FGW to pull out of Brighton?

[Ivo]

It is indeed in the wrong direction, but it isn't new to the May 2010 timetable. We all obviously missed it! In the previous timetable, it also includes the stop at Havant, but no times are shown beyond that at all (either as a code or in the reverse direction). All that is shown is the provision of "BTN" as a terminus.

Ah, the benefits of keeping every timetable I acquire

 

[Techniquest]

?! As in, non-stop? Thereby skipping, among others, here () and Salisbury?

(Doesn't beat the summer Paddington - Newquay service I saw on Saturday at Reading though; after Reading, it ran fast to Lostwithiel, skipping even Exeter St David's and Plymouth, before calling at Par and finally Newquay! And how many HSTs serve Lostwithiel anyway? )

I believe this is actually pick up only at Exeter and Plymouth. Advertised as being RA Reading to Lostwithiel (it used to be Par I believe) to stop people not going to Newquay/beyond Plymouth in general overcrowding it. Or at least that's what I believe is the case.

Not even tours go RA through Plymouth! As for HSTs calling at Lostwithiel, I can't be bothered to look through the timetable, but more there than at St Germans for certain!

As for caping the Brighton GW service, there aren't all that many benefits to it. A far better idea is taking SWT's excess fleet away from them (it seems no matter what time of day you go through Salisbury, there's a ton of 158s and 159s in there. Even saw two parked up this morning east of Basingstoke, then one parked up on the opposite side this evening as well as one on the Back Road for some reason at Westbury around 2110), if they have enough to loan EMT/Northern/FGW 158s without affecting their own services, then they obviously have excess. Said excess should be used more effectively elsewhere to ease the nationwide (SWT excepted apparently!) DMU shortage. FGW need more 158s, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accept what SWT don't seem to need!

(It may be obvious I really don't like SWT...)

 

[Ivo]

As for caping the Brighton GW service, there aren't all that many benefits to it. A far better idea is taking SWT's excess fleet away from them (it seems no matter what time of day you go through Salisbury, there's a ton of 158s and 159s in there. Even saw two parked up this morning east of Basingstoke, then one parked up on the opposite side this evening as well as one on the Back Road for some reason at Westbury around 2110), if they have enough to loan EMT/Northern/FGW 158s without affecting their own services, then they obviously have excess. Said excess should be used more effectively elsewhere to ease the nationwide (SWT excepted apparently!) DMU shortage. FGW need more 158s, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accept what SWT don't seem to need!

(It may be obvious I really don't like SWT...)

Anything to do with their very limited service to Trowbridge? Or is that another anachronistic route? (Anyone care to answer that one? Why SWT provide a very limited service to Bristol? Wasn't there a route to Cardiff previously, or something?)

I have noticed that at Salisbury too. You'd think that, at the very least, the Wessex Main Line "InterCity" service could become a 4-car 158 (i.e. two sets of two). To be fair though, I have also noticed it with 450s at Basingstoke. The "over-subscribed" 450s that are "not at all spare". (I don't see why they don't just electrify the line from Salisbury to Basingstoke, to be honest, or is that the whole "Common Sense" argument again?)

(P.S.: What does "RA" stand for? Also, regarding the Newquay service, picking up at Exeter and Plymouth didn't occur to me. D'oh!)

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Ivo, you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to passing places!

From Brighton to Southampton you can only loop at Hove, Barnham & Havant, in the opposite direction you can only loop Havant, Worthing & Hove (pointless). There's no loop at Fareham, just a bay & two through platforms.

As for removing SWTs "excess" fleet, the fleet is that big to allow for 9/10 car peak services, the Lymington service & maintenance. Ever travelled in the peak hours between Waterloo and Basingstoke, you'll soon realise how crowded & how much those units are needed.

It's like FGW need more units to improve services, they're not going to get them though.

 

[thefab444]

It is indeed in the wrong direction, but it isn't new to the May 2010 timetable. We all obviously missed it!

(P.S.: What does "RA" stand for? Also, regarding the Newquay service, picking up at Exeter and Plymouth didn't occur to me. D'oh!)

Er, speak for yourself.

RA is some kind of veg term for "fast to", I assume in either means "Right Away" or "Road Ahead".

How did you work out it was only 2 units?

Well there's one train that does PMH - BTN - GMV, and one unit that does GMV - BTN - WOS. That makes two units. The 1051 GMV - BTN has always been a 2 158 (or 150!) when I've seen it, although FGW diagrams can be a bit fluid.

As for removing SWTs "excess" fleet, the fleet is that big to allow for 9/10 car peak services, the Lymington service & maintenance. Ever travelled in the peak hours between Waterloo and Basingstoke, you'll soon realise how crowded & how much those units are needed.

Agreed, hopefully when the FGW lease ends then the 158s will be further used to strengthen the 1720 and 1750 departures from Waterloo which are still booked 6 159. Ideally the former would be 2 158 + 6 159, and the latter 4 158 + 6 159.

 

[Techniquest]

Anything to do with their very limited service to Trowbridge? Or is that another anachronistic route? (Anyone care to answer that one? Why SWT provide a very limited service to Bristol? Wasn't there a route to Cardiff previously, or something?)

I can't comment for certainty, but there were in years gone by Waterloo to Milford Haven/Manchester via Salisbury and the Marches services. It would appear SWT have carried these on as far as Bristol. I've scooped a number of 159s because of these services. Although still waiting for 159003 and 159011 to show up on them (well, 003 did on 15th May 2010, but due to a delay on the journey from Chippenham I missed it) mind. Last two to claim for haulage/travelage/whatever you want to call it. 011 annoyed me last night by turning up on the 1826 Exeter St Davids to Waterloo, was no chance of scooping it in either, unless I wanted to come back a different day! :-x

Oh aye, almost forgot to add that I no longer remember where my dislike of SWT came from now. It's been a number of years since it developed, if I ever remember what it was I'll PM you.

(P.S.: What does "RA" stand for? Also, regarding the Newquay service, picking up at Exeter and Plymouth didn't occur to me. D'oh!)

RA is a bashers term, as theveg444 (sorry, but I'm in a funny mood since he called RA a 'veg' term!) correctly identifies, it stands for Right Away. In the context I used it (and I know a fair few people who use it still), it means non-stop. Pretty much just the basher's way of saying '1S07 is non-stop Carlisle to Mossend Yard'. Oh, and I don't care if 1S07 runs these days or not, before anyone comments, it's in Hellfire and it seemed a good example.

And now, I'm RA to bed, I need some sleep!

 

[devon_metro]

Are you basing this on an additional Weymouth service being a 158 3-car?Well don't worry it wouldn't be! I would put the 158 on a slightly busier route, releasing a 150, 2car 158 or maybe even a 153 for the Weymouth leg.

No. I'm saying that Weymouth does not require an extra weekday service, the line between Southampton and Bristol is far more worthy of extra services. Whenever i've been on the Weymouth line it's only ever got a handful of people on board.

 

[Greenback]

Fom my observations, a lot more people travel between Bristol and Southampton compared to Bristol and Weymouth, although obviously traffic levels on the Weymouth service will rise during the peak Summer season.

The core section Bristol - Southampton desperately needs more capacity. The trains ar epopular and often overcrowded. I'm sure I remember a more frequent service in the late 1990's. I missed a connection at Southampton for Cardiff due to a late XC from Bpurnemouth, and there was another train in about 25 mins. It turned out to be a slow service using a 150, but it was better than waiting for nearly an hour!

 

[Drsatan]

Fom my observations, a lot more people travel between Bristol and Southampton compared to Bristol and Weymouth, although obviously traffic levels on the Weymouth service will rise during the peak Summer season.

The core section Bristol - Southampton desperately needs more capacity. The trains ar epopular and often overcrowded.

I'd agree. The Great Malvern- Brighton and return service is often standing room only, and only a two car 158 (or even 150) is used on that service. It would be far better for SN to run an extra Brighton - Southampton Central service in the path of the 17:00 FGW depature from Brighton and instead use the 158 (or 150) to strengthen other services.

 

[TheWalrus]

Ha ha. If I did that every time I had an idea I would be on about 1,500 posts by now! And that's as though nearly 1,000 in just over five months isn't enough anyway

Yep, I'm at it again. Sorry for ruining the thread Walrus.

I agree that the service is somewhat pointless; it should be either more frequent or not run at all. In fact, I only discovered the Portsmouth to Brighton FGW service standing on Trowbridge Platform 1 a few hours ago!

lol! Don't worry, I'm open to all ideas, I won't shout you down for it! Unlike some people...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On another note, would anybody actually want to travel all the way from Great Malvern to Brighton on it!?

Quite! It's madness! I would probably rather change at London Vic. and Padd. if I were to do that journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then why not push for an extra hourly service on the line, using 180s (check the "180s up for grabs" thread), alternating between Bournemouth and Brighton? This way, Bristol-Southampton becomes half-hourly, and the options for travelling around are easier.

Yes, I'm biased because it's convenient. No-one mention that

Not sure about running to Bournemouth, but half-hourly to Southampton makes sense. You could run a Gloucester-Weymouth/Southampton service, splitting at Westbury. It could be formed of 153x2, so you get the needed capacity on the core section between Bristol and Westbury, and where the demand is lower (Westbury-Wey/Soton) it would be formed of a 153 which would be sufficient.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you complain if I attempted to become an MP, and push to become the Transport Minister as early as possible?

For which party though?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is indeed in the wrong direction, but it isn't new to the May 2010 timetable. We all obviously missed it! In the previous timetable, it also includes the stop at Havant, but no times are shown beyond that at all (either as a code or in the reverse direction). All that is shown is the provision of "BTN" as a terminus.

Ah, the benefits of keeping every timetable I acquire

That's exactly right. It was in the Dec. 09 timetable too
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(It may be obvious I really don't like SWT...)

Me neither

I~ think any gain in units is a benefit, it may be the 1 or 2 158s we need to ease overcrowding
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well there's one train that does PMH - BTN - GMV, and one unit that does GMV - BTN - WOS. That makes two units. The 1051 GMV - BTN has always been a 2 158 (or 150!) when I've seen it, although FGW diagrams can be a bit fluid.

Well if you turn say the 1051 back early at Westbury, you could send it back early and eventually the diagramming becomes more condensed and you end up saving units. Like I posted earlier, when I've figured it out, I'll post an updated thread!

 

[tbtc]

Would make more sense to concentrate on a half hourly Bristol to Southampton service (an hourly Cardiff - Southampton and an hourly Bristol - Portsmouth), get rid of the token FGW Brighton and the pointless SWT Bristol trips (being replaced by more FGW trips between Bristol and Salisbury).

 

[Greenback]

What about an hourly fast Cardiff - Portsmouth calling at (from Bristol) Bath, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Southampton, Fareham and Cosham, and an hourly Bristol - Southampton filling in at the smaller stops?

 

[tbtc]

What about an hourly fast Cardiff - Portsmouth calling at (from Bristol) Bath, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Southampton, Fareham and Cosham, and an hourly Bristol - Southampton filling in at the smaller stops?

That sounds fair enough - ensure that 158s are diagrammed on the "fast" service but a 150 could probably keep to the timings of the "slow" one if required (obviously you'd probably want 158s on both services, especially with the ones freed from SWT not serving Bristol)

 

[Greenback]

Yes, I think it would be better for consistency if 158's ran both where possible, but they are still likely to be in short supply!

 

[Techniquest]

Must say I agree with the general consensus that the Cardiff to Pompey and vice versa services are often overcrowded. The two moves I made on that route yesterday, however, were fairly lightly loaded. Got the 0830 Cardiff to Pompey down to Salisbury, with plenty of seats available. Same for the 1923 Pompey to Cardiff, got that back from Salisbury with plenty of seats again. Which, admittedly, made a change from being forced to stand for the journey!

Last Friday, we did have to stand unfortunately on the 1330 Cardiff to Pompey, but that was due to the front coach on 158956 being locked out of use, following a rather nasty failure with the lavatory system. Wouldn't have wanted to be cleaning that up when it returned to the depot!

Point there is that you do get occasions when you can easily get a seat.

Also, I must add that the 1051 Great Malvern to Brighton is *not* always a 150 or 2-car 158. I've either seen it or been on it (and/or its inward working) on multiple occasions and seen it as a 3-car 158 as booked. Yes, it's quite regularly either a 2-car 158 or 150, however reading some posts on this point on this thread, one could wrongly assume it's always the case. Far from it.

Finally, as for who would do that journey throughout, *if* I was desperate for something to do, could get it cheap and I could get into place for it without too much difficulty, then I'd give it a bash.

 

[swt_passenger]

What about an hourly fast Cardiff - Portsmouth calling at (from Bristol) Bath, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Southampton, Fareham and Cosham, and an hourly Bristol - Southampton filling in at the smaller stops?

That's basically all it does now surely, you've only removed Bradford on Avon and Romsey from the standard calls. I don't know about B-o-A, but I can't really see Romsey accepting relegation to the second division...

 

[Greenback]

I don;t think B-O-A and Romsey should be served half hourly.

Romsey has a better service now in terms of trains to Eastleigh, Southampton and Salisbury than it used to have. During my travels on the line, hardly anyone has got on and off there, certainly there seems to be a very limted business for anywhere further than Salisbury towards Bristol. There would still be the through trains every hour, as now, but the faster runs from Cardiff would not call.

The slower services now go either to Weymouth or Westbury, but do not extend to Southampton. My preference would be to run Westbury-Weymiouth seperately, connecting out of the slower services.

I accept that it may not be possible to put this into practice, and there are always some people who will be worse off when new services are introduced and timetables reworked!

 

[Oracle]

Changing at Romsey from the Salisbury-Romsey shuttle enables passengers from Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh the opportunity to go north without having to go via Central.

In the past a Test Valley line trains to Salisbury stopped at Millbrook for the benefit of docks estate workers. I just wish the Poole stoppers called at Redbridge to enable us to get to Romsey and Salisbury without having to go all the way to Central and back again.

 

[Ivo]

Ivo, you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to passing places!

I know I don't. That's why I asked. I've only been to Fareham properly once, and it was so dark that I could barely see! Throw in the fact it was snowing...

Would you complain if I attempted to become an MP, and push to become the Transport Minister as early as possible?

For which party though?

The RailUK Party?

I don't think B-o-A would take too kindly to be relegated either, but until fairly recently many trains went straight through anyway so there wouldn't be any real difference, just the loss of more distant locations. What it would mean is that ther wold in theory be more seats, because the buisest route would pass straight through!

I am still of the opinion that FGW *should* serve Brighton, but I accept that many others disagree on this. As for the Cardiff-Pompey route, which has become a side story to both this and the 180 thread, I would seem to have made one mistake. I think that an extra call should be made at Warminster, unless the current near-hourly service is improved (say, by introducing a Bristol - Southampton semi-fast service!), and *possibly* Trowbridge but only during the peaks. To be honest, I think the whole timetable needs an overhaul. Further, would there be any demand/point in a semi-regular extension to Swansea, say every second hour?

 

[Greenback]

would there be any demand/point in a semi-regular extension to Swansea, say every second hour?

No, I think that would be a waste of stock. Even though I would personally find it useful, I can't argue that brighton shouldn;t be served and then say that Swansea should!

 

[thefab444]

I just wish the Poole stoppers called at Redbridge to enable us to get to Romsey and Salisbury without having to go all the way to Central and back again.

The connections would be awful, from Ashurst you'd arrive at Redbridge at xx47, and the Romsey/Salisbury trains leave at xx44. Who'd want to spend 57 minutes waiting for a connection at chav infested Redbridge, when a good 18 minute connection is available at Southampton onto the FGW service? You'd only get a connection from the 1040 from Ashurst which runs six minutes later from Southampton due to the FGW Brighton - Great Malvern service. Going the other way, the service from Salisbury/Romsey arrives at xx19, and the connection to Poole would leave at xx34-ish. Besides, an Ashurst - Redbridge ticket is 80p cheaper than Ashurst - Southampton, but is valid for travel via Southampton with break of journey, so we'd lose the ability to save money there if SWT introduced direct trains.

Through services to Swansea would be interesting, but unlikely to happen with an hourly frequency as you'd need to run one service as a double unit, splitting at Cardiff.

 

[Oracle]

Clearly a re-jig of timings would have to be made so as to allow connections at Redbridge. I wasn't aware of the saving...very interesting!

 

[Birdbrain]

On a similar note, does anyone know if the 1226 Southampton-Worcester is Booked 153? I saw it a while back and it was packed leaving Southampton. I'd feel sorry for anyone who booked it all the way through!

Portsmouth-Cardiff is always packed when I have been on it, and a stronger frequency, or trying to get the 180's would really help in my opinion

 

[thefab444]

The 1226 SOU - WOF is booked 1 153 on weekdays, usually 2 150 or 2 158 on Saturdays though.

Proposal for PMH - CDF

 

[Ivo]

Is this going to become a competition?

What classes would each service use? Also, why does one of the three call at Filton Abbey Wood, but not the other two?

I do like the idea of the Melksham service continuing to Warminster, but would it be two-hourly or less than two-hourly?

I suppose I get to publish mine when it's done (won't be too long)?

 

[thefab444]

The basic level of service is:

Hourly PMH - CDF (they should all call at FIT by the way)
Hourly SOU - WOF (forgot to add the BRI - GCR part on)
Two hourly WMN - CNM
Two hourly WEY - BRI

Unlike others I would retain the Waterloo - Bristol services operated by South West Trains, although they would be retimed.

Revised timetable attached (ignore the operator typo on the 1025 PMH - CDF, it's too late!)

 

[Ivo]

I realise that they should call at Filton AW, and for that reason I had intended to make the Southampton services - what do you make of my diversion via Eastleigh, which ended up running exactly when it needed to (half-hourly and clear of oncoming trains) without me realising! - run to Bristol Parkway to cover that, but I kinda forgot. I shall post a revised one later today, inclusive of more Filton stops and a possible SWT service, but for that to work best Weymouth trains may have to be revised to run every 90 minutes but with only alternate trains running to Bristol. Would Heart of Wessex Line passengers complain if having to change granted them an improved service (which they don't need!)?

I hope you don't mind me nicking the Melksham idea

...but why does it use Pacers? The line is dull enough in a 158!

 

[Ivo]

Version 2 is now ready.

There are a few points to raise here. First of all, to ensure the timings work properly, I have had to introduce some nasty waiting times for trains to and from Weymouth (which, as it turns out, can run every 90 through to Westbury and still continue to Bristol every time), by which I mean about ten minutes at Westbury. Lousy lack of passing places! Fixing the times to allow a pass at Yeovil PM (not shown) was really quite awkward, especially given the increased frequency I am running. Otherwise, the only real concern is of SWT. I have had to choose between stabling the 159 in Bristol for well over two hours (they pass in the Bathampton area!), or otherwise take a punt on ORCATS revenue and extend to Cardiff. So I have decided to let them break into Wales. In one direction, it runs ten minutes behind the 180 - in the other, ten minutes ahead. And speaking of 180s, they all call at Filton AW now. Finally, I have decided to pass on Gloucester services. They can run a self-contained service terminating at Bristol TM. They could even run half-hourly with the Westbury stoppers, allowing two trains an hour at Lawrence Hill and Stapleton Road and the Severn Beach Line a far-from-needed non-stop run to Montpelier!

I should add that the service has been carefully timed so as to avoid conflict with other FGW services (barring north of Bristol) and SWT services, but there may be a slight issue in the Portsmouth area. Arriva, on the other hand, can go to hell. In their case, mine get priority

I hope the layout is easier to read this time. It certainly should be. It has been carefully formatted to fit each direction - I have done both, based on 1100 to 1359 from Bristol eastbound and 1100 to 1359 from Bath westbound - to one page, in landscape.

 

[thefab444]

Your Portsmouth path would be fine if you moved departure forward three minutes to xx08 from PMH, then xx12 PMS, xx16 FTN, xx24 CSA, xx32 FRM, xx56 SOU.

The Chandler's Ford path is interesting, however, it does mean the FGW trains leave SOU 10 minutes apart, rather than the more respectable 25 minutes apart on my plan. Also, you'd have to be prepared to axe the CFR/ESL/SOA calls if anything is running late! However, mine does count on either a slight retiming to the Romsey - Salisbury service (moved back by a few minutes), or a modification of that service to run Salisbury - Lymington, which would still provide 3tph from Southampton to Salisbury; 2 direct and 1 via Eastleigh.


I have also made some changes, briefly:

WEY - BRI extended to BPW, calling all stations.
PMH - CDF only calls at FIT on hours when the above doesn't run.
WAT - BRI path moved to fill in a gap in the BTH - BRI service. Ideally departures would be from SAL at 0752, 0952, 1152, 1552, 1752, 2052; giving Bradford-on-Avon and Keynsham a near enough 2tph frequency.

 

[paul1609]

I go past the FGW services to Brighton on my way to and from work at Barnham.
The morning train is as I understand it full and standing from Worthing in to Brighton.
The evening service to Worcester Shrub Hill is normally about 85% full at Barnham with about 1/3 of the seats reserved except on a Friday Evening when it is always full and standing all the way from brighton to Barnham.
To be honest if FGW are looking to save rolling stock i reckon theres plenty of services in the west country that have far lighter loadings not to mention revenue earning potential.