Bristol Temple Meads Fasts

[Fyldeboy]

Would running trains Paddington - Reading - Swindon - Bath - Bristol, missing out Didcot and Chippenham make a significant difference to journey times into Bristol Temple Meads?

Also, is Chippenham really an intercity station, or would it be better served by enhanced local services?

I'm not suggesting this is a viable idea, just seeking opinions of those 'in thee know'

 

[43074]

I believe from May one of the GWR London to Bristol trains will skip Didcot anyway as part of the changes for the full Elizabeth Line service, not sure if this will translate into a journey time saving.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

We need to move to a situation, to my mind, whereby what was going to be the “Bristol fast” via Chipping Sodbury actually moved over to 387 operation, with the likes of the Didcot stop, and with the ability of the ASDO to also put a Fulton call up.

Then reduce the Bath route stops to Reading, Swindon, Chippenham and Bath and have a continuous, standard half-hourly slot.

And in the ‘opposite’ half-hour, you put the Cheltenham, also with a Didcot stop.

 

[class ep-09]

We need to move to a situation, to my mind, whereby what was going to be the “Bristol fast” via Chipping Sodbury actually moved over to 387 operation, with the likes of the Didcot stop, and with the ability of the ASDO to also put a Fulton call up.

Then reduce the Bath route stops to Reading, Swindon, Chippenham and Bath and have a continuous, standard half-hourly slot.

And in the ‘opposite’ half-hour, you put the Cheltenham, also with a Didcot stop.

Bristol Pkw - Bristol TM needs to be electrified before 387’s can run that way .

 

[JohnRegular]

Would running trains Paddington - Reading - Swindon - Bath - Bristol, missing out Didcot and Chippenham make a significant difference to journey times into Bristol Temple Meads?

Also, is Chippenham really an intercity station, or would it be better served by enhanced local services?

Chippenham may not be the main attraction on that route, but it is a significant place. The only local service is the 1tp2h Swindon-Westbury, which wouldn't really cut it even if it became an hourly Swindon-Salisbury. Chippenham definitely justifies at least one IC call in each direction per hour.

 

[Snow1964]

Chippenham is not so much an intercity hub, but more the only station serving a lot of towns, upto about 10-15 miles away. However recent road changes and lots of additional traffic lights have made it a painful location to drive to.

If there was going to be a hourly stopping service towards Bristol, would be better to reopen the north curve at Bradford junction and go via Melksham. Although if Corsham station reopens then current routing would be needed.

Longer term Bristol trains would be better to skip Didcot and Reading, but add Old Oak (whatever the new station is called), but Temple Meads is a poor destination, should probably carry on to Weston super Mare (at least every 2 hours).

The area around Keynsham has expanded and road access from west Bristol is much easier to Keynsham than Temple Meads. Similarly it is easier to drive to Corsham from Melksham, Trowbridge etc than get to Chippenham station.

So ideally want a good semi-fast service Bristol-Swindon, with cross platform interchange into fast trains to London. Would make more sense to continue the semi-fasts to Oxford and Bletchley than going to London. Yes the ideal train would be a regional bi-mode (same as Cardiff-Portsmouth needs).

I don't think Bristol TM really needs additional fast trains to London, perhaps longer 11car versions that stop more west of Swindon, and skip Didcot and Reading (those sort of places have enough other trains). Same principle as a West Midlands train running non-stop Euston-Coventry, missing Milton Keynes.

Realistically have to look at serving Bristol area, not just the bit south of river where Temple Meads is located. I suspect not many people want Paddington either as a destination, but continue to West End or City. That end is covered by Elizabeth line. But at Bristol end if got to connect to get to final Bristol destination in its suburbs might be better with the train serving the suburbs connecting with cross platform into the fast. I think it might even be possible to do this with some creative timetabling at Chippenham by using both sides of the island and the existing bi-directional signalling, especially if only connecting hourly in each direction.

Having lived in Corsham and now Bradford-On-Avon hope this local knowledge of Road system and station location helps.

 

[cle]

Chippenham is like Diss. Only game for miles, served by 'IC' for London and more regional service - and that won't change. Bristol probably never needed the full slated 4tph.

The odd peak fast via Parkway might be useful to test out, but I agree that a semi-fast service might enable running fast Reading-Chippenham. That would be a good one to try call at Slough too.

 

[MarkyT]

Chippenham is not so much an intercity hub, but more the only station serving a lot of towns, upto about 10-15 miles away. However recent road changes and lots of additional traffic lights have made it a painful location to drive to.

A significant railhead for an affluent area.

Longer term Bristol trains would be better to skip Didcot and Reading, but add Old Oak (whatever the new station is called), but Temple Meads is a poor destination, should probably carry on to Weston super Mare (at least every 2 hours).

Reading particularly, is one of the most important interchange hubs in the UK, as well as being a large high-earning employment centre in its own right. Famously (at least pre-COVID) commuting numbers into the town are higher than figures going out, much of the demand fairly long distance from the west, seats that get filled again with Reading to London customers so very lucrative. Missing Reading out would be daft from transport service and commercial perspectives, in my opinion. Didcot may be a better candidate to miss out, but only if there were other direct trains introduced from the west to Oxford via Didcot. Everything on the fasts will have to stop at Old Oak Common under current plans, which I think is a good thing. Extending at least some of the Bristols to Weston is a good idea, preferably with OHLE extended to at least there.

I don't think Bristol TM really needs additional fast trains to London, perhaps longer 11car versions that stop more west of Swindon, and skip Didcot and Reading (those sort of places have enough other trains). Same principle as a West Midlands train running non-stop Euston-Coventry, missing Milton Keynes.

I think after HS2, of the remaining trains I think more if not all will end up stopping at Milton Keynes.

Realistically have to look at serving Bristol area, not just the bit south of river where Temple Meads is located. I suspect not many people want Paddington either as a destination, but continue to West End or City. That end is covered by Elizabeth line. But at Bristol end if got to connect to get to final Bristol destination in its suburbs might be better with the train serving the suburbs connecting with cross platform into the fast. I think it might even be possible to do this with some creative timetabling at Chippenham by using both sides of the island and the existing bi-directional signalling, especially if only connecting hourly in each direction.

Wouldn't advise running many trains in the reverse direction in normal operation, even if signalling permits it. There aren't many crossover locations so it would be difficult to timetable and bad consequences await following any late running, quickly affecting other trains.

Having lived in Corsham and now Bradford-On-Avon hope this local knowledge of Road system and station location helps.

Thanks. I lived in Chippenham, then Trowbridge and near Bradford on Avon for a few years through the 1990s

 

[JKF]

A couple of trains a day continuing to Clifton Down would be welcomed in this household! Maybe a five-coach Azuma would fit in the platforms? Though I don’t think it’s practical without a reversal.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Don’t forget the Didcot stop is not so much about serving Didcot but acting as an interchange for Oxford to serve the quite big flows between there and Bath/Bristol.

 

[rapmastaj]

Don’t forget the Didcot stop is not so much about serving Didcot but acting as an interchange for Oxford to serve the quite big flows between there and Bath/Bristol.

Exactly. Missing out stops like this is an example of just how myopically London-centric the network can be. London passengers save 5 minutes or so - essentially making no real difference to their journey - while people who want to go to another major destination like Oxford (and already have to change trains) now have to wait an extra 30 minutes for their connection.

 

[Snow1964]

Don’t forget the Didcot stop is not so much about serving Didcot but acting as an interchange for Oxford to serve the quite big flows between there and Bath/Bristol.

Exactly, which is why I suggested what the line needs is not more Bristol fasts, but semi-fasts via Bath that after Swindon go towards Oxford not London, with some continuing to Bristol's SW suburbs and Weston Super Mare.

It just seemed to me logical to combine them with proposed East-West line Oxford-Bletchley etc and use a regional bi-mode, rather than a limited stop IET configuration. Basically same train I have previously suggested Cardiff-Portsmouth needs (a 110-120 mph train, only 90-100mph on diesel, with two pairs of door each side and 2+2 seating suitable for 3-4 hour journey)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Chippenham is like Diss. Only game for miles, served by 'IC' for London and more regional service - and that won't change. Bristol probably never needed the full slated 4tph.

The odd peak fast via Parkway might be useful to test out, but I agree that a semi-fast service might enable running fast Reading-Chippenham. That would be a good one to try call at Slough too.

Chippenham is served by Swindon Westbury services too, not just IC.

 

[Snow1964]

Chippenham is served by Swindon Westbury services too, not just IC.

Which only runs at irregular 2 - 2.5 hour intervals each way, and is usually a 2car train.

Although there is an open access operator proposing trains on that route.

 

[Falcon1200]

Reading particularly, is one of the most important interchange hubs in the UK, as well as being a large high-earning employment centre in its own right.

Yes indeed! A long time ago now, but I worked in Reading Booking Office in the 1980s and even back then we had the second highest revenue of any Western Region station, behind only Paddington, so more than the likes of Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth etc.

Missing Reading out would be daft from transport service and commercial perspectives, in my opinion. Didcot may be a better candidate to miss out, but only if there were other direct trains introduced from the west to Oxford via Didcot.

Don’t forget the Didcot stop is not so much about serving Didcot but acting as an interchange for Oxford to serve the quite big flows between there and Bath/Bristol.

Didcot is certainly a key interchange for passengers between Oxford (and surroundings) and the west, and through trains would be good, but possibly difficult to accommodate - The Oxford/Bristol through trains were short lived, perhaps for that reason?

 

[Snow1964]

Didcot is certainly a key interchange for passengers between Oxford (and surroundings) and the west, and through trains would be good, but possibly difficult to accommodate - The Oxford/Bristol through trains were short lived, perhaps for that reason?

Things have changed, London commuting is down, so don't need all the paths taken up by London bound trains.

Also isn't yet appropriate rolling stock which makes it difficult. IETs have insufficient doors for semi-fast workings (and if replacing Castle HSTs will be none spare), the DMUs are too slow so need multiple paths on Swindon-Didcot 2 track section. That is why need a regional bi-mode that can do at least 110mph is needed. No one enjoys changing at Didcot.

Thirdly until the third through platform is built at Oxford, not a great place to terminate and reverse trains, will be much easier when middle of 3 through platforms can be used for this.

Regarding London, whilst Londoners might like to visit the west, in reverse direction people talk about how difficult it is to get to Heathrow, there is a pent up demand for Heathrow as a destination rather than Paddington. To some extent many from Bristol and Somerset etc would prefer a train that misses everything Didcot, Reading etc. but calls at Hayes & Harlington then reverses into the airport. The current situation of travelling on towards London then backtracking is seen as time wasting, and double changing is unpopular too.

 

[Falcon1200]

To some extent many from Bristol and Somerset etc would prefer a train that misses everything Didcot, Reading etc. but calls at Hayes & Harlington then reverses into the airport.

You make some good points, but I would have thought that the number of passengers from Bristol, Bath etc going to London would always far outnumber those going to Heathrow!

 

[mangyiscute]

Regarding London, whilst Londoners might like to visit the west, in reverse direction people talk about how difficult it is to get to Heathrow, there is a pent up demand for Heathrow as a destination rather than Paddington. To some extent many from Bristol and Somerset etc would prefer a train that misses everything Didcot, Reading etc. but calls at Hayes & Harlington then reverses into the airport. The current situation of travelling on towards London then backtracking is seen as time wasting, and double changing is unpopular too.

I feel like the simple way to do this would be a half hourly reading to Heathrow fast (or perhaps semi fast stopping at Slough and Maidenhead) (if possible build some new tracks to avoid needing to reverse) and then passengers can change onto this service at Reading.

Longer term Bristol trains would be better to skip Didcot and Reading, but add Old Oak (whatever the new station is called), but Temple Meads is a poor destination, should probably carry on to Weston super Mare (at least every 2 hours).

I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that at most of the time roughly 20-25% of the occupancy of the train changes at Reading on these services, so missing this call would be a disaster - imo it's clear that the fact that in the peaks only a couple Oxford/Worcester services and Cheltenham services skip Reading since it is not worth skipping it on these other services (in fact, if possible I think these non-stop Reading services should all call as well, Reading to Oxford is a disaster in the evening, but I don't know if the paths are fine)

 

[lachlan]

Things have changed, London commuting is down, so don't need all the paths taken up by London bound trains.

Also isn't yet appropriate rolling stock which makes it difficult. IETs have insufficient doors for semi-fast workings (and if replacing Castle HSTs will be none spare), the DMUs are too slow so need multiple paths on Swindon-Didcot 2 track section. That is why need a regional bi-mode that can do at least 110mph is needed. No one enjoys changing at Didcot.

Thirdly until the third through platform is built at Oxford, not a great place to terminate and reverse trains, will be much easier when middle of 3 through platforms can be used for this.

Regarding London, whilst Londoners might like to visit the west, in reverse direction people talk about how difficult it is to get to Heathrow, there is a pent up demand for Heathrow as a destination rather than Paddington. To some extent many from Bristol and Somerset etc would prefer a train that misses everything Didcot, Reading etc. but calls at Hayes & Harlington then reverses into the airport. The current situation of travelling on towards London then backtracking is seen as time wasting, and double changing is unpopular too.

Heathrow will be easily accessible with a change at Old Oak Common when that opens. There is also the coach from Reading. I don't think it makes sense to terminate these trains anywhere else than Paddington

 

[Flinn Reed]

Things have changed, London commuting is down, so don't need all the paths taken up by London bound trains.

Also isn't yet appropriate rolling stock which makes it difficult. IETs have insufficient doors for semi-fast workings (and if replacing Castle HSTs will be none spare), the DMUs are too slow so need multiple paths on Swindon-Didcot 2 track section. That is why need a regional bi-mode that can do at least 110mph is needed. No one enjoys changing at Didcot.

Thirdly until the third through platform is built at Oxford, not a great place to terminate and reverse trains, will be much easier when middle of 3 through platforms can be used for this.

Regarding London, whilst Londoners might like to visit the west, in reverse direction people talk about how difficult it is to get to Heathrow, there is a pent up demand for Heathrow as a destination rather than Paddington. To some extent many from Bristol and Somerset etc would prefer a train that misses everything Didcot, Reading etc. but calls at Hayes & Harlington then reverses into the airport. The current situation of travelling on towards London then backtracking is seen as time wasting, and double changing is unpopular too.

Slightly off-topic, but regarding Heathrow I think there was a missed opportunity with Crossrail to have a Heathrow Parkway station.

This would be located between Hayes & Harlington and West Drayton, with certain intercity services stopping for access to Heathrow to/from the west - offering a short connection via Crossrail to the airport. Would also be well located to serve various business parks and industrial estates in the area.

Maybe Hayes & Harlington could serve this purpose instead, if the layout can accommodate intercity trains?

I realise there is Old Oak Common, but from the location this wouldn't offer a significant time saving compared to changing at Paddington.

 

[Benjwri]

I believe from May one of the GWR London to Bristol trains will skip Didcot anyway as part of the changes for the full Elizabeth Line service, not sure if this will translate into a journey time saving.

When you say one, what does this mean? One a day or one of the two per hour?

How excellent that will be, the wait at Didcot is already long enough to get a Bristol train, an extension to nearly an hour would be just what I need, a very efficient way to kill my last use of GWR.

A few trains a day already skip Didcot, the time saving you would get in the pathing is 3.5 minutes, traveling this line fairly frequently, and considering how many people get on and off at Didcot, I hardly think such a marginal time benefit is justifiable.

 

[mangyiscute]

Slightly off-topic, but regarding Heathrow I think there was a missed opportunity with Crossrail to have a Heathrow Parkway station.

This would be located between Hayes & Harlington and West Drayton, with certain intercity services stopping for access to Heathrow to/from the west - offering a short connection via Crossrail to the airport. Would also be well located to serve various business parks and industrial estates in the area.

Maybe Hayes & Harlington could serve this purpose instead, if the layout can accommodate intercity trains?

I realise there is Old Oak Common, but from the location this wouldn't offer a significant time saving compared to changing at Paddington.

I think bar far the easiest and most sensible way of doing this is to upgrade Hayes and Harlington - the issue is finding space in the fast train paths to Paddington considering that the Heathrow Express trains join by Hayes and Harlington too so there's literally no space, ultimately the only space currently would probably be to change the Oxford trains to call here rather than Slough, but this wouldn't solve the 'issue' for passengers from the West, and Slough passengers would not be happy.

 

[MarkyT]

Note that non-stop running time on the mains between Hayes & Harlington(pass) & Old Oak Common East(pass) is 6 mins, so not a huge benefit for airport interchange from the west by making an additional stop at Hayes & Harlington really, which would add 5 minutes at least to everyone else's journey from the west to OOC and Paddington, and as mentioned earlier all trains on the mains must stop at Old Oak Common under current plans.

 

[cle]

OOC to Hayes/AJ is something of a double back, but I can't see hordes making anything else viable. Hayes is the local interchange, if you're lucky enough to be on the line... OOC is the regional and national one - will be plenty from HS2 joining for LHR there too.

 

[43074]

When you say one, what does this mean? One a day or one of the two per hour?

How excellent that will be, the wait at Didcot is already long enough to get a Bristol train, an extension to nearly an hour would be just what I need, a very efficient way to kill my last use of GWR.

A few trains a day already skip Didcot, the time saving you would get in the pathing is 3.5 minutes, traveling this line fairly frequently, and considering how many people get on and off at Didcot, I hardly think such a marginal time benefit is justifiable.

Apologies, one of the two trains per hour.

 

[Snow1964]

Note that non-stop running time on the mains between Hayes & Harlington(pass) & Old Oak Common East(pass) is 6 mins, so not a huge benefit for airport interchange from the west by making an additional stop at Hayes & Harlington really, which would add 5 minutes at least to everyone else's journey from the west to OOC and Paddington, and as mentioned earlier all trains on the mains must stop at Old Oak Common under current plans.

Why should those from the west wanting Heathrow want to pay for the extra pointless ride nearer London, then have to pay to backtrack a few stations to Hayes. Not like fare is free for the privilege, even if it suits the railway.

Actually most people using Heathrow (who live in west) are going long haul so only need to stop one train every 90-120 minutes or so (and ideally reverse it into airport), if they want a short-haul flight would probably have flown from Bristol airport.

 

[mangyiscute]

Why should those from the west wanting Heathrow want to pay for the extra pointless ride nearer London, then have to pay to backtrack a few stations to Hayes. Not like fare is free for the privilege, even if it suits the railway.

Then they can change at Reading for the stopper to Hayes or the railair coach for a cheaper route.

 

[Benjwri]

Apologies, one of the two trains per hour.

Do you have a source for that? The Track Access Agreement for May 2023 onwards retains the same composition of London to Bristol services that do and don’t stop at Didcot, so it can’t be a Crossrail change, as those are reflected in it. I severely hope this isn’t the case as it would reflect a hugely significant change in the number of services that stop at Didcot.

Then they can change at Reading for the stopper

Although that’s remembering the stopper will no longer call at Hayes from May 2023, and will run fast from Slough, they will have to take the Elizabeth Line.

 

[mangyiscute]

Although that’s remembering the stopper will no longer call at Hayes from May 2023, and will run fast from Slough, they will have to take the Elizabeth Line.

The Elizabeth line is the stopper I meant, I think it's going to be every 15 mins from Reading from May (or at least I hope so because Reading to Ealing every 30 mins isn't great considering its been every 15 for ages)
The difference between the Elizabeth line and the GWR stopper isn't much atm anyway

 

[Benjwri]

I think it's going to be every 15 mins from Reading from May (or at least I hope so because Reading to Ealing every 30 mins isn't great considering its been every 15 for ages)

Unfortunately you'd be wrong, it's remaining at roughly the same pattern as now, 4 peak, 2 off peak tph, a rather disappointing decrease