Pick holes in this document!

[yorkie]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/ncc/stakeholderbriefingdocumentn1632

Yep, the DfT have been spending our hard-earned cash producing ridiculous reports that suggest the opposite of what passenger wants.

Go on, have a read, and see how many holes you can find in it.

I'll get started (OK someone else found this before me...)

"An important change is that these services will all operate to/from from Manchester Airport as well as Piccadilly, providing direct trains for the first time between the airport and stations north of Oxenholme. "

This is, a lie as direct services did actually run toward the end of British Rail days.

See how many lies, inconsistencies, and ridiculous comments you can find!!

 

[Mojo]

"Transport for Scotland."

 

[yorkie]

Here's another one.

TPE are short on Class 185s as it is, and Hull has to make do with 2-car 170s (despite promises that would not happen), there are no proposals to build more 185s, so where are the 185s going to come from? Hmm...

 

[Max]

There really is a load of rubbish in there. 185s an upgrade? Are they kidding? How does the removal of facilities such as a shop, a reduction in seating and a poor ambience for long distance travel count as an upgrade?

I'm guessing the 185s will come from the further loss of 185s on the Hull route and the arrival of more 170s. 2-car trains are totally unacceptable for the Hull service. Ironic that at the same time Northern is increasing capacity to 3/4 cars on some trains in the area to cope with demand to the east coast - and they're doing it on a shoestring budget franchise too!

It's interesting to see all the opposition from local government bodies and passenger groups - letter after letter of opposition to removing through services, taking Glasgow off the XC network and other things, and yet the Dft still come up with a load of rubbish. What is the point in consultation? As if they're going to listen!

 

[Jordy]

As much as I like 185s as a replacement for 158s, I think they are TOTALLY unsuitable for the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh route, they will be absolutely packed, which means the trolly won't be able to make it through the train, further decreasing the levels of service.

Max: I don't think there are enough 185 diagrams left on the Hull route to provide a full fleet for the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh route, being such a long distance run i'd imagine they'll need a fair number of trains, something is going to have to give somewhere...although what, remains to be seen, its already daft putting 2 car 170s on the Hull service - they're always packed!

As for this document, it sounds so daft, I can't even be bothered to read it!

:roll:

Jordy

 

[Max]

As much as I like 185s as a replacement for 158s, I think they are TOTALLY unsuitable for the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh route, they will be absolutely packed, which means the trolly won't be able to make it through the train, further decreasing the levels of service.

Max: I don't think there are enough 185 diagrams left on the Hull route to provide a full fleet for the Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh route, being such a long distance run i'd imagine they'll need a fair number of trains, something is going to have to give somewhere...although what, remains to be seen, its already daft putting 2 car 170s on the Hull service - they're always packed!

As for this document, it sounds so daft, I can't even be bothered to read it!

:roll:

Jordy

Seriously, don't bother, it really is a load of government drivel. And yes, I was wondering whether there would be enough out of the Hull diagrams - there's only around 2-3 on Hull services at the max! You're right, something will have to give, and I fear if TPE try to use 185s to Glasgow we could see major stock shortages on the route they should be concentrating on - Transpennine!

 

[Mintona]

After reading the content pretty much in depth, I don't think it's all bad.

I don't think withdrawing the Brighton service is a very good idea, and I don't like the idea at having to change at Birmingham for trains to the north west; however at least it gives alternatives (change at Wolverhampton) so it doesn't sem all bad. Glad to see there will still be as many trains between Bristol and Birmingham, but I think capacity between Bristol and Exeter might be a bit limited in the peaks, and I would like to see the franchisee operate both south west bound trains as far as at least Exeter at peak times. because apart from 158s and the occasional HST, there isn't a lot happening down via Bridgwater.

Anther point:
Gloucester is a bigger city then Cheltenham Spa; indeed Cheltenham is only a town. Why do services not stop at Gloucester instead of Cheltenham Spa? I think that the long distance trains (Plymouth-Edinburgh) should keep the current stopping pattern, and the shorter services (Bristol-Manchester) travel into Gloucester, turn around and then not stop at Cheltenham Spa, thus providing a fast service from Gloucester - Birmingham.

I also strongly support the building of Gloucester South Parkway and Worcester Parkway stations. Despite the fact jounrye times would increase, it wouldn't b by much, and would be very useful to passengers from Cam and Dursley, Gloucester, Worcester and Bromsgrove to get to places quicker.

Anyway, those are my South West Midlands views!

 

[Mojo]

Gloucester is a bigger city then Cheltenham Spa; indeed Cheltenham is only a town. Why do services not stop at Gloucester instead of Cheltenham Spa? I think that the long distance trains (Plymouth-Edinburgh) should keep the current stopping pattern, and the shorter services (Bristol-Manchester) travel into Gloucester, turn around and then not stop at Cheltenham Spa, thus providing a fast service from Gloucester - Birmingham.

I'd say you've highlighted the main reason - having to turn around. It adds 15mins to journeys between BHM and BPW. As well as this, the xx44 FGW from BRI gets overtaken by the xx59 Voyagers at Gloucester.

BTW, the 2005 UK government estimates 400,000 more people living in Cheltenham than Gloucester! But the size of the location isn't relavent. You could say a town of 20,000 people made up of mostly 'City workers' would produce more custom than a town of 40,000 made up mostly of those in low-paid service or primary sector workers.

Don't also forget the hourly CT (soon to become XC) trains though, connecting at Birmingham. I should also imagine that a few people drive to Cheltenham - would the Parkway station be better suited?

As for new stations - I'm not too sure on them. The journey time from Bristol to Birmingham is already about the same by road, so adding on station times it's normally quicker to drive. Although hopefully the AHBs will be replaced soon so they can upgrade the line to 125mph as NR said they wanted to do in the Long-term.

I also wonder if the additional stations would add too much pressure on the already busy trains. In an ideal world, they would predict more people would use the trains, thus lengthen them. But if these stations get built, I bet the trains will still be the same length, and busier than normal.

 

[tedted]

Regarding passengers having to change at Birmingham New Street:

"A number of stakeholders expressed concern in their responses regarding the perceived need for passengers to change trains at Birmingham New Street station for journeys where this has not previously been necessary. The Department is unable to release detailed passenger flow data to demonstrate the proportion of passengers that would be affected as this would compromise the commercial position of train operators, however it is important that the level of passenger flows are illustrated to make the proposals easier to understand. "

Yeah, there's a lot of passengers passing through Birmingham.

Stupid government!

 

[Mintona]

I'd say you've highlighted the main reason - having to turn around. It adds 15mins to journeys between BHM and BPW. As well as this, the xx44 FGW from BRI gets overtaken by the xx59 Voyagers at Gloucester.

BTW, the 2005 UK government estimates 400,000 more people living in Cheltenham than Gloucester! But the size of the location isn't relavent. You could say a town of 20,000 people made up of mostly 'City workers' would produce more custom than a town of 40,000 made up mostly of those in low-paid service or primary sector workers.

Don't also forget the hourly CT (soon to become XC) trains though, connecting at Birmingham. I should also imagine that a few people drive to Cheltenham - would the Parkway station be better suited?

As for new stations - I'm not too sure on them. The journey time from Bristol to Birmingham is already about the same by road, so adding on station times it's normally quicker to drive. Although hopefully the AHBs will be replaced soon so they can upgrade the line to 125mph as NR said they wanted to do in the Long-term.

I also wonder if the additional stations would add too much pressure on the already busy trains. In an ideal world, they would predict more people would use the trains, thus lengthen them. But if these stations get built, I bet the trains will still be the same length, and busier than normal.

I see what you're saying, but in the olden days )) all Cross Country services called at Gloucester, and it was rather taken off the map when Virgin left them just one service a day. 0702 to Edinburgh, which I can't even get to Gloucester in time for. So I always have to change at Cheltenham or Birmingham, which is rather frustrating.

Also another interesting point:
Why don't any Bristol Manchesters stop at say; Severn Tunnel Junction, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Crewe and Manchester? Would be interesting I think, however, not sure if the custom is there for it.

 

[87015]

Cross-country services (proper) to South Wales calling Gloucester then Newport would be the sensible way forward

 

[yorkie]

. Although hopefully the AHBs will be replaced soon so they can upgrade the line to 125mph as NR said they wanted to do in the Long-term.

Meanwhile Nat Ex want to use 100mph trains on the line You couldn't make it up! only in Britain...

 

[Mojo]

Meanwhile Nat Ex want to use 100mph trains on the line You couldn't make it up! only in Britain...

Yes, I remember reading about that. Was it 170s, or a new build of train? What services did they want to use them on?

Cross-country services (proper) to South Wales calling Gloucester then Newport would be the sensible way forward

I know the new XC franchise includes Nottingham-Cardiff via Gloucester/Lydney but I wonder if it'll be set to that route, or if they could launch some more "innovative" services if they want. Will they have Ex CT 170s?

 

[yorkie]

I know the new XC franchise includes Nottingham-Cardiff via Gloucester/Lydney but I wonder if it'll be set to that route, or if they could launch some more "innovative" services if they want. Will they have Ex CT 170s?

I bet they don't, because they (not passengers, the DfT) want "clockface timetables" and "set patterns" with all trains doing the exact same thing every hour (or half-hour). People with luggage who don't mind exactly when their train leaves as long as they get a direct service are totally ignored, you can have 10 pages of complaints but the DfT will sweep all complaints aside because they "know best".

 

[Tom]

yorkie, since the fully clockface timetable came in on SWT with huge publicity with "Know your times" the service has generally been more reliable with better loading as people can just remember the times of trains to their stop far easier as it is generally twice an hour to most destinations. For instance, to Bournemouth, it's xx05 and xx35. Down to Haslemere its xx00, xx15, xx30, xx45. It greatly helps regular travellers who are on flexitime who will know when their trains are without having to look it up in the timetable.

 

[Mojo]

It's also handy if those clockface timetables are better spaced, for example, if 1tph went via Gloucester between Birmingham & Bristol, then later on in the route, there would be a gap of 45 min and another of 15 min.

 

[Nick W]

I don't suppose they could build back the platforms at gloucester on the now avoiding line and to pay for it, get a big sheltered shopping centre built on top with plenty of seating too. The staion might get nice cheap parking too and a bus station too.

 

[devon_metro]

Clockface is excellent. FGW practically destroyed it and from Newton about train leave to London anywhere from xx30-xx40.

The ideal and clean timetable would be:
Plymouth d xx00
Totnes d xx27
Newton A a xx38
Newton A d xx40
Exeter SD a xx58
Exeter SD d xx00

That means hourly on the hour departures from the main cities of Devon.

I'm fully supportive of clockface . Its so much easier to remember.

 

[Ascot]

An organised New Street LMAO

 

[AlexS]

Gloucester is a needless complication, a Cheltenham train is overly difficult.

What on earth would be the point of running Bristol to Manchester via Shrewsbury? Arriva Trains Wales do this already from Cardiff and so on.

 

[Mintona]

AlexS: None of them start from Bristol though, means changing at Newport.

Nick W: Gloucester station is too far away from the avoiders, and there is a level crossing in between, making it tricky. The ideal situation would be Gloucester Parkway a bit to the south with Park and Ride style bus connections to Glouceser Mainline and city centre, as I think it would work well, and be well utilised.

 

[Andrew]

Clockface is excellent. FGW practically destroyed it and from Newton about train leave to London anywhere from xx30-xx40.

The ideal and clean timetable would be:
Plymouth d xx00
Totnes d xx27
Newton A a xx38
Newton A d xx40
Exeter SD a xx58
Exeter SD d xx00

That means hourly on the hour departures from the main cities of Devon.

I'm fully supportive of clockface . Its so much easier to remember.

You'd have to specify all station stops between Exeter and Paddington, which in practice would mean all trains calling Tiverton and Taunton, to give them a clockface timetable, and then one of Castle Cary, Westbury, Pewsey or Newbury (you need to get clockface arrival at Reading since Reading - Paddington relies on a clockface timetable).

So you'd sacrifice journey time by going clockface. And I think you'd agree that the Plymouth journey time isn't the most attractive thing anyway.

Sorry to disappoint! In an ideal world though, I agree, clockface is best.