|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Consultation closing? (Read 5230 times)
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
I understand from the chairman of the West Wilts Rail User Group that consultations on the Deecmber 2007 timetable closed today (15th December).
I have made various inputs so I'm not panicked if a closing date passed today, but I was not aware of this one; perhaps it was for stakeholder groups rather than the general public. Does anyone know whether there was, indeed, a consultation finished today or did I get some wires crossed somewhere? Is it possible that the date was indeed this Friday but has been put back? I have received an email in the last few days that indicated my correspondent at First has too much on plate to get back for a few days.
Any help in sorting out consultation dates would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Street
|
A bit early to close a consulation for next year's timetable, 5 days after the new one has been released?
Maybe they're worried that the new timetable is causing havoc and want to change it straight away...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graz
|
I still have a lot of comments and suggestions I need to give to FGW, so I hope it hasn't closed yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sion Bretton
|
Hope it's not closed, as Frist have had bad week all round. Close early due the bad week of train services and they don't want the public to write in?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aik4on
|
18 January is the deadline
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Thanks ... a good chance to review the first two weeks of the new service fairly and make GOOD suggetsions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Thanks aik4on. I have been encouraged recently , both by the massive pressure being exerted from many areas for an overall review of SLC2 and , more specifically , by the growing support that I have encountered for a restored / improved Melksham train service. A consultation period of appropriate length can only help matters.
However , we all know that getting our train service back is unlikely to be easy. With this in mind , I am going to do something unusual , and play "devils advocate." I think that it is vital that we have a bulletproof case , and I have composed the following list of hypothetical arguments that could be thrown at us.
1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this?
2) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following :
a) New container freight trains from Radstock.
b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail.
c) Extra traffic from mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor and a rail-freight terminal at Westbury.
How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity?
3) The DfT , having taken into account our excellent proposals , decide to rely on the advice of their senior civil servants & special advisers , and inform us that , given the wide range of other calls on public funds , we are to receive rail - replacement bus services instead. How would we convince them that this would in no way be adequate?
I would appreciate the views of as many site visitors as possible on this.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 01:22:53 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graz
|
That's a good idea Lee. I've come up with my best responses to these- it's late though, so I may not make perfect sense but here we go: 1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this? I would disagree that this would be a good idea at all. Not only would Melksham have an untapped and unused rail system - with the few remaining FGW services going under further - but the problems with buses are that they are much slower in getting to destinations and generally less reliable than a good rail service. I do not think they would be well used, either, as people would still want to get the trains from Salisbury to Westbury, and anyone from Westbury wanting to go to Chippenham or Swindon would no doubt still change at Bath spa. On the contrary, a good rail service would not only increase usage between Salisbury and Westbury but also provide a fast service to Chippenham, and Swindon which would increase sales. Also, Melksham already has buses- and people do not like to be stuck in a bus, in a traffic jam. providing more buses as a permanent 'rail replacement' would just not work. Melksham has the infranstructure- why not make use of it for the benefit of passengers throughout the West? 2) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following :
a) New container freight trains from Radstock.
b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail.
How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity? The problem, as we all know with the Melksham line is that it is single-track all the way from Chippenham to Trowbridge. It is a fairly long single-track line, and if freight usage increased so much that there were frequent freight trains going along this track, the 'space' for passenger trains would be limited. If a sensible 2-hourly service timetable was drawn up, this would provide a good passenger service and leave enough time for freight trains to pass through, as a plan could be drawn up so that they could work around the passenger trains. If both passenger and freight usage increased further in the far future, it may be an idea to install sidings or consider doubling some or all of the track. But I don't think that would be nessesary yet. 3) The DfT , having taken into account our excellent proposals , decide to rely on the advice of their senior civil servants & special advisers , and inform us that , given the wide range of other calls on public funds , we are to receive rail - replacement bus services instead. How would we convince them that this would in no way be adequate? The answer to this is partially covered by question 1. Buses get stuck in traffic, are slower, and less comfortable than trains. People won't use them, and prefer to take the car or in the case of customers passing Melksham, change at Bath Spa. The statistics are there that passenger numbers at Melksham were increasing steadily to respectable numbers before the new timetable. The estimate from that is by increasing train services, and publicising them, passenger numbers would increase on the trains. I do not think buses would have the same effect. I'd also like to add that providing this rail service would provide a valuable extra connection to Salisbury for commuters from Bristol, as capacity on these services is becoming very limited. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Street
|
1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this?
3 words come to mind: What's the point? Buses are so much slower than trains, and they would hardly be incorporated to the new timetable as the journey times are so much longer, bus fares are rising (more than train fares, and in some areas for example Cheltenham/Gloucester fares have gone up so much you can't get say a return to town anymore, you have to get a dayrider), and if you were to incorporate a train-like timetable you would have to have a vast number of buses to make the times. Trains are much quicker, probably more efficient (only work on 2 gears to do 90MPH whereas buses use 4 gears to do 35MPH - probably not relevant but just thought i'd slip it in). On the note of longer journey times, and the impossibility of incorporating with train timetables connections will be lost as a TOC will not take the effort to re-plan their timetable for a bus service. ) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following :
a) New container freight trains from Radstock.
b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail.
c) Extra traffic from mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor and a rail-freight terminal at Westbury.
How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity? Surely it doesn't take that long to navigate the single track column, so a service every hour in opposing direction will leave plenty of gaps for freight trains in my opinion. Another view, in the back of my head - if service levels went this high - although expensive, to double (parts) of the track so there will be less congestion along the line. 3) The DfT , having taken into account our excellent proposals , decide to rely on the advice of their senior civil servants & special advisers , and inform us that , given the wide range of other calls on public funds , we are to receive rail - replacement bus services instead. How would we convince them that this would in no way be adequate?
As I said above, buses are just not as useful as trains are, for one thing you can't tell when or if they are going to arrive unless the Council has spent thousands investing on RTPI systems. I see it as if there are rail replacement buses whats the point in the rail station then? If the station has a train station, why not use it!? And if ticket sales have what multiplied by 9 I think it is over the last few years then what can go wrong? Providing a bus service will disable users from carrying pets and heavy luggage, and a rail-replacement bus would have to just call at all the stations along the route, that's good public transport because you're just mirroring the train network... but much slower. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Many thanks for those excellent points.
One aspect that I should clarify relates to passenger / freight capacity. The concern here is not so much available "space" on the Thingley Junction - Melksham - Bradford South Junction section , but available "space" on the main lines at either end. That said , it does take 20 minutes to travel "end to end" on the single - track Melksham line , which (along with the line right the way down to Southampton) is projected to acheive medium - level tonnage growth to 2015.
As I may have mentioned before , it is difficult to see this growth coming from the passenger side with a vastly reduced service.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mthomson
|
I believe the DfT are quietly pursuing the use of rail replacement buses throughout the network, hence the recent comments by John Armitt of Network Rail.
Forewarned is forearmed and Lee has presented the scenario for the possible arguments and reasons for using rail replacement buses. We all need to be prepared for more battles ahead with FGW and the DfT.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
1) Wiltshire County Council decide to fund through bus services to Chippenham and Melksham from Salisbury. It is suggested that these be incorporated into the current train timetable. What would our view be of this?
They do not attract passengers as well as rail (as Christian Woolmar states in one of his articles) They would add to the current road congestion Journeys would be longer Do we really think FGW or the DfT would be interested in incorporting them into a rail timetable?
2) With train paths vacated by the withdrawn passenger train services , interest grows in the potential railfreight benefits of the Melksham line. This comes from a combination of the following :
a) New container freight trains from Radstock.
b) A major Swindon - based haulage firm deciding to move a lot of its traffic from road to rail.
c) Extra traffic from mini-rail-freight terminals in Wiltshire along the A350/A36 corridor and a rail-freight terminal at Westbury.
How do we ensure that both passenger AND freight trains get their fair share of the available capacity?
I believe it takes about 20 minutes to navigate the single track section, so allowing for a bit of slack at least two trains an hour could use it. So if we had a 2 hourly passenger service then that would allow about 3 other paths free for freight every two hours, surely more than enough capacity at present?
3) The DfT , having taken into account our excellent proposals , decide to rely on the advice of their senior civil servants & special advisers , and inform us that , given the wide range of other calls on public funds , we are to receive rail - replacement bus services instead. How would we convince them that this would in no way be adequate?
Similar to the answer above, the bus simply would not attract enough passengers to justify its existence. (unless it was ridiculously cheap ie £1 return). I travel between Salisbury / Chippenham a couple of times a week on average and there is no way I would use a bus. If I cant use the now limited services via Melksham I either drive all the way, change via Bath if I am not in a hurry or part drive / part train by parking at Trowbridge or Westbury stations. Most others would just use their car for the whole journey. The only people who would use this bus are those who either cant drive, cannot afford a car or for some reason cant go via Bath (a bus would probably be slower than going by train via Bath anyway) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 02, 2007, 05:19:18 PM by Nick Field »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Field
|
Many thanks for those excellent points.
One aspect that I should clarify relates to passenger / freight capacity. The concern here is not so much available "space" on the Thingley Junction - Melksham - Bradford South Junction section , but available "space" on the main lines at either end. That said , it does take 20 minutes to travel "end to end" on the single - track Melksham line , which (along with the line right the way down to Southampton) is projected to acheive medium - level tonnage growth to 2015.
As I may have mentioned before , it is difficult to see this growth coming from the passenger side with a vastly reduced service.
I do not confess to know much about the line capacity or signalling arrangments on our railways but can make the following assumptions: If there are currently 2 HST's per hour running between Swindon and Thingley Junction then adding 1 local passenger train every two hours in each direction would make it a total of 5 trains very two hours in each direction, or a train roughly every 24 minutes. Even if we squeezed a further 1 freight train each hour in each direction this would make it a total of 7 every two hours in each direction (4 HSTs, 1 local and 2 freight) on the mainline equating to a train every 17 minutes. This is roughly the time is takes to get from Swindon to Chippenham. There may of course be additional trains to account for from Swindon to Wootton Bassett where the South Wales trains diverge, and there may be additional freight trains heading to / from Bath rather using the single line Melksham section, We could use the same logic on The Bradford South to Westbury section of track or though I am not sure of the frequency of other trains here. Another point to notes is that we are all aware that the Oxford - Bristol Temple Meads services were withdrawn and the reason given was capapcity issues but as far as I was aware this was between Bristol and Bath and not so much eastwards from Thingley Junction. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sion Bretton
|
Nick
I think it stopped because of how busy the line was between Bath & Bristol TM
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Here is some info that may be helpful : Of course the document reffered to in the title didnt help. Christian Wolmar - "The spectre of cuts by stealth is stalking the railway" (link below.) http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/rail/516.shtml"The other way in which information about cuts will dribble out is through the Route Utilisation Studies, originally produced by the Strategic Rail Authority but now the province of Network Rail." Here are just a few of the gems contained within the Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy (link below.) http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/stratpolplan/GWMLRUS/GWRUS.pdf"Growth in freight traffic is forecast and potential competition for capacity between passenger and freight may develop, particularly on the Reading – Oxford corridor. The strategy assesses the extent to which freight growth can be accommodated on the existing network in the period up until 2012." "A new pattern of service across Bristol, with trains to Bristol from Worcester and Gloucester being amalgamated with trains to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, and trains to Bristol from Cardiff being amalgamated with trains to Westbury, Weymouth and Southampton. This pattern will not only provide new through journey opportunities, but also improve performance by relieving the congestion caused at Bristol Temple Meads by a multiplicity of terminating trains." The above document led to the withdrawal of the Southampton - Swindon & West Country - Cardff services & the conclusion reached below in the same document : Aspiration - Melksham station re-location. Current position - Needs initial business case work undertaking by stakeholders. Current SRA view - Case needs to be proved in value for money terms. It also killed off Corsham station : Aspiration - Corsham. Current position - Scheme design and development was previously undertaken. The business case for the station is currently poor due to cost escalation as a result of unforeseen ground conditions and the withdrawal of the Oxford – Bristol trains which were to have provided the service. Current SRA view - Unlikely to proceed at the present time. Aspiration - Re-introduction of through services between Oxford and Bristol. Current SRA view - Services were withdrawn in 2003 due to low levels of demand and to improve performance on the heavily utilised routes over which they operated. No justification has been found to warrant reversal of that decision. Also , according to Network Rail's Freight RUS , up to 20 extra freight trains per day are planned to run between central Bristol - Didcot via Bristol Parkway. The same section of line is projected to acheive high - level tonnage growth to 2015. However (so we are told) Network Rail only plan for the growth that they can reasonably predict. Freight Operating Companies are open access operators. In practice this means , just as a TOC can run a commercial passenger service if there is sufficient capacity on the line in question , so an FOC can run a freight train service on the same basis , by booking the train paths. In my view , there is no way that Network Rail can accurately predict the number of extra freight trains running in 2 years time , let alone up to 2015. Just to complicate matters further , here are some quotes from Jacobs , who RECOMMENDED re - instating the Bristol - Oxford service. "Performance of the service group would be at risk from the implementation of this timetable as one extra train each alternate hour would operate over the critical sections between Bristol and Bath and Swindon and Didcot. Ideally the trains would occupy the opposite hour to the Cheltenham service between Didcot and Swindon but this would entail extended layovers at Bristol TM (80 mins versus 20 mins)." "It is possible that re-introducing a Bristol – Oxford service onto the main line may have some adverse train performance impact on existing services, albeit these trains themselves may achieve better punctuality than the intercity London services and therefore help to pull average punctuality up. Additional platform capacity has been introduced at Bristol Temple Meads and at Swindon. No significant deliverability issues have been identified." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
 |
