingham to a Nottingham to Cardiff XC service. This total journey takes a whopping 7 hours 21 minutes. A 9.05 departure from EDB on XC direct to a change at Bristol Parkway via Newcastle would mean a journey of 7 hours 2 minutes to CDF.

The fare is valid via Bristol/Gloucester and then XC's main route via Birmingham, Sheffield and the ECML. People would quite rightly complain if it wasn't valid that way, as there will be times when it's quickest (e.g. engineering works or disruption on the Marches Line), or they may simply prefer to take that route for whatever reason. But having the validity on the XC route means that it also has to be priced accordingly with the likes of Bristol fares to avoid anomalies, and thus it makes perfect sense for XC to set the fare.

You also have to consider the fact that, at the time when fare-setting responsibility was distributed between the Train Operating Units in preparation for privatisation, the service along the WCML to Edinburgh was much more limited than it is today. The ECML would probably have featured more frequently as the fastest route for getting to Edinburgh. Fares to Glasgow are set by Avanti because there's always been a reasonable service there along the WCML.

Now you could argue that Avanti should create a new 'via Carlisle' fare for these sorts of journeys. That division between the WCML/ECML does exist for fares from Warrington northwards, with LNER setting fares that are valid on the ECML and Avanti ones that are valid on the WCML. But there's nothing forcing Avanti to do so, and indeed they would probably prefer to manage the demand by means of Advance tickets.

ORCATS is therefore wrong as XC are not the fastest between south Wales and places north of Crewe - including Scotland. Using The Marches can also result in only one change. (Some schedules suggest going into Manchester and then using Trans-Pennine Express).

ORCATS is a system for distributing revenue. Again, it has no connection with who sets the fares - they are two completely separate issues. As you have said, with the modern day timetable, going via the ECML is rarely fastest and so XC probably get little of the revenue. But as explained above, it still makes sense for them to set the interavailable fare.

Mention has been made that many people don’t know about split tickets. I know of someone who wanted to go from Cardiff to Carlisle. Seeing the ridiculous fare set by Cross Country, they decided to drive. As I have said before, people going between south Wales and Edinburgh will probably fly with Easyjet from Bristol as it is far cheaper than travelling by train. Lumo now run lower cost train travel between London & Edinburgh in order to compete with air travel. Clearly ORCATS and XC are in favour of encouraging air and road travel?

Rail is never going to compete very well with flying for those kinds of journeys; it is simply too slow. And arguably it would be wrong to offer a bargain basement fare that competes on price, as that means that there's a seat taken up that now can't be used on the many intermediate journeys (Bristol/Cheltenham-Birmingham, Birmingham-Derby, Sheffield-Leeds etc.) that make up the majority of XC's passengers.

It would make little difference if the fare were set by Avanti. The Off-Peak fare would be broadly the same; the main difference would be that an Off-Peak Single would cost less, as Avanti have reduced the price of theirs to 70% of the Return.

 

[Jez]

A part of the reason why it looks like most people get off trains via Hereford at Cardiff Central is because of Cwmbran and Abergavenny, which generate large numbers of people going to Cardiff City Centre, including people parking there because they have better journey times. There's also a small slice of the very large Newport - Cardiff Central flow on every train. The value of this market is still low compared to the number of long-distance passengers.

For many years there has been a recognition of the need to create more commuter capacity for the three stations between Hereford and Newport, and its rightly seen as a prerequisite to the stakeholder aspiration for a station at Caerleon. The M4 study also recommended further stations near Newport. Unfortunately, though there will be a slight improvement, this is once again unlikely to be achievable on the current rolling stock and crew pipeline. It is unfortunate that every train has to stop at Cwmbran and Abergavenny but it's probably unavoidable without any short services.

I agree and similarly in the other direction a large number of people leave the train at Cardiff having travelled from West Wales/Swansea/Neath/Port Talbot and Bridgend.

Hopefully one the new Cardiff to Liverpool 2 hourly service starts that will help as local commuters from the likes of Abergavenny and Cwmbran could catch that with the Manchester trains making limited stops.

 

[Jez]

I have had a chance to look into this some more. The 0630, 0830, 1030, 1230, 1430 and 1830 from Manchester to South Wales will all terminate in Cardiff Central when all of these currently (aside from the 1830 which goes to Carmarthen), run through to Milford Haven. The 1630 from Manchester will go through to Swansea when currently it goes to Milford Haven. The 1730, 1930 and 2030 will remain as now and run to Cardiff Central.

The 0630 still has a valid connection to Milford Haven at Cardiff Central. Arrive Cardiff 0956 depart at 1007. If you were going to Swansea for example you would arrive at 11.00.

The 1230 has a connection onto the 1602 from Cardiff Central. Arrive Cardiff at 1544 and depart at 1602. You would get to Swansea for example at 1707 and this service goes further West to Llanelli, Carmarthen etc. However it is a stopping service and likely to be a pair of 153s or a 150 so not the same quality as a 175 or 158. But then again many Manchesters to Milfords have been substituted for sprinters recently.

The 1430 has a connection onto the 1808 from Cardiff. Arrive Cardiff at 1743 and depart at 1808. This one goes as far as Swansea only and again its a stopper and likely to be a 150 or pair of 153s. You would arrive in Swansea at 1917 and the next service going West would be at 1928. However you would requiee two changes if you were travelling from Ludlow to Llanelli for example.

The 1630 runs through to Swansea and arrives at 2042. The next service going West is at 2048.

The 1830 has a connection at Cardiff however this service goes via the district line (as it does now) on Monday-Thursday so not any use for Neath or Swansea. There is a long wait for the next GWR but that's more or less the case as it is now.

So its only really the 0830 and 1030 from Manchester where there is the issue of long waits in Cardiff for a train further West, even to Swansea. Journey planner tells me to change at Newport for Swansea off the 0830 and the wait is almost 1 hour for the next GWR which arrives into Swansea just 20 minutes before the through train from Manchester. Similar with the 1030 from Manchester, change at Newport, wait almost an hour and arrive into Swansea just 7 minutes before the next through service from Manchester arrives (which departs Manchester an hour later). If going further than Swansea there is a connection onto a Pembroke Dock train at Swansea if leaving Manchester at 0830 but if leaving at 1030 there isnt anything to connect West of Swansea, just catch the 1130 instead which is direct to Carmarthen.

The sensible thing to do of course would be to just catch the through trains if one is travelling from Manchester/Crewe/Herford etc to places West of Cardiff. Or they could just change the departures of the Milford Haven services to around 2 minutes past the hour so it's a valid connection. They would only need to move those 2 departures for connections for the 0830 and 1030 Manchester's.

In the up direction there is a similar issue but as there is a GWR in between the Manchester trains the wait in Cardiff should only be about half an hour. And the Milford trains will run through to Manchester in that direction so not too much of an issue if you were travelling from Haverfordwest to Crewe for example.

 

[anthony263]

Hopefully swanline will go to a hourly stopping service from May 2023 giving 3tph between Swansea and Cardiff which could help

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Hopefully swanline will go to a hourly stopping service from May 2023 giving 3tph between Swansea and Cardiff which could help

And setting the Manchesters free from having to call at Llansamlet, Briton Ferry, Skewen, etc.

 

[Jez]

And setting the Manchesters free from having to call at Llansamlet, Briton Ferry, Skewen, etc.

Yes that's certainly become a hindrance recently.

 

[anthony263]

It has and is causing delays as people can't get on Pyle its becoming terrible.

Yes the Manchester need to skip swanljne stations except Pyle abd even that oy a few times.es per day