Alternative route for cross country and GWR

[Tom williams]

Hi all,

Just been thinking, why don't GWR run a London-hereford service via the marches line instead of via ledbury, i.e. Hereford, Abergavenny, Cwmbran, Newport, and then on to London that way? I was also wondering why Cross country don't run some of their services via the marches line. Was actually also wondering if any of the voyager trains had ever been down the marches line? I know they go to Shrewsbury. I know they get a lot of quite frankly undue hate, but I think they would work quite well on the marches line.

Tom.

 

[JonathanH]

why don't GWR run a London-hereford service via the marches line instead of via ledbury, i.e. Hereford, Abergavenny, Cwmbran, Newport, and then on to London that way?

They don't do this because a) they already run trains from Swansea and Cardiff through Newport to London and more people will use those trains if they come from South Wales than if they come from Hereford, and b) because there is demand for services on the North Cotswold Line.

why Cross country don't run some of their services via the marches line.

Again, because that isn't the established timetable pattern and it is recognised that it is a) worth CrossCountry running via Birmingham to form a coherent network, and b) services on the network of the Wales operator running through Hereford.

Was actually also wondering if any of the voyager trains had ever been down the marches line?

Not on a regular basis.

I know they get a lot of quite frankly undue hate, but I think they would work quite well on the marches line.

No need for 125mph stock on the Marches line whereas there is need on some of the other routes Voyagers operate.

 

[Tom williams]

"No need for 125mph stock on the Marches line whereas there is need on some of the other routes Voyagers operate."

Fair enough from a speed point of view, but capacity wise they would be better, I have known of several times when the two or three car 175 coming up Newport has been rammed and same for going up to Chester from Shrewsbury via Wrexham.

 

[JonathanH]

Fair enough from a speed point of view, but capacity wise they would be better, I have known of several times when the two or three car 175 coming up Newport has been rammed and same for going up to Chester from Shrewsbury via Wrexham.

TfW are already planning to run longer trains, that are more space efficient than Voyagers.

Voyagers have terrible capacity for their length, because of the multiple universal toilets, the way the vestibule are organised, crumple zones at each end for 125mph running and the bit that used to be a 'shop'.

 

[Iskra]

"No need for 125mph stock on the Marches line whereas there is need on some of the other routes Voyagers operate."

Fair enough from a speed point of view, but capacity wise they would be better, I have known of several times when the two or three car 175 coming up Newport has been rammed and same for going up to Chester from Shrewsbury via Wrexham.

Voyagers are actually incredibly inefficient when it comes to internal seating capacity per train. More 175-style stock is the answer to that, not appropriating 125mph Intercity rolling stock for secondary routes.

 

[zwk500]

Just been thinking, why don't GWR run a London-hereford service via the marches line instead of via ledbury, i.e. Hereford, Abergavenny, Cwmbran, Newport, and then on to London that way?

In addition to the points raised above, the journey times would be horrendous, especially with a reversal at Newport.

I was also wondering why Cross country don't run some of their services via the marches line.

Did you have an idea which services would be diverted this way? Diverting long-distance intercity runs over a small line like the marches will seriously put passengers off.

Fair enough from a speed point of view, but capacity wise they would be better, I have known of several times when the two or three car 175 coming up Newport has been rammed and same for going up to Chester from Shrewsbury via Wrexham.

The answer to this is a longer 175 train, not a 220.