Extension of Bedwyn stoppers to Westbury

[Horizon22]

Just seems like a lot of additional inconvenience for many, for what is likely a very small passenger flow.

 

[Towers]

It’s only 3/6 London-bound Herefords that call at Slough; and 3/5 country bound. The remainder are already fast Paddington to Reading.

The other consideration is both Slough (for Windsor) and Oxford have huge tourist trade between them; plus employment and student travel between them in both directions. That existing demand is why there’s always been a fast London - Slough - Reading - Oxford service; and resistance when the Slough calls have been moved out of the Oxfords in the past - in FGW Link days they did almost exactly what you propose - moved the calls out of the beyond-Oxford services and into the short lived Paddington - Exeter stopper Adelante services which ran in the same hours. Result was massive overcrowding, even in off peak daytime, of the Oxford trains from Slough.

And that’s before you look at practicalities of re-jigging the whole timetable to make it work - the Bedwyn will miss its slot on the Reading to Southcote corridor; which means either retiming the train earlier from Paddington (it can’t as it follows the West of England fast), or later from Slough; which will involve messing round with Basingstokes and Cross Countrys and Freight… Not impossible, but not really worth it when - the train service currently matches demand better; and the only benefit is shaving maybe 2-3 minutes off London to Worcester times.

You offer some very sensible counter arguments; no further questions m'lud!

 

[JamesRowden]

Just seems like a lot of additional inconvenience for many, for what is likely a very small passenger flow.

Is three small stations really worth an hourly path into Paddington?

London - Bedwyn/Hungerford/Kintbury 1tph, London - Pewsey to Penzance 1.5tph. Seems rather unbalanced to me.

And 0.5tph of service between Newbury and anywhere of any distance west seems too low to me.

 

[cle]

Pretty much the same as at present, except the Newbury-Bedwyn service would be a Reading-Bristol service, and there would be an additional Paddington-Newbury 387 and Paddington-Exeter service every 2 hours.

The Reading-Newbury stoppers could be withdrawn since the Reading-Bristol service and additional Paddington-Newbury and Paddington-Exeter services should meet demand.

Worth mentioning again that Bradford and Trowbridge will be losing their Waterloo services indefinitely. So there might be some more demand from those places on a regular service to London (faster too, and with Reading). Equally, a new Newbury-Bristol link might be useful for some.

But there’s nothing there!!

Nor was there at Ebbsfleet, and countless before that. Not that we want to hinge it on a brutalist shopping mall either, like the new towns of the past.

But yes, that's the point of place-making - and we need more house-building in Southern England. Inherent rail junctions make a lot of sense for this. It's connected in every direction, for many employment options without having to drive - seems very logical to me.

 

[randyrippley]

Rather than extending the Bedwyn terminator, I would extend the Newbury terminator which runs in the opposite hour to the Exeter semi-fast. This could run to Frome calling at Bedwyn, Pewsey and Westbury en-route. Achieves the purpose of the OP but to a more sensible provision to match demand.

If you're going to run to Frome you might as well continue to Yeovil

 

[PTR 444]

If you're going to run to Frome you might as well continue to Yeovil

And if you’re going to run to Yeovil you might as well continue to Weymouth!

 

[brad465]

No particular opinion on what should happen along the B&H, but can I suggest adding Slough stops on PAD - BDW services, and removing them from the Worcester/Malvern/Hereford trains? The local stopper nature of the Bedwyns seems far better suited to calling intermediate RDG - PAD stations that a train going all the way to Hereford.

But how will our future Prime Ministers get from their boarding school quarters to their next stage of education before, like swimming down the Thames, swallowing a load of proverbial to get to Westminster?

 

[stuu]

Is three small stations really worth an hourly path into Paddington?

London - Bedwyn/Hungerford/Kintbury 1tph, London - Pewsey to Penzance 1.5tph. Seems rather unbalanced to me.

And 0.5tph of service between Newbury and anywhere of any distance west seems too low to me.

The gravity model of trade is relevant to both Newbury-London and Newbury-points west.

Essentially size and distance matter, so somewhere small like Newbury will not have much trade/transport demand with Westbury/Frome/Taunton or anywhere else west. What it will have is demand to the nearest big centre i.e. Reading, and less to London. 0.5 tph west is probably overkill. When I used to catch those trains in the peak from Paddington to Taunton I would sometimes have a carriage to myself by the end of the journey. Off peak must be like the Marie Celeste at the moment

 

[JamesRowden]

The gravity model of trade is relevant to both Newbury-London and Newbury-points west.

Essentially size and distance matter, so somewhere small like Newbury will not have much trade/transport demand with Westbury/Frome/Taunton or anywhere else west. What it will have is demand to the nearest big centre i.e. Reading, and less to London. 0.5 tph west is probably overkill. When I used to catch those trains in the peak from Paddington to Taunton I would sometimes have a carriage to myself by the end of the journey. Off peak must be like the Marie Celeste at the moment

The Monday 4th October 12:34 service from Paddington to Exeter St Davids I travelled on throughout was more busy than you describe the peak, with at a guess 10 people per carriage at the western end of the route on a 9-Car train. Reduce the length of the train to 5-Cars and run hourly and you have a service with a decent off-peak loading. They must be 9-Car rather than 5-Car for a reason.

With regards to your linked model, the amount of length per unit angle will be proportional to distance, therefore canceling out the inverse trade to distance relationship in the model. Connections to many more places are available at Westbury and Exeter for example.

There is also an inverse relationship between service frequency and average waiting time (for either connections or when someone cannot modify their schedule to fit the railway timetable). So making the service more frequent than 2 hourly makes the service opportunities involving connections so much better for little extra cost.

 

[randyrippley]

And if you’re going to run to Yeovil you might as well continue to Weymouth!

That would allow cuts on Weymouth - Bournemouth

 

[TheWalrus]

So a significant capacity downgrade for all involved then? People in Hungerford are already annoyed about their loss of direct trains to London.

Not really after Hungerford there’s less passengers than carriages now. I would slightly rejig paths, make the two-hourly Exeter semi-fast hourly as far as Westbury and call all stations Newbury-Westbury. Terminate Bedwyns at Newbury using 387s.

 

[JonathanH]

That would allow cuts on Weymouth - Bournemouth

I'm not convinced that follows.

There is a practical limitation to the number of trains which can use the Castle Cary to Weymouth line and the route to Waterloo isn't just about Weymouth.

If there is a need to cut the number of trains west of Bournemouth it can be done without extending Bedwyn services.

 

[Glenn1969]

I'm not convinced that follows.

There is a practical limitation to the number of trains which can use the Castle Cary to Weymouth line and the route to Waterloo isn't just about Weymouth.

If there is a need to cut the number of trains west of Bournemouth it can be done without extending Bedwyn services.

Have wondered in the past why these services don't extend to Trowbridge which for a station with nearly a million annual pax surely has an inadequate London service currently

 

[stuu]

There is also an inverse relationship between service frequency and average waiting time (for either connections or when someone cannot modify their schedule to fit the railway timetable). So making the service more frequent than 2 hourly makes the service opportunities involving connections so much better for little extra cost.

That would need at least two extra trains (£30m), and then the running costs on top. How many extra passengers would that need to bring in to come close to justifying the cost?

 

[JN114]

Have wondered in the past why these services don't extend to Trowbridge which for a station with nearly a million annual pax surely has an inadequate London service currently

Not everyone wants to go to London?

Vast majority of the passenger flow is commuting to/from Bristol area; and local schools journeys.

The London traffic that does exist, is more than adequately served by existing connections at Bath, Chippenham or Westbury.

 

[JamesRowden]

That would need at least two extra trains (£30m), and then the running costs on top. How many extra passengers would that need to bring in to come close to justifying the cost?

No extra trains required. Requires 6 5-Car sets on Exeter semi-fast plus whatever DMU serves Bedwyn (1 required in present service pattern) plus a spare 387 for Newbury-Paddinton. Saves 3 existing 9-Cars off the Exeter semi-fast, plus 3 5-car off Bedwyn-Paddington (compared with the service the trains were ordered for).

Just a few more drivers and other on-board staff required.

 

[JN114]

No extra trains required. Requires 6 5-Car sets on Exeter semi-fast plus whatever DMU serves Bedwyn (1 required in present service pattern) plus a spare 387 for Newbury-Paddinton. Saves 3 existing 9-Cars off the Exeter semi-fast, plus 3 5-car off Bedwyn-Paddington (compared with the service the trains were ordered for).

Not sure your maths are quite right…

Current LTP timetable is:-

3x 5-IET for Bedwyns
3x 5/9-IET for Exeters
1x 8-387 for Newburys

As I read your proposal, we would need:-

5-6x 5/9-IET for Exeters
1x 2/3-165 for Bedwyns
3x 8-387 for Newburys

That’s 9-10 sets required vs 7; so 3 extra. There isn’t the spare capacity in the 387 fleet long term to achieve that - indeed the current (IET crack recovery) TT only works as 9 units are on temporary loan to GWR from other operators; AND the Thames Valley Suburban service is reduced to hourly off-peak. Long term those extra units won’t be in the fleet and the TV Suburbans will be back to 2tph.

Unless you’re proposing cutting services between Newbury and London from 2tph to 1tph to achieve your plan? Even then you still need to find a 16x from somewhere to work the Newbury - Bedwyn shuttle.

 

[JamesRowden]

Not sure your maths are quite right…

Current LTP timetable is:-

3x 5-IET for Bedwyns
3x 5/9-IET for Exeters
1x 8-387 for Newburys

As I read your proposal, we would need:-

5-6x 5/9-IET for Exeters
1x 2/3-165 for Bedwyns
3x 8-387 for Newburys

That’s 9-10 sets required vs 7; so 3 extra. There isn’t the spare capacity in the 387 fleet long term to achieve that - indeed the current (IET crack recovery) TT only works as 9 units are on temporary loan to GWR from other operators; AND the Thames Valley Suburban service is reduced to hourly off-peak. Long term those extra units won’t be in the fleet and the TV Suburbans will be back to 2tph.

Unless you’re proposing cutting services between Newbury and London from 2tph to 1tph to achieve your plan? Even then you still need to find a 16x from somewhere to work the Newbury - Bedwyn shuttle.

Replace 1 9-car for 2 5-Cars (or split a 10 car into two 5s).

Commuting is down post pandemic long term, and leisure demand is not affected as much. Redistribute the assets to offer a more frequent and subsequently higher quality service service for leisure travellers at the cost of making some trains in the peak shorter than originally envisaged before the pandemic.

 

[NSEFAN]

If we are proposing extensions of the Bedwyn service, then why not reopen to Marlborough? Maybe even Swindon?

 

[JN114]

Replace 1 9-car for 2 5-Cars (or split a 10 car into two 5s).

Commuting is down post pandemic long term, and leisure demand is not affected as much. Redistribute the assets to offer a more frequent and subsequently higher quality service service for leisure travellers at the cost of making some trains in the peak shorter than originally envisaged before the pandemic.

No you’re still fundamentally not getting it.

Forget train lengths a second.

The Current (long term) timetable needs 7 trains
Your proposal needs 10.

How can 7 make 10? You need more trains.

You can’t improve the quality and frequency of services by cutting them, so splitting/cancelling existing trains is off limits.

 

[JamesRowden]

No you’re still fundamentally not getting it.

Forget train lengths a second.

The Current (long term) timetable needs 7 trains
Your proposal needs 10.

How can 7 make 10? You need more trains.

You can’t improve the quality and frequency of services by cutting them, so splitting/cancelling existing trains is off limits.

Replace all day 5+5s on others route with a 9-car from the Exeter route, thus producing enough stock for 2 5-car trains from one train, split a 5+5s on the Exeter route into two 5s each, and/or transfer the 3 5-car Paddington-Bedwyn sets to the Exeter route. The frequency doubles. The number of operating staff hours increase.

Paddington-Bedwyn stations not served by an hourly Paddington-Newbury service get a local DMU service instead. Plenty of spare EMUs from what I can tell for electric services to Newbury.

 

[JN114]

Replace all day 5+5s on others route with a 9-car from the Exeter route, thus producing enough stock for 2 5-car trains from one train, split a 5+5s on the Exeter route into two 5s each, and/or transfer the 3 5-car Paddington-Bedwyn sets to the Exeter route.

Right so you’re turning 10s and 9s into 5s to “improve the service” ok…

Paddington-Bedwyn stations not served by an hourly Paddington-Newbury service get a local DMU service instead.

There are no spare DMUs/769s to operate such a service. Which route will you “improve” by cutting it to provide one? Perhaps the severely overcrowded Basingstoke or Gatwick routes could take a service reduction?

Plenty of spare EMUs from what I can tell for electric services to Newbury.

387 usage is 31/33 units with 2 stood down for maintenance each day. Despite what doomsayers may want you to believe; peak hour services are busy and justifying their length. You may get enough spare units in the off peak; but that doesn’t let you run a service in this way in the peaks.

***

Take it from someone who runs this train set -

You will need 3x additional 5-IETs and 9x additional 4-387s to achieve it; and cope with the re-distributed loadings and higher maintenance requirements - all above the current fleet complement.

There is no solution to the lack of unit for the Bedwyn DMU shuttle - the whole Turbo fleet is accounted for, the 769 fleet will be accounted for once introduced; and no more of either type can be introduced.

Now there might be the 387s available off other operators to do it in a couple of years time, depending on how other cascades go. The IETs would need to be new-build though, unless Hull Trains wound up.

All the above would also need improvements to stabling facilities and increased stabling capacity. That’s going to be costed in the tens of millions.

Crew-wise it would need another 5-6 drivers and train managers (they would likely pick up the Lion’s share of the extra work, diagram shuffling gets the rest of it covered); 10-12 additional catering staff if you are planning on having a trolley service on the extra trains.

It’s way too much for so little benefit.

 

[BrianW]

But there’s nothing there!!

There should be. Not only Westbury but all the stations mentioned on this thread. People have to live somewhere (and not only on brownfield sites in formerly prosperous towns). An hour on the train very commutable. And indeed a lovely part of the country, which deserves to have a lot of people enjoy living in it.

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps the severely overcrowded Basingstoke or Gatwick routes could take a service reduction?

Hasn't it been indicated that Reading to Redhill / Gatwick will stay 2tph for the foreseeable future? Even if it is possible to retime the stopper to allow it to extend to Gatwick it would appear likely that there will be a spare 769 in due course assuming the order remains at 19 units. It would be pretty bad if a 2tph service requires the same number of units as the planned 3tph service did.

I appreciate that any spare unit could already have been rehypothecated for something else.

I concede that it would seem to be odd cutting back on a proposed uplift that had a business case (eg 3tph North Downs) to provide services that don't have one (Kennet Valley extensions).

 

[JamesRowden]

Right so you’re turning 10s and 9s into 5s to “improve the service” ok…



There are no spare DMUs/769s to operate such a service. Which route will you “improve” by cutting it to provide one? Perhaps the severely overcrowded Basingstoke or Gatwick routes could take a service reduction?



387 usage is 31/33 units with 2 stood down for maintenance each day. Despite what doomsayers may want you to believe; peak hour services are busy and justifying their length. You may get enough spare units in the off peak; but that doesn’t let you run a service in this way in the peaks.

***

Take it from someone who runs this train set -

You will need 3x additional 5-IETs and 9x additional 4-387s to achieve it; and cope with the re-distributed loadings and higher maintenance requirements - all above the current fleet complement.

There is no solution to the lack of unit for the Bedwyn DMU shuttle - the whole Turbo fleet is accounted for, the 769 fleet will be accounted for once introduced; and no more of either type can be introduced.

Now there might be the 387s available off other operators to do it in a couple of years time, depending on how other cascades go. The IETs would need to be new-build though, unless Hull Trains wound up.

All the above would also need improvements to stabling facilities and increased stabling capacity. That’s going to be costed in the tens of millions.

Crew-wise it would need another 5-6 drivers and train managers (they would likely pick up the Lion’s share of the extra work, diagram shuffling gets the rest of it covered); 10-12 additional catering staff if you are planning on having a trolley service on the extra trains.

It’s way too much for so little benefit.

WRONG

Running an extra Paddington-Newbury service every 2 hours while removing a Reading-Newbury shuttle every 2 hours will not require 9 additional 4-Car 387s. More like one 387 train every two hours between Reading and Paddington. C2C borrowed some 387s if I remember correctly.

Order an additional 769 for Bedwyn if there is no slack for DMUs (or a number of self powered units if replacing it with a longer service).

 

[JonathanH]

Order an additional 769 for Bedwyn if there is no slack for DMUs (or a number of self powered units if replacing it with a longer service).

Ordering an additional 769 is almost certainly out of the question given the way the programme has developed.

C2C borrowed some 387s if I remember correctly.

...and it has been indicated that they will have to go back.

 

[JamesRowden]

Ordering an additional 769 is almost certainly out of the question given the way the programme has developed.


...and it has been indicated that they will have to go back.

But as you pointed out North Downs staying at 2tph frees up the 3 769s required for my hypothetical idea. But I can't implement this plan in reality and I've covered the benefits and requiements without needing to go into too much detail with regards to the specific implementation

 

[godfreycomplex]

There should be. Not only Westbury but all the stations mentioned on this thread. People have to live somewhere (and not only on brownfield sites in formerly prosperous towns). An hour on the train very commutable. And indeed a lovely part of the country, which deserves to have a lot of people enjoy living in it.

Sadly, one can't eat scenery

 

[JN114]

WRONG

With respect, no; I’m not.

Running an extra Paddington-Newbury service every 2 hours while removing a Reading-Newbury shuttle every 2 hours will not require 9 additional 4-Car 387s.

It’s more than that though isn’t it. The Reading Newbury shuttle is hourly, and is the only service serving Midgham and Aldermaston. It also “works” as a 4 car self-contained shuttle. Any London service is going to need to be 8 car minimum, which isn’t going to work so well at 3 car stations, more doors will be off platform than on. So scrapping the Newbury shuttles is out the question.

So what’s left of your proposal involves making the Bedwyn and Newbury fast services to Paddington (currently 3tp2h), 2tph 387 to Newbury. That will end up as a 120 minute circuit with reasonable turnarounds; 4x 8 cars required which is 8 units. Then you need to account for the Bedwyn service(s) that are 10 car to Newbury for capacity at present - you would want to run that service as a 12 car, requiring your 9th unit.

C2C borrowed some 387s if I remember correctly.

You remember incorrectly, it’s the other way around - GWR are borrowing some c2c and GN 387s at present essentially to run the Bedwyns as 387s - as you propose - to cover for IETs being out of service. They’re borrowing additional units because there aren’t enough units in GWRs fleet to do so DESPITE covid-related reductions in services elsewhere. How many additional units have GWR borrowed? 9…

As to your additional DMU, I’d already addressed it, but to labour it:

Order an additional 769 for Bedwyn if there is no slack for DMUs (or a number of self powered units if replacing it with a longer service).

The 769 production line has closed; and as I understand it there are no more suitable 319s remaining for conversion.

With a whole fleet replacement then you might justify ordering an extra set at that time; but there is zero prospect of that happening any time soon.

Hasn't it been indicated that Reading to Redhill / Gatwick will stay 2tph for the foreseeable future? Even if it is possible to retime the stopper to allow it to extend to Gatwick it would appear likely that there will be a spare 769 in due course assuming the order remains at 19 units. It would be pretty bad if a 2tph service requires the same number of units as the planned 3tph service did.

The 3tph service withdrawal is a horrendously short-sighted plan - the route is very overcrowded even post-pandemic and the third train was the only realistic way of tackling that. Alas government pay masters aren’t interested in solving problems just balancing budget sheets. As it is, that should free up 3x 769s; which will enable the Windsor and Peak Bourne Ends to go back to being 769s as originally envisaged before 3tph and Basingstoke enhancements put paid to those. I suppose you could redeploy that 3rd set onto Bedwyn Newbury shuttles, but I suspect we’re going to prefer the additional spare capacity it affords than facilitating an unjustified B&H service enhancement.

It doesn’t stack up resources-wise.
I can’t see the latent traffic to justify cost outlay for additional resources.
I can’t see the user groups accepting such a change to their hard-fought through service.

And that’s before we get into timing, staffing and operating it.

I commend the thought and tenacity that’s gone into it - but it just wouldn’t work or stack up economically in practice

 

[JamesRowden]

With respect, no; I’m not.



It’s more than that though isn’t it. The Reading Newbury shuttle is hourly, and is the only service serving Midgham and Aldermaston. It also “works” as a 4 car self-contained shuttle. Any London service is going to need to be 8 car minimum, which isn’t going to work so well at 3 car stations, more doors will be off platform than on. So scrapping the Newbury shuttles is out the question.

So what’s left of your proposal involves making the Bedwyn and Newbury fast services to Paddington (currently 3tp2h), 2tph 387 to Newbury. That will end up as a 120 minute circuit with reasonable turnarounds; 4x 8 cars required which is 8 units. Then you need to account for the Bedwyn service(s) that are 10 car to Newbury for capacity at present - you would want to run that service as a 12 car, requiring your 9th unit.



You remember incorrectly, it’s the other way around - GWR are borrowing some c2c and GN 387s at present essentially to run the Bedwyns as 387s - as you propose - to cover for IETs being out of service. They’re borrowing additional units because there aren’t enough units in GWRs fleet to do so DESPITE covid-related reductions in services elsewhere. How many additional units have GWR borrowed? 9…

As to your additional DMU, I’d already addressed it, but to labour it:



The 769 production line has closed; and as I understand it there are no more suitable 319s remaining for conversion.

With a whole fleet replacement then you might justify ordering an extra set at that time; but there is zero prospect of that happening any time soon.



The 3tph service withdrawal is a horrendously short-sighted plan - the route is very overcrowded even post-pandemic and the third train was the only realistic way of tackling that. Alas government pay masters aren’t interested in solving problems just balancing budget sheets. As it is, that should free up 3x 769s; which will enable the Windsor and Peak Bourne Ends to go back to being 769s as originally envisaged before 3tph and Basingstoke enhancements put paid to those. I suppose you could redeploy that 3rd set onto Bedwyn Newbury shuttles, but I suspect we’re going to prefer the additional spare capacity it affords than facilitating an unjustified B&H service enhancement.

It doesn’t stack up resources-wise.
I can’t see the latent traffic to justify cost outlay for additional resources.
I can’t see the user groups accepting such a change to their hard-fought through service.

And that’s before we get into timing, staffing and operating it.

I commend the thought and tenacity that’s gone into it - but it just wouldn’t work or stack up economically in practice

Can't be bothered to argue about potential fine details of an idea that we do not have the power to implement.