Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The biggest hurdle would be to make it somewhat politician proof. Something they couldn't easily cut. Which may be impossible, but I think there is things that have a chance at working:
Basically, go to Leeds via Manchester. It's now just one straight line, and NPR can now be rolled into HS2. Also makes the through station a much easier sell. So instead of paying for HS2 and NPR, you are just paying for both at once, which should be cheaper.
Sheffield unfortunately becomes a bit of a sacrificial lamb, as you'd want to design that section in, but it would probably still get cut back, but that may end up saving the rest
I suspect 'via OOC' fares would be cheaper - even if HS2 train themselves might have room I agree GWR would be the capacity constraint.
Besides it'll only be Reading itself where, if travelling north, going via OOC might be quicker than via XC (I haven't crunched the numbers myself). From Didcot westwards Cross Country remains the fastest route to Birmingham and points north.
Even with just phase 1, places such as Swindon would be quicker via OOC (about 40mins). The difference for places in the South West is whether they would have a crosscountry service or a direct OOC service. Anywhere south of Reading for the Bournemouth-Manchester service would be quicker via OOC - though its a few more changes.
Not everyone on crosscountry is going to a station on the XC route - Liverpool, Preston, Scotland etc would be quicker via OOC, even coming from Cardiff in some cases. Not just the journey time, but more seats and more frequency too.
As a fantasy thread, HS2 in full would have helped significantly SW-EM/NE.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Even with just phase 1, places such as Swindon would be quicker via OOC (about 40mins). The difference for places in the South West is whether they would have a crosscountry service or a direct OOC service. Anywhere south of Reading for the Bournemouth-Manchester service would be quicker via OOC - though its a few more changes.
Not everyone on crosscountry is going to a station on the XC route - Liverpool, Preston, Scotland etc would be quicker via OOC, even coming from Cardiff in some cases. Not just the journey time, but more seats and more frequency too.
As a fantasy thread, HS2 in full would have helped significantly SW-EM/NE.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Likely easier and cheaper than a full new line though. I'd do that first, before considering a new line
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A full HS2 Y network would have fast service from Birmingham Curzon Street to virtually everywhere served by London HS2 services. With some sort of Northern Power Rail I would foresee Birmingham - Liverpool HS2 services as well.
Swindon - OOC on standard timings (i.e. including a Reading call) would be closer to 50 minutes. This compares with 1 hour Swindon - Cheltenham, though admittedly at much lower frequency.
Depending on the flavour of Midlands Rail Hub, Cheltenham should have 2tph to Moor Street taking 40 minutes, essentially the same journey time as OOC - Curzon Street.
Not really. A 10 car IET has only 2 more seats than a 9 car (this is why I say that two short units coupled together is inefficient, plus the fact that the absence of a gangway makes it difficult to distribute passengers through the train). Individual IET units can only be built in odd-numbered formations, so the next (hypothetical) step up would be 11 cars. That would be 286m long which rules out all bar two or three platforms at Paddington. I suspect that Stoke Gifford and Maliphant couldn't handle longer sets either and Agility will charge you a fortune anyway.
The answer to poor services on XC isn't to send people via another route in any case. Nor is it to build a brand new line (where you weren't already building one). The answer is to upgrade the existing routes (electrification and faster line speeds), connect to HS2 if possible, provide proper length trains and reduce prices to sensible levels.
Not really. A 10 car IET has only 2 more seats than a 9 car (this is why I say that two short units coupled together is inefficient, plus the fact that the absence of a gangway makes it difficult to distribute passengers through the train). Individual IET units can only be built in odd-numbered formations, so the next (hypothetical) step up would be 11 cars. That would be 286m long which rules out all bar two or three platforms at Paddington. I suspect that Stoke Gifford and Maliphant couldn't handle longer sets either and Agility will charge you a fortune anyway.
I was thinking more in terms of going from one 5-car to 10-car services, in the short term. If all routes can handle 260m trains, the replacement for the IETs (when their contract ends, or if the existing IETs are used on different services), the replacement could be 260m full length trains. The answer also depends on whether it is possible to extend platforms at Paddington (and probably other stations!). Alternatively, there may be a case to increase the IC frequency on some routes as well.
The answer to poor services on XC isn't to send people via another route in any case. Nor is it to build a brand new line (where you weren't already building one). The answer is to upgrade the existing routes (electrification and faster line speeds), connect to HS2 if possible, provide proper length trains and reduce prices to sensible levels.
I do agree with all the above, however it is important to recognise that for some connections the faster journey time via HS2 will mean that going via London (OOC) will be more sensible
Probably deeply unrealistic but I would have loved to have gone full Shinkansen. String-of-Peals approach with major and minor stations. Use Shin-Osaka style stations 2-4km out of city and town centers with the money saved from taking HSR into the city use that to build mass/rapid transit into the city centers instead. Lots of land value capture by building things like offices, department stores, hotels, and new housing on and around the new Intercity stations. Since they are out of the very city center you can use brownfield sites in need of redevelopment and are less likely to run into planning problems. Now you've not just got a highspeed line but a brand new development and the beginnings of a metro/tram/BRT system, and that system when it opens has two big pull stations. Nozomi/Hakari/Kodama style hierarchy of services, very high frequency, long trains with a mix of reserved and non-reserved seating. Almost an Elizabeth Line for the West and East Coasts but stretching 550km targeting London-Glasgow and London-Edinburgh for sub 2h 40min, London-Manchester and London-Leeds in sub 1h 30min and London-Birmingham and London-East Midlands (Notts/Derby) in sub 1h.
With Swindon you've got an interchange penalty whichever way you go, and going via Cheltenham is a particularly slow route (all stops to Gloucester, then reverse).
From Reading however, Birmingham is 1h30m away on a direct train. OOC is 20m away, allow 10m Minimum Connection Time (MCT) and 40m on the HS2 train and you're at 1h10m. But this assumes that a HS2 train turns up exactly 10 minutes after you arrived on a GWR one. In practice connections are rarely that perfect, so you could be waiting up to 19 more minutes. So the time saving via OOC is very small, are people really going to sacrifice the convenience of a one-seat ride for a gain of only a few minutes?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think that you may be overestimating the number of five car trains there are arriving in Paddington at busy times. There are more than there ought to be of course but what's your next plan once you've fixed the IET availability issues and brought formations up to their full length?
Besides it'll only be Reading itself where, if travelling north, going via OOC might be quicker than via XC (I haven't crunched the numbers myself). From Didcot westwards Cross Country remains the fastest route to Birmingham and points north.
Taunton-Birmingham is 2 hours via XC, vs a minimum of about 2h15 via OOC. Going to anywhere north of there is likely to be quicker via OOC. It will be down to price which way people choose. I'd go that way to avoid XC, assuming I haven't dropped dead by the time it ever opens
There should be a EWR-HS2 spur - a 2 miles spur cuts off 70 miles compared to going via OOC! And relieves the most congested part of the GWML. Then run Bristol/Swindon/Oxford to Birmingham & beyond. And use for the Reading XR
Taunton-Birmingham is 2 hours via XC, vs a minimum of about 2h15 via OOC. Going to anywhere north of there is likely to be quicker via OOC. It will be down to price which way people choose. I'd go that way to avoid XC, assuming I haven't dropped dead by the time it ever opens
But look at Plymouth-Birmingham for example and suppose there was an occasional train that missed out Totnes, Newton Abbott, Tiverton, Taunton, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham. (Ie. stopping only at Exeter and Bristol T.M.).
That's 6 fewer stops at, say, 4 minutes each including slowing down, dwell times and accelerating, and there's 24 minutes that could be saved straight away, with no investment costs at all!
Beyond my usual thing about building an intermediate station rich Shinkansen to replace most WCML passenger traffic..... I'd also like to lay each track with four rails.
Two sets of standard gauge rails offset by ~35cm. This would allow both ~2.8m wide classic British trains and ~3.45m wide Scandinavia-wide trains to operate seamless over the route. Since it would inevitably be slab track it should be possible to keep platform edge gaps down for both sets of trains.
Combined with the tallest loading gauge practical it would enable a step change in rail travel - wider (and potentially taller) trains would allow more capacity and shorter dwell times by making the interior of the trains much less cramped.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader about whether providing safety grade identification and routing at both ends of every platform to route trains to the correct set of rails or simply providing two superimposed but independent track layouts is easier. I suspect the latter would be more reliable in service, and avoids any chance of a wide train being routed onto a classic route.
That's 6 fewer stops at, say, 4 minutes each including slowing down, dwell times and accelerating, and there's 24 minutes that could be saved straight away, with no investment costs at all!
But look at Plymouth-Birmingham for example and suppose there was an occasional train that missed out Totnes, Newton Abbott, Tiverton, Taunton, Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham. (Ie. stopping only at Exeter and Bristol T.M.).
That's 6 fewer stops at, say, 4 minutes each including slowing down, dwell times and accelerating, and there's 24 minutes that could be saved straight away, with no investment costs at all!
Sure, but
1) timetabling that would mean removing other services and/or slowing others doen
2) the number of people who actually travel Plymouth / Exeter / Bristol / Birmigham (and not the intermediate stations) is relatively small.
3) That 24 minute journey time saving - if achievable - would only apply to Plymouth - Birmingham. Bristol - Birmigham or Bristol - Exeter would save only 8 mins.
Therefore it is a poor use of capacity, and will disadvantage many more people than it benefits.
There should be a EWR-HS2 spur - a 2 miles spur cuts off 70 miles compared to going via OOC! And relieves the most congested part of the GWML. Then run Bristol/Swindon/Oxford to Birmingham & beyond. And use for the Reading XR
I'm confused at what you are proposing there, is it a spur from East West eastbound to HS2 north? Why would you go from Bristol to Birmingham that way? Even Swindon is going to be a similar time via Cheltenham. Oxford isn't going to be that much slower either as by the time you get to Claydon to join HS2 you are at Banbury.
If there are so many services that faster trains can't be accommodated, why do we want to take a "can't do" approach when there might be opportunities to improve the rail network?
Don't XC trains load quite well? Has the latent demand been quantified? This latent demand ought to include those who would travel more readily if trains were less crowded, plus those who would travel between the above stops if faster services were available.
While the demand might presently be for smaller intermediate stations (as you said previously at #266) some of that is self fulfilling, ie this is what the service provides and people use it accordingly. I can't prove that faster trains would load well, but neither am I convinced that they wouldn't, as you seem to be suggesting.
3) That 24 minute journey time saving - if achievable - would only apply to Plymouth - Birmingham. Bristol - Birmigham or Bristol - Exeter would save only 8 mins.
Therefore it is a poor use of capacity, and will disadvantage many more people than it benefits.
I don't disagree about the time savings, but is it really a poor use of capacity? Does it really follow that we need all of the stopping trains and yet can't justify faster trains?
I've sat in heavy/stationary traffic on the M5 enough times to believe that there is quite a bit of latent demand that could be tapped into, if only we had the will do so. Perhaps it just needs some Government-backed encouragement (including well placed advertising) towards modal shift.
Combined with the tallest loading gauge practical it would enable a step change in rail travel - wider (and potentially taller) trains would allow more capacity and shorter dwell times by making the interior of the trains much less cramped.
At some point you’d make an upper platform level to get people out of the upper train floor faster, making more of the train accessible, and less of that mid-level vestibule wasted space. But that hasn’t been done anywhere, and it won’t start here. The captive sets should be just the standard high-floor-door double deckers that (approximately) already exist.
At some point you’d make an upper platform level to get people out of the upper train floor faster, making more of the train accessible, and less of that mid-level vestibule wasted space. But that hasn’t been done anywhere, and it won’t start here. The captive sets should be just the standard high-floor-door double deckers that (approximately) already exist.
I agree, it only has to be a few hundred millimetres taller than a TGV Duplex trailer in order to enable level boarding at a 915mm class platform.
The potential capacity of a 3.45m wide, double deck train with level boarding at ~915mm is enormous. Especially as you could have a gangway on both levels.
Even a 3.45m wide single deck would be a huge change.
I make it you could have 2+2 seating using something like typical UK first class seats, and still add substantially to the width of the gangway. A gangway passable to wheelchairs or for people to easily pass people using the overheads would be within reach.
If there are so many services that faster trains can't be accommodated, why do we want to take a "can't do" approach when there might be opportunities to improve the rail network?
Don't XC trains load quite well? Has the latent demand been quantified? This latent demand ought to include those who would travel more readily if trains were less crowded, plus those who would travel between the above stops if faster services were available.
While the demand might presently be for smaller intermediate stations (as you said previously at #266) some of that is self fulfilling, ie this is what the service provides and people use it accordingly. I can't prove that faster trains would load well, but neither am I convinced that they wouldn't, as you seem to be suggesting.
I don't disagree about the time savings, but is it really a poor use of capacity? Does it really follow that we need all of the stopping trains and yet can't justify faster trains?
I've sat in heavy/stationary traffic on the M5 enough times to believe that there is quite a bit of latent demand that could be tapped into, if only we had the will do so. Perhaps it just needs some Government-backed encouragement (including well placed advertising) towards modal shift.
The point about the M5, is where are people going?
I use the M5 a lot. It is perfectly fine out of the holiday season. Commuter issues around Birmingham, and poor junction design near Weston and Taunton are the main issues I encounter.
A full HS2 Y network would have fast service from Birmingham Curzon Street to virtually everywhere served by London HS2 services. With some sort of Northern Power Rail I would foresee Birmingham - Liverpool HS2 services as well.
Swindon - OOC on standard timings (i.e. including a Reading call) would be closer to 50 minutes. This compares with 1 hour Swindon - Cheltenham, though admittedly at much lower frequency.
Depending on the flavour of Midlands Rail Hub, Cheltenham should have 2tph to Moor Street taking 40 minutes, essentially the same journey time as OOC - Curzon Street.
Taunton-Birmingham is 2 hours via XC, vs a minimum of about 2h15 via OOC. Going to anywhere north of there is likely to be quicker via OOC. It will be down to price which way people choose. I'd go that way to avoid XC, assuming I haven't dropped dead by the time it ever opens
That feels like parity at best. 'Avoiding XC' is only a short-term (waiting for Voyagers to be retired in short-term in railway terms) concerns - you would expect replacement trains to have sensible lengths and layouts. Fare routing restrictions should take care of the rest.
That feels like parity at best. 'Avoiding XC' is only a short-term (waiting for Voyagers to be retired in short-term in railway terms) concerns - you would expect replacement trains to have sensible lengths and layouts. Fare routing restrictions should take care of the rest.
Worth noting though that the lack of Taunton (or points South West) to anywhere North West of Birmingham does make Manchester via OOC a tempting routing. Both are just 1 change.
If via XC and via OOC produce roughly journey time parity to Birmingham, then yes OOC to points north will be marginally quicker as that avoids the central Birmingham bit. However, any advantage will be so minimal that routing restrictions will firmly keep punters on XC.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Worth noting though that the lack of Taunton (or points South West) to anywhere North West of Birmingham does make Manchester via OOC a tempting routing. Both are just 1 change.
Assuming MRH delivers good connections to Moor Street, then the Moor Street - Curzon Street and OOC interchanges are equivalent. When generalised journey times (i.e. not just the pure time element but also accounting for interchanges etc) are equivalent, fares will be the deciding factor. I'm pretty confident that via OOC fares will not be cheaper.
From Reading however, Birmingham is 1h30m away on a direct train. OOC is 20m away, allow 10m Minimum Connection Time (MCT) and 40m on the HS2 train and you're at 1h10m. But this assumes that a HS2 train turns up exactly 10 minutes after you arrived on a GWR one. In practice connections are rarely that perfect, so you could be waiting up to 19 more minutes. So the time saving via OOC is very small, are people really going to sacrifice the convenience of a one-seat ride for a gain of only a few minutes?
Manchester is 3hr10 from Reading. OOC is 20mins, give it 15 mins change over. Phase 1 will be around 1hr34 OOC-Manchester. 2hr09. Its a significant difference. Full hs2 would reduce that to 1hr40, a 90 minute saving.
I think that you may be overestimating the number of five car trains there are arriving in Paddington at busy times. There are more than there ought to be of course but what's your next plan once you've fixed the IET availability issues and brought formations up to their full length?
We are talking the long distance passengers though, so with journeys of 3hr+, many unlikely to be travelling peak and that also depends on the direction of travel too. Off peak has room.
There should be a EWR-HS2 spur - a 2 miles spur cuts off 70 miles compared to going via OOC! And relieves the most congested part of the GWML. Then run Bristol/Swindon/Oxford to Birmingham & beyond. And use for the Reading XR
A limited service with fewer benefits than going via OOC. If running from Bristol/Reading onto EWR, better to run to MK/Northampton with the future post HS2 connectivity there.
I disagree. As another poster said you should only consider going beyond 2tph on long distance services once you've maxed out the train lengths and still have excess demand. If the Birmingham-Manchester service fills up 2x200m trains per hour then it only takes a rolling stock order to lengthen them to 2x400m per hour.
Ordinarily I would agree with you. However, Birmingham - Manchester is a bit of a special case. Both arms already have 3tph services, so here is a ready made 3tph gap left in the timetable structure.
Say departure times for Birmingham - London HS2 trains are at xx00, 20, 40. This means the xx10, 30, 50 paths cannot be used for half-hourly services.
Now in my slightly modified HS2 full Y service pattern (assuming the latest incarnation of East Midlands Parkway rather than Toton), excluding the Manchesters I have 13tph running out of Curzon Street (3 London, 2 Liverpool, 2 Leeds, 2 Sheffield, 2 Nottingham, 1 Scotland, 1 Newcastle). Depending on East Midlands Parkway track layouts, the Sheffield and Nottingham could operate as a combined 400m at Birmingham and splitting/joining at EMP. Utilisation at Curzon Street isn't so high that you *have* to use the 3tph slots, but they are a good option to have. 200m sets are a standard HS train length in continental Europe - they are long enough to no longer be considered silly little trains. If the option of greater frequency is available to satisfy greater demand, then that option is a commercially sensible one. You don't need to so dogmatically stick to the 'lengthen trains before increasing frequency' mantra.
At the Manchester end, depending on how you want to use the Airport - Piccadilly bit for NPR, I do think there is a case for the Birmingham - Manchester to fill the 'spare' 3tph slots to maximise the number of half-hourly slots that can be used by NPR services.
I know, so was I, I just added phase only for even further clarity of options. In the full y service spec there were 2 manchester-Birminghams and no liverpool-birmingham services - yes, indicative, but phase2a was already at 14 trains an hour. The options from OOC were more frequent, more convenient and faster from places like Reading where OOC would be a turn up and go service. For example, to Edinburgh or Glasgow would have been every other hour, but 2tph from OOC.
If via XC and via OOC produce roughly journey time parity to Birmingham, then yes OOC to points north will be marginally quicker as that avoids the central Birmingham bit. However, any advantage will be so minimal that routing restrictions will firmly keep punters on XC.
How much is minimal? What we would have is far more choice than now and if MRH and the plans for WMCA post hs2, the current lines to Didcot and Bristol/Cardiff would have additional services too.
If there are so many services that faster trains can't be accommodated, why do we want to take a "can't do" approach when there might be opportunities to improve the rail network?
Don't XC trains load quite well? Has the latent demand been quantified? This latent demand ought to include those who would travel more readily if trains were less crowded, plus those who would travel between the above stops if faster services were available.
While the demand might presently be for smaller intermediate stations (as you said previously at #266) some of that is self fulfilling, ie this is what the service provides and people use it accordingly. I can't prove that faster trains would load well, but neither am I convinced that they wouldn't, as you seem to be suggesting.
I don't disagree about the time savings, but is it really a poor use of capacity? Does it really follow that we need all of the stopping trains and yet can't justify faster trains?
I've sat in heavy/stationary traffic on the M5 enough times to believe that there is quite a bit of latent demand that could be tapped into, if only we had the will do so. Perhaps it just needs some Government-backed encouragement (including well placed advertising) towards modal shift.
There is demand, and there is latent demand. But how much?
The corridors south west of Birmingham are much more sparsely populated than north west and north east of Birmingham.
Existing routes from Birmingham to the north are crap and HS2's step change in journey time should create a lot of new demand. 'True' inter-city services from Birmingham can skip Stafford, Stoke, Tamworth, Burton, Derby and Wakefield and focus exclusively on the big cities, and there are enough of the Stokes and Burtons to warrant their own regional services. With some sensible NPR I can foresee reasonable long term Birmingham - North West and North East total service provision as something like
To the south west, the existing line isn't badly aligned, and the existing service pattern is only 3 short trains per hour. A 4tph service, 2tph each to Bristol (and beyond) and Cardiff, with sensible length trains will surely be sufficient to mop up demand. The corridor characteristics are such that the Bristol and Cardiff trains need Cheltenham and Gloucester punters to wash their face, unlike on the denser corridors to the north.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I know, so was I, I just added phase only for even further clarity of options. In the full y service spec there were 2 manchester-Birminghams and no liverpool-birmingham services - yes, indicative, but phase2a was already at 14 trains an hour. The options from OOC were more frequent, more convenient and faster from places like Reading where OOC would be a turn up and go service. For example, to Edinburgh or Glasgow would have been every other hour, but 2tph from OOC.
How much is minimal? What we would have is far more choice than now and if MRH and the plans for WMCA post hs2, the current lines to Didcot and Bristol/Cardiff would have additional services too.
While the demand might presently be for smaller intermediate stations (as you said previously at #266) some of that is self fulfilling, ie this is what the service provides and people use it accordingly.
Also that the high fares set by XC to price off excess demand has led to a lot of splitting which will make a lot of longer flows look quieter on paper.
Manchester is 3hr10 from Reading. OOC is 20mins, give it 15 mins change over. Phase 1 will be around 1hr34 OOC-Manchester. 2hr09. Its a significant difference. Full hs2 would reduce that to 1hr40, a 90 minute saving.
Yes, that's true. But Reading to Manchester accounts for just 35k journeys per year. Reading to Birmingham passengers are likely to stick with the direct trains and (including International and Coventry) there are more than 60k of them. Then there are passengers for Oxford - 266k from Reading (which will be split between GWR and XC), 64k from Birmingham and 29k from Manchester. So all things considered HS2 will have a fairly small impact on XC journeys, the route shouldn't be neglected - it needs electrification and proper rolling stock.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ordinarily I would agree with you. However, Birmingham - Manchester is a bit of a special case. Both arms already have 3tph services, so here is a ready made 3tph gap left in the timetable structure.
I mean the 3tph Birmingham - London and 3tph Manchester - London services. There is a ready made 3tph 'hole' in the timetable structure and those paths are useless for 2tph service groups. Of course for a theoretical 3tph Birmingham - Manchester to fit into the 3tph holes, the Up and Down holes need to align.
I mentioned Reading once in the context of getting to OOC, but all the other points are not just about Reading. There would have been greater variety and more frequency from OOC, as well as frequency from the stations on the existing network to OOC.
Yes, that's true. But Reading to Manchester accounts for just 35k journeys per year. Reading to Birmingham passengers are likely to stick with the direct trains and (including International and Coventry) there are more than 60k of them. Then there are passengers for Oxford - 266k from Reading (which will be split between GWR and XC), 64k from Birmingham and 29k from Manchester. So all things considered HS2 will have a fairly small impact on XC journeys, the route shouldn't be neglected - it needs electrification and proper rolling stock.
Birmingham, yes, and that should be an easier journey post HS2 if the post hs2 plans come to fruition, but Basingstoke, Southampton, Bournemouth etc may also go via hs2, plus that place that beings with R in Berkshire is the changing point for other places too to the North Newbury, Slough, Bracknell, Winnersh, Taplow... and its not just about going to Manchester, but Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Blackpool, Preston, plus for full hs2, even more.
Same for the other long distance XC service, particularly for the SW-EM/NE services if full hs2. More frequency, more seats and quicker. Leave XC serving the intermediate stations better for regional and local.
That depends what for. The models can tell you demand for lots of different scenarios. It would be easy enough to forecast the latent demand for faster services on the Cross Country corridor.
This latent demand ought to include those who would travel more readily if trains were less crowded, plus those who would travel between the above stops if faster services were available.
I’m suggesting only that the additonal revenue on offer would be 1) insufficient to pay for a new line (by a long way) and 2) also insufficient to offset the loss of revenue if other services had to be removed to enable the faster servcies (That’s before you get into the politics of reducing services at places like Cheltenham, Taunton, etc).
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
