You may know of the consultation in progress on a December '22 services recast for the South Western Railway network - find more in the PDF linked from their page here:

https://www.southwesternrailway.com/plan-my-journey/timetables/timetable-consultation-december-2022

I've appended the text from the PDF at the foot of this post, because, tucked away on page 37 is an announcement on a completely different subject: that a 'separate review' by the Department for Transport has produced the decision that the South Western Railway services between London Waterloo and Bristol be axed as of December this year, 2021.

I've not found any reference to this forthcoming change save for this paragraph in the December '22 consultation.

There are a number of aspects to this announcement of a prior decision on the Bristol - Waterloo services which... stink:

* The cessation of the (popular) Bristol-Waterloo service is not part of the December 2022 consultation so should not have been announced via a single paragraph 37 pages into a report on something completely different - a  Vogon-like tactic. This approach is (surely deliberately) damaging to the prospects that travellers will see this decision reversed.

* A previous attempt to cease this service resulted in an early day motion in the House of Commons and a pile-on from 30 MPs who lent their name to the cause.

* It may only be the Department for Transport that thinks this service duplicates other trains. Its users are very well aware that it does not.

* It is poor practice to cut services in an unconsidered way during a pandemic.

* This is an example of an organisation (the Department for Transport) making changes under cover of a national crisis (Covid) and this should be called out and not encouraged.

* There is very little awareness of the withdrawal of the Bristol to Waterloo trains among the travelling public and indeed with, now, a three month lead time, reduced opportunity for people to make adjustments to their travel mode when these services cease.

* Perhaps the first thing that should happen is this proposed change should be postponed to 2022 to match those in the rest of this document in order that a proper consultation can be followed through on what is a valued service that has been known to load to capacity.

* The untruth in the concluding sentence: 'Great Western Railway will continue to meet demand on the line' has angered me - often, the railway has done anything but 'meet demand' for travel between Salisbury and Bristol.

Mark

"SALISBURY TO BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS
The route between Salisbury and Bristol Temple Meads has historically been served by both SWR» and Great Western Railway, with SWR running  ve of the average 25 daily services in the May 2019 timetable.
Following a separate review with the Department for Transport, SWR will withdraw its current three daily services from December 2021 as duplicating services between the two operators does not provide good value for the taxpayer.
Great Western Railway will continue to meet demand on the line and services will connect into London bound trains at Salisbury, Bath and Westbury."

 
Some thoughts from me:

1. The HISTORIC bases for this service - originating from South Wales and Manchester via the Borders line to Waterloo, for connection to Eurostar, and transformed into a service which allowed competitive train service provision under the commercial, privatised franchises, are both gone.  BUT

2. These services have carved out a niche for themselves over, above and a long way beyond competing dupicates. Their loss would be sorely and significantly felt.

3. The process under which the removal of these services has / is being carried out appears to lack transparency and consultation, and to my knowldege no data behind the decision has been published.  The wording of the announcement does not give confidence that there has been a full, measured and considered analysis.

4. We should look forward for a service appropriate for the future and whilst the customer base built up should be catered for, there might be other solutions that are even better than maintaining historic services.

5. Service changes - if brought in - should not leave a gap; it should be at a timetable change, rather than over a longer period (multiple timetable changes)

---

2a) These services provide the ONLY daytime direct trains from stations such as Bradford-on-Avon and the county town of Trowbridge to London, and the only direct services back. Rail Industry stats suggest that over 40% of passengers are lost if they have to make connections along the way

2b) These services provide direct services from Bath, Bristol and other stations to London (Waterloo) - a significantly different part of London to Paddington, and an important business and leisure area in London

2c) Connections off these trains in the London area give access to wide areas of Kent, Surrey and Sussex from WECA and West Wiltshire, and direct trains to Andover, Basignstoke, Woking and Farnborough

2d) These trains are well loaded and provide necessary capacity all along. I have seen no evidence that this will not be the case in the future - quite the reverse in changing patterns of use indicators

2e) It is possible to make the same journey with a change in the middle of the journey at Salisbury, but connections there are somewhere between poor and awful. However, it does mean that passengers have a flexibility of a fallback to other trains should their travel plans change

2f) Fares on these trains via Salisbury are encouraging to leisure traffic which would simply not use rail if they were not available.

2g) Certain local journeys even bewteen Bristol and Westbury fill significant timetable gaps in GWR's provision

There is some activity from the likes of the West Wilts Rail User Group in putting the case for the retention (or at least proper consultation with a view to any changes at December 2022) on these services together, via their MP - Andrew Murrison.   Other MPs involved should be Michelle Donelan (Bradford-on-Avon and Avoncliff), Wera Hobhouse (Bath Spa and Oldfield Park) and Jacob Rees Mogg (Keynsham and, I suspect, Freshford). Bristol MPs may also be concerned.

4a) There would be some sense in extending Bristol Metro all-stations Westbury terminators all stations to Salisbury from where they become the all stations trains to Basingstoke and then onwards to London Waterloo, just as the SWR trains from Bristol go onwards from Salisbury

4b) Talk of the difficulty and expense of keeping SWR driver route knowledge from Westbury to Bristol up to date could be overcome by GWR train crews taking over the trains at Westbury - a major crew change point already; class 158 and 159 trains are almost identical to drive and this should not be an issue.  This might involve a small number of staff transfers as part of a review of staffing levels which have been cause for concern at GWR

 
The national rail contract that FirstGroup and DfT signed off on in May - is the document available to the public, anyone?

The railway press in particular has interpreted these contracts as a short term continuation until 'Great British Railways' is in place - but with changes like this emerging, has the railway press perhaps missed the fine print?

 
As I understand them, they don't give the TOC any leeway in the number of services to be supplied & have to ask permission to add or remove any service not specified. So your gripe is clearly with the DfT, and most likely best handled through your MP / MPs on line of route.

I suspect the DfT will require proof of unmet demand once the change in Dec21 is made. Changing trains will not concern them - waiting an hour for a connection will. Your other points are really not relevant - the idea is to cut the cost of running the railway. One operator per route is a way to reduce costs. As Graham notes, this may include staff transfers between operators.

I feel your chances are pretty slim - it might help to actually state why you think these services need to be retained as opposed to GWR picking up calls necessary to continue a service.

 
The passenger counts for trains on the Bristol - London Waterloo services: are these publically available, anyone?

 
Won’t be of much help - DFT will state that GWR will be asked to make sure they can offer a service to get people where they want to be, with connecyions if necessary. The operator won’t concern them

 
A taste of things to come.................

My disabled daughter is traveling to WMN tomorrow from Kent. Her usual through train (1220) WAT - WMN is not running, she is told to change at SAL. Her train arrives there at 1343 - the next WMN train is 59 minutes later !!!!!!!!!!!  There is only an hourly service from WAT to SAL now so she can't even leave home 30 mins later to reduce the wait at SAL.
When she last came down she had to go via PAD ............and then having to paying for a taxi from STP to PAD. At least she still got the SWR fare then - I can't see that happening when GWR have the SAL - BRI route all to themselves.

.................and they claim to offer a train "service" !

 
Closing that 59min gap would be something to campaign on! Would mean arriving SAL just a few minutes earlier....

 
The Wiltshire Times website has a substantial reminder of the previous attempt to ditch the service - at a change of franchise. The MP for West Wiltshire was committed to this - and is still the MP.

https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/961688.waterloo-train-service-saved/

If you use these trains and are a constituent of Dr Andrew Murrison, please drop him a line about the proposed cessation of the service, which currently provides Bradford on Avon and also Trowbridge's only through trains to and from London.

Dr Murrison's contact details:

https://members.parliament.uk/member/1466/contact

 

Wouldn't that be running up the white flag even before the battle has begun ?? 

 

That's a hugely difficult call.

The through service is immensely valuable and treasured - if you look at all the county towns within about 150 miles of London, Trowbridge already sticks out like a sore thumb in having so few through trains to and from London ... and so to follow the governments "levelling up" agenda there should be more trains rather than less direct to London.   If you go down the route of "please level us up - provide a proper number of services" or even "please don't contradict your levelling up policy - keep them services", you have the very great danger of ending up with nothing if they don't agree.

But if you go down the route of saying "at least have the darned things connect", are you admitting defeat 'before you even start'?

Should you put out BOTH messages?  i.e. Retain, but if not, connect - or does that dilute both messages to the extent that they are both ineffective?

And ... with this seemingly being announced as a decision rather than a consultation, do we even ask what the chances are of any input changing minds which look like they're already made up and contracted?

 
The contract between the DfT from May 2021 - is it an extension of the franchise that has terminated or does it replace a franchise that would otherwise have run on - and until what date, please?

 
The '2022 service consultation that isn't a consultation with the public' aside, has the DfT decision to cease the Bristol - Waterloo services in December '21 had any public announcement anywhere, anyone, please?

 

I smiled at the observation about duplicating services. I recall that in the early days of privatisation a Conservative MP hailed as an achievement the provision of services from London to Gatwick by two rival companies because one was charging 10p less than the other, thus competition was working.

 

From https://www.firstgroupplc.com/news-and-media/latest-news/2021/05-20-21.aspx


Continuing article says more.

 
And further, the DfT have just today issued a PIN (Prior Information Notice) for a direct award of Great Western National Rail Contract (NRC). New national rail contracts are part of the transition towards a new commercial model for passenger services outlined in the Great British Railways: Williams-Shapps plan for rail. Contract start date 26 June 2022, for 72 months.

Wasn't GWRs ERMA extended to that date?

The ERAs & then ERMAs were issued during the pandemic which terminated the franchise agreements. TOCs are now contracted simply to run the services specified by the DfT & have no control over anything, with permission specifically required from the DfT to perform any service not specified by the DfT.

Which sort of limits any action against the TOC, with everything needing aiming at the DfT via your politicians.

 

I have seen not see public consultation, nor public announcement, nor any other reasoning than it's "duplicating a service".  But such things can be easy to miss on busy news days, so I'm not able to be absolutely sure they haven't happened.

 
Thanks for this Grahame - so the franchise was running from 20th August 2017 until 'At least August 2024' - the direct trains between Bristol and Waterloo being very much part of the franchise. Then Covid came along and kicked the legs out from under the franchise system, hence the national rail contracts set up to run from May '21 for two years (taking them to May '23) with a possible two year extension after that.

Following this, while the railway press (and the national press) have reported on the national rail contracts, there's been an asssumption that those are 'Continuity contracts', albeit with a slew of reductions in service levels - but the press has (understandably) missed the (unannounced) impending cessation of an entire service - and if they are aware, there has been little public reaction from groups representing passenger interests.

As an aside, visit the web site for 'Transport focus', and the masthead text is 'Transport Focus' followed by 'Working in partnership with London Travelwatch' and I wonder if the site owners know how that plays out in, say, Rhyl, Bolton, Dingwall, Bristol, Tavistock. They might want to change that.

https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/

 

I think you have to do that - but not together. If you put out your lesser bid with your first, higher one.......you are sunk. (I watch Bargain Hunt you know!)

I moved back to Warminster in 2007. Since then GWR (under various pseudonyms) have have tinkered and fiddled with the train service through here and achieved absolutely nothing of benefit to the traveling public. Their last promise of "more seats" turned out to be disingenuous to say the very least - clapped out 5 abreast commuter trains !! 5 cars ?? They seems to have vanished too !

SWR have (had) increased the number of through services since then. Their trains are spotless, the air con works, the seats are more comfortable and the Advance fares are fantastic. Prior to Covid I used that service to Waterloo very regularly, either for day events in London or to connect with the "cheap" afternoon trains out of EUS/KGX to go further afield.

If DfT is wanting to get rid of "duplication" -  get rid of GWR and give the whole route to SWR. I know who the paying public would rather see running the trains through here !

 

The way the railways work has changed. There aren't going to be 'consultations' any more with 'the public' - but with stakeholders (CRPs, Councils Transport Depts., etc.) - if you still want to have your say, then you need to open dialogue with them. I doubt the CRPs have the manpower to hold public consultations of their own, nor Councils.

It'll be a whole new way of trying to influence these decisions. And during the handover to GB Railways, probably non-existent. The DfT will pay for what they want; Influenced by the Treasury saying how much they can spend. WE may find more in the Comprehensive Spending Review which is due this autumn I believe.

Maybe open dialog with Transport Focus on this whole loss of consultee status - they're supposed to have the passenger interests at heart. We aren't the only forum/organisation waking up to the realisation that the public are going to lose the ability to be consulted.

London TravelWatch is now part of Transport Focus - when did that happen? (this year sometime)

 
Chris B wrote: Which sort of limits any action against the TOC, with everything needing aiming at the DfT via your politicians.

Thanks for this, Chris B, and agreed.

Having logged a case with Transport Focus stating that this will be a matter for the DfT, they've initially referred it to the TOC as that's their practice - matters to be resolved by the TOC in the first instance. So, before it can go back to Transport Focus, I'm now awaiting a response from South Western Railways about a matter which is outside their jurisdiction.

I've raised the issue with my mp and they've taken it up the same morning.

This decision will be reversed once it becomes a topic of conversation in workplaces, coffee shops, bookshops, hairdressers etc - and it may have every chance of becoming just that.

Thanks for your suggestion to list the benefits of the service. The ordinary benefits of a through service are in relatively plain sight, but there are others that apply at the current time and I'll have a think about those. It would be interesting to know if there's figures for what percentage of travellers abandon rail as a travel mode when through services are no longer provided. (I've heard 30 to 40%)

If I was the DfT I'd be tempted to sidestep the political pain and put this unconsidered decision on hold at least for a year and possibly two.

 
Clan Line wrote: SWR» have (had) increased the number of through services since then. Their trains are spotless, the air con works, the seats are more comfortable and the Advance fares are fantastic.

Thanks for this perspective from Warminster. Thinking of tribulations suffered by the Bristol - Waterloo services from March 2020 to the present day, here's three.

* Covid: so, during lockdowns, essential journeys / keyworkers only = minimal passengers.

* Covid-related temporary suspension of the morning service to Waterloo (not yet reinstated).

* Friday 7th August to 3rd September 2022 - service truncate at Bath Spa owing to the engineering works at Bristol Temple Meads. Note that this for some reason breaks the evening service from London Waterloo, as it imposes an hour's delay at Salisbury before the train proceeds to Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bath Spa and then a bus to Bristol arriving at 22.30 - a journey time of 4 hours 10 minutes, so we'll say that that service is suspended, yes? Consequence: a damper on the trend seen elsewhere passenger numbers starting to recover.

 

Sabotage ??

 
I mentioned earlier my daughter's 59 minute wait at Salisbury today. Just been watching Traksy. Her SWR train arrived at Salisbury tunnel 5 minutes ahead of the GWR train.The SWR train was held to let the GWR train through first.

I think my comment in the last post applies again !!

EDIT: She has just said that the GWR train was pulling away from P4 as they arrived at P3.

 

The hourly London to Exeter train (at least the example I looked at) has a 2.5 minutes "pathing allowance" after leaving Andover - in other words, it needs to hold back a bit so it doesn't need the line into Salisbury at the same time as the Portsmouth to Cardiff train.  So it's to be expected it will wait.   The arrival at Salisbury from London (next one) is working timetable 14:42.5, and departure of the Cardiff Train is 14:42 - I've certainly made those changes and seen that happen in the way you describe - it's by design.   But the design is to make a good interchange from Portsmouth and Southampton to Yeovil and Exeter ...

 

No chance! The Treasury's hands are all over this change in direction. The railways are costing £2billion to support currently & obviously that can't continue. So until the commute - the fares that actually make a profit for the railway (where off-peak just ticks the railway over), the Treasury will win.

Asking people to change from minor (as opposed to major) stations isn't too much of an ask.

I'm not sure suggesting keeping services to 'encourage' more use through direct services at additional cost will garner much within the Treasury. Our debt pile is almost 100% of GDP at the moment.

 

Ah - I see. That would explain what made the next WMN train late as well, so she had to wait the full "designed" 59 minutes !   

 
This weekend: quote from their web site below. It's not just the weather that's a washout, the Waterloo to... currently Bath Spa trains: cancelled.


Late amendments to train services Saturday 21 and Sunday 22 August

Due to the volume of train crew required to self-isolate, please find below a list of service alterations for this weekend on top of the planned engineering work.

 

Saturday

    Services between London Waterloo and Salisbury will start from Basingstoke.
    Services between Salisbury and Bath Spa will not run.
    Services between Brockenhurst and Lymington Pier will not run. A replacement bus service will operate.

Sunday

    Services between London Waterloo and Exeter St Davids will start from Basingstoke.
    A reduced service will run between Basingstoke and Reading.

 
From The Week In East Bristol and North East Somerset (Page 2, left hand column)

 
Good to read David’s on the case.

 
Have just seen this thread. The point about connections is:

a) They depend on services running to schedule.
b) Passengers having confidence in the services running to schedule.

On this particular line (Cardiff to Portsmouth to connect at Salisbury) neither of those factors currently exist, and I cannot see any likelihood of improvement.

 
 

 
Not when the train before it is running after the train you hope to catch, as happened to me this week.

 


Also doesn't work when the following train after the missed one is cancelled. 

 
OK, to their credit, South Western Railways responded quickly to my request for information and this can now feed a request for a response or preferably action from Passenger Focus.

SWR have in the main echoed the paragraph from the 2022 document though - citing 'Any changes are based on the fact that the route between Salisbury and Bristol Temple Meads has historically been served by both South Western and Great Western Railways... duplicating services between the two operators doesn’t provide good value for the taxpayer.'

It's difficult not to think of the SWR services Yeovil - Castle Cary - Westbury - Salisbury - London Waterloo as they share a few qualities with the Bristol to Waterloo through trains - including the suddenly reviled 'One route, two TOCs'. Whenever I've caught one of those (anecdote not data) they doesn't seem to attract nearly as many passengers as did the Bristol to Waterloo trains. Perhaps there are planned changes for these too. Not that the travelling public is in a position to know. At the moment, we're 15 weeks out from an entire rail service being axed and there's essentially been no information provided to the people who use them. I suggested to SWR that they put out a press release...

 

My (previously mentioned) daughter caught the 1148 from WMN (ex Pen Mill) to WAT today - wasn't exactly busy, but certainly wasn't empty !

 
The difference being between the two routes is the first you mention is used as a diversion line when engineering work is taking place between Salisbury and Yeovil. To maintain driver route knowledge (hope that’s the right term) of this diversion line, services are being kept between Salisbury and Yeovil via Westbury. Remains to be seen if it’s the same level of service seen at present. I agree, it’s not has heavily used as the SWR route to Bristol.

 
Thanks for that insight.

 
The current SWR Yeovil to Westbury/Salisbury services (and v/v) are surprisingly frequent in the current timetable. No doubt all down to ambition and ORCATS raiding in a previous era. Still very useful for those who live along the route.

We must remember that this service was built on the back of ecs movements due to the congested single line Salisbury to Yeovil Junction. They also served as route-learning opportunities for diversions.

The SWR proposals for December 2022 envisage only an hourly service Salisbury to Exeter, with no extras to Yeovil Junction. Whilst I expect there may be some peak hour extensions to Yeovil, the single line congestion is reduced.

This leads to a likely reduction in the requirement for Yeovil to Westbury routings and hence a reduction on the current frequency. No doubt some services will be retained and the through journeys to/from Waterloo are probably commercially attractive for SWR

 

 

Not a consideration these days as SWR will not benefit from any extraction as all fares now go to the DfT

 
For good measure, the remaining SWR trains to Bristol, already bustituted between Bath and Bristol 'cos no track at the moment, haven't run since before last weekend, and are announced as not running over the bank holiday weekend either.

 
"Full and standing"

Remember the promises ?     "5 cars, more seats".    What are they doing now ? removing trains from the timetable. At least everyone seems to believe the latest utterings !!

 
Presumably their stock is spread thin, covering for the ongoing shortfall in supply of IEPs, and will be for some time. Making this especially not the time to pull the SWT Waterloo to Bristol trains.

Off topic: at Swindon and walking past the Saturday c. 1.30pm departure from Swindon to Cheltenham, it was two carriages sitting noisily on one of the through lines for 40 minutes, but from a couple of connecting services was then fed with about 5 carriages worth of passengers, more than the average amount travelling with luggage, a few pushchairs and a wheelchair user. No replacement buses in sight outside the station though by the end of the afternoon there were three or four as various trains were still cancelled.

 
I thought the SWT trains weren’t being withdrawn until December? Likely the IEPs will be sorted by then

 

Depends what you mean by "sorted" really. Until they are reassigned to regional routes where they belong, and replaced by proper "express" trains on "express" routes, then they wont be "sorted" in my book.

 

Careful now, or you will be mistaken for me

 

Given that in July this year, a third location prone to issues was discovered, and that a decision on the repair process is not yet settled and is 'Likely to be taken in September', and each repair removes a vehicle from service for a day, it's difficult to see how the issue with cracking will not continue to cause stock shortages well into 2022 and possibly 2023, with a hit to GWR stock availability until it's sorted.

For this reason alone, this is not the time for DfT to decide to remove popular through trains from a usually reliable and accessible secondary route. The current reliability of the IEPs would have been one of a number of issues that would have been raised had anyone bothered to ask the travelling public before deciding to introduce the need to change trains, which is why the DfT along with the industry appears to have managed this decision with the intention of avoiding consultation on this.

Hiding the decision within the announcement of the much more wide-reaching consultation for the 2022 SWR timetable appears to have been very effective, as even the specialised railway press missed this smaller issue - add covid, and, of course, local journalism being not in the position that it was in, say, 2006 - and the result is that an entire train service is considered lost before the decision is made public.

 

Do you REALLY expect that the cracked or otherwise not available IETs will be restored to working order by December this year.
I doubt that full reliability will be achieved by NEXT December.
There are now THREE lots of cracks, so far.

 

My MP's now had a reply about this from the Secretary of State for Transport.

Having sent the TOC's response to them, I'm now waiting for Transport Focus's reply.

 
What did the DfT say to your MP?

 
In answer to my letter to the MP, a response from the Secretary of State for Transport over a page and a half of A4.

Paraphrasing it, SWR having been heavily subsidised since covid + current forecasts not predicting that customers will return to rail for some time, the train operating company has been looking for opportunities to improve efficiency and value for money to the taxpayer, also to improve reliability and performance of the timetable by reducing congestion in key areas of the network.

As a result SWR has looked into areas where train services are duplicated... and identified potential reductions that will deliver improved reliability and will reduce costs.

This has led to the decision to withdraw services to Bristol in December 2021. He mentions that only three stations will lose direct trains to London (I think there are four, if he's overlooked Keynsham but I can't recall if GWR provide a direct service from Keynsham). In this, he's failed to acknowledge that Waterloo and Paddington from the point of view of users of this service are two separate destinations.

He then continues with a consideration of the currently hourly service between Bristol and Salisbury, stating that this is to return to half hourly from December and then states

"All stations will also have services connecting directly into GWR’s services from Bristol and Bath into London Paddington, which run twice per hour throughout the day."

- which perhaps will not be the case on Sundays, a day that's previously seen the Waterloo direct services load particularly healthily.

He concludes with noting that "While SWR regrets that customers from *cites the three stations* will now have to change... "this decision will reduce congestion on the lines, remove duplication of services and improve overall value to the taxpayer".

*   *   *   *   *   

Given that this is the Department for Transport, it's the initial response I expected. I'm concerned for the railways that the Department for Transport can field this response for a rail service of which there's anecdotal evidence that on occasion during June and July has recovered to the extent that its trains been loading the two carriage provision full and standing throughout its route.

An effective way to cut passenger numbers is take a through train and insert the need for passengers to change trains: this *will* hit income as well as remove costs.

Once I've received more from Transport Focus, I'll reply.

 
I think you are over-egging the loss of customers when forced to change to complete a journey. I think it depends vastly on the convenience of the change. A few minutes (barely at all), while 20+ minutes could achieve what you are suggesting.

 
I'm looking for some figures on passenger willingness to use the London Underground at the present time.

Yougov ran a survey from April '21 that found around 50% Londoners had reservations about using the tube.

This has a bearing on the potential that some for the time being may prefer Waterloo as a London terminal especially if their ultimate destination is served by the large slew of surface railways served from Waterloo / Waterloo east / London Victoria and again may imply that through trains from Bristol might be precisely the sort of services that returning travellers will look to the railways to provide - at the moment they are discontinued.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2021/05/13/half-londoners-feel-uncomfortable-travelling-tube-

 

A change at Salisbury will certainly provide somewhat unstable connection times, often in the 45+ minute range - and in the down direction the traveller may find that the train into which they connect is rammed. It's one of the reasons the through trains are valued.

Presumably people who work with timetables have data on connection times vs income and it would be lovely if this data were public.

 

That really is a minor irritation as many arriving at Paddington would feel the same. Thus no difference whether arriving at either station bearing in mind that 90% of passengers want to go further than the local environs of either station.

 

What I meant is that in addition to Waterloo being a strong destination that stands in its own right, in a time of an ongoing pandemic, these services  allow people to avoid using the Underground. In April, 50% of Londoners had reservations about using the Underground: it would be good to know how that figure has changed and also, for people not from London, how prepared they are to take the tube as part of a through trip. I'd suspect the figure would be higher.

 
Here are the almost-clockface trains in each hour - from December 2019 - Waterloo to Salisbury and Salisbury to Cardiff - first column is regional / expresses, second column is the "stopper" service. At present, the Salisbury to Waterloo stopper service terminates at Basingstoke (13:31 in my example) - next fast London train 3 minutes later or nearly 30 minutes for the one that's come from Salibury anyway!

WAT	11:20	(11:50)
SAL a	12:43	(13:20)
SAL d	13:42	-
WMN	14:01	-
WSB	14:10	13:40
TRO	14:17	13:47
BOA	14:23	13:53
BTH	14:35	14:09
BRI a	14:49	14:30
CDF a	15:44	-

CDF d	10:30	-
BRI d	11:22	11:47
BTH	11:36	12:02
BOA	11:47	12:21
TRO	11:54	12:27
WSB	12:02	12:34
WMN	12:11	-
SAL a	12:30	-
SAL d	13:21	(12:47)
WAT	14:49	(14:19)

So Salisbury on current operation is NOT a practical connection - 59 minute wait in one direction and 51 minute wait in the other.  Quite apart from people REALLY not liking to change in the middle of a journey, especially between services which at present have a very high cancellation / short running record.

Other trains run south of Westbury towards Salisbury - some only as far as Warminster. Those that reach Salisbury connect somewhat better towards London (couldn't really be any worse!). These extras a far from clockface - some hours have two services, other hours none - and only a very few run from Bristol - others are from Yeovil, or Swindon, or start at Westbury.  Whilst there are instances where local trains from Bristol connect into these extras, with a change at Westbury too making two changes to get to Waterloo is enough to put anyone (except passengers with dogs who want to take them out of the station at each change for a wee break) off.

If you retime EITHER regular hourly service, you break the excellent Portsmouth to Exeter and Exeter to Portsmouth connections - robbing Peter to pay Paul.   Quite apart from hosts of other things that need changing all along the way!

 
Since when has Bristol to Salisbury been half hourly? I must have missed that.

Looking forward to seeing GWR’s December timetable that shows you can get a train every 30 minutes between Bristol and Salisbury 

 


Err - it never was half hourly.  It could be - Westbury to Salisbury should be half hourly, clockface, second train calling at Dilton Marsh and coming from Bristol or Swindon or alternating, and not a Westbury starter (except at start of service).


Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bradford-on-Avon and Trowbridge I can think of. There may be the occasional GWR service between Keynsham and London Paddington, but timed to provide peak relief into Bristol in the a.m. peak and perhaps (is there one?) in the evening the other way.  Warminster WILL have a much reduced direct London service - the ones that run from Yeovil via Westbury, at staff training times rather than when passengers want to travel.  Opportunities from Dilton Marsh (where SWR SHOULD stop), Freshford and Avoncliff (incidental - not a major business case!) too.


I think I smell blame being passed for an unpopular and unconsulted decision. I suspect SWR was ordered to take this look.

 
Of course it was, the DfT are now in charge & TOCs do as they’re told

 
Travelling from Southampton to Westbury (railhead for Melksham) yesterday, it struck me just what a strong leisure traffic route the lines from Bristol via Salisbury provide - not only for traffic within those limits but across the tentacles too - onward to Southampton and Portmouth, to Cardiff, and to London (Waterloo) too.  Lisa and I were speaking with an older lady on the train yesterday - on her way from Southampton to Cardiff; not too worried about how long it took but supremely thankful it was a through train, and worried at one point when it was suggested there might have to be a set swap along the way.

Through trains from Bristol via Salisbury have been a leisure sucess over the years. The London service was very popular pre-Covid - affordable, comfortable, and making many more direct journeys possible than would be the case without it. Onward connections at Clapham Junction and Waterloo saved many headed for South London, Kent and East Sussex the trauma (it would be for them) of the underground from Paddington.  With Covid lockdowns, the services not running, and the "essential travel only" mantra, use fell - short term - but it now should be coming back and with the success story reborn.  These are the very sorts of service that can and should grow very strongly in the future. 

At the moment, they are a mess - see http://www.passenger.chat/25396 for my experience yesterday, and I'm noting that the SWR service are cut back to Bath - or even to Westbury - during engineering at Bristol. Natural, I suppose, for the powers that be to put them at the bottom of the pile having decided to cease them after December ... but what an unfortunate decision on something which has (or had) a really good prospect in the new world where leisure traffic is so much more important than it was ...

 

They've not run West of Salisbury since (I think) Friday 20th August and will not run until 31st...

 

This is a very significant point and I'm grateful to Grahame for making it. These are the services that could show above-average growth and will do more of the same, it is crass to axe the Bristol to Waterloo service and will not address the balance sheet woes - rather the opposite.

 
There’s no consistency in these decisions across TOCs. If SWR to Bristol 3 times a day is an unnecessary duplication, then by any similar logic so is GWR running to Brighton twice a day.  Yet that latter off-piste adventure is still very clearly shown in the latest GWR service requirement, just published by DfT.

So perhaps those asking the questions should ask why the different treatment - unless of course that would be seen as risking the Brightons…

Paul.

 

As a regular user of this through service to/from Waterloo I totally agree with Grahame's comments above. Not only has the BRI - WAT service been a success but (Pre Covid) the TOC had also introduced additional through services to WAT from Yeovil (Via WSB). This was obviously thought to be a sound commercial decision. "Someone" has now decided otherwise !! Grahame's tale of his trip home from Southampton says far more that I could possibly say about the shabby treatment the line between Cardiff and Portsmouth has received over the past few years from GWR and how this flows down to the "customer".
I read that GWR is going to extend its Cardiff to Taunton services further down to the West. An excellent idea ! Make it an hourly service - then give the Bristol to Portsmouth franchise to SWR in its entirety. I daresay that SWR could then do something about linking up the TransWilts and the Romsey/Salisbury services.

 

Can you post a link to that just published spec please?

I do expect GWR to Brighton to be cut back back to at least SOU at some stage

 
It’s here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-western-2020-rail-franchise-agreement

If you scroll down to updates, it says the train service requirement was added on 26 Aug 21.

 

The final "modified" date of the PDF is 26/8/21, but I don't think it has been revised since it was first agreed with GWR. It has no dates in it, and appears to me to be TSR1, for the 2020 direct award contract. If a new TSR is agreed (as opposed to one modified temporarily for Covid reasons) it will presumably be TSR2, and if it follows the previous pattern will have a start date in it.

 
The ERMA is the latest doc/pdf there, is there a TAR within it? I’m on an iphone & looking through a 92 page pdf aint easy!

 

I've not seen any ERMA published; the EMA is on that page.

 
You are right….theERMA will have some form of TSR, likely to be to continue running the Covid timetable in form at the time it cane into force; with any changes you reconmend to be approved by us (DfT) before implementation

 

I don't think that's the case. A service requirement is part of the contracting process; the TOC signs up to meet the requirement (subject to a load of if and buts). In principle it should be valid for the whole contract duration, though it might have several dated phases. Anything else would imply a negotiated change.

An EMA or ERMA involves DfT deciding the services, and they can change their mind at any time. The contract is not to operate a predefined TSR, but whatever the current TSR happens to be.

In contract terms, the EMA did not replace the 2020 direct award (which was not yet in place, of course!). It is a second contract that amends whatever the "franchise" contract would otherwise be. The way it removed the requirement to operate the TSR is very indirect, and it seems to be this section that does it:

Most of the EMA is concerned with reporting (to DfT) and incentives. Schedule 6 is not the one that had a reference to the TSR in it, that's Schedule 1.1 - an "other obligation ".

 
Quoting from I think Lee from another thread, and putting this here to remind myself and to conjecture as to how this then leads to the short-horizon for the ceasing of the Bristol to Waterloo trains, (an entire service):

"As other members with inside knowledge of the process have said elsewhere, the Treasury/DfT may be the ones asking for the budget cuts, but they have left the method of execution very much down to the rail industry to decide.

And as those of us who have studied Network Rail Business Plans over the years know, that method of execution is very much in line with what they have wanted to do all along."

 
A question for passengers and stakeholders - would you rather decisions on what to cut and where were left to the ‘railway industry’ or to government in the form of the DfT/Treasury?

 

I am not clear that it is that simple.  If the Treasury say they want x% expenditure cuts over a few years there are options that can be considered, if they want them over the next few weeks the options for railway managers become narrower.  I suspect at the moment DfT will have their finger in the pie somewhere to narrow the options further perhaps by say what cannot be cut!

 

You are entitled to your opinion. All I will say is that I have very credible information and reasons for describing the situation in the way that I have.

 

Neither - I prefer the way we do things over here in Brittany - A very similar way, in fact, to that which grahame and I suggested back in 2016 with our Option 24/7 proposals:


By contrast, both the UK rail industry and the Treasury/DfT are united in wanting to cut the passenger, or customer if you prefer, out of the rail consultation decision-influencing equation completely.

All I will say is this - We have faced a similar Covid situation to the UK over here in France, and while this will undoubtedly involve changes to TGV services where travel patterns have been impacted the most, at our local/regional level in Brittany we are not looking at service cuts or withdrawals - Far from it, our rolling programme has reopenings - a process that has begun on the Pontivy route - and service expansion as key themes.

In Wiltshire now in 2021, we are seeing as part of the DfT Bus Back Better strategy the embryonic beginnings of a Comités De Lignes approach that will see Option 24/7 as a bridge between Local Transport Authorities,  Bus Operators, and the local community and its bus users, along with a growing view that, while it is unlikely that everyone will get everything they want, there will be a better bus network as a result going forward.

I really think it is time that serious questions were asked as to why rail passengers/customers are not to be entitled to the same treatment.

 
What is the situation at a local/regional level in other parts of France?

I recall serious cutbacks being proposed only a couple of years ago.  Are any lines, services, stations still under threat?

 

The Spinetta report to which you refer had the Beeching-esque section put on ice after a huge public backlash. However, it is true to say that ever-present danger remains of "Temporary Suspensions" due to ongoing lack of maintenance that turn out to be permanent in many cases. We try and forestall that by ensuring that budgets are properly structured to ensure that backlogs dont occur - Our branch lines will normally have an engineering shutdown for a couple of weeks each year as well so bigger jobs are not neglected. We also have a rolling full line renovation programme, the latest to emerge from which was the Dol-Dinan line.

We do have one "Temporary Suspension" on our network, that of Morlaix-Roscoff. Unfortunately, legacy neglect of maintenance had already seen a hefty funding estimate for a full line renovation before storms/floods washed away part of the line, leading to the current situation. However, it is still shown on our rail publicity maps as part of the rail network, and every funding opportunity is sought and assessed with a view to bringing the line back into service as soon as is practical, this time with a more appropriate Comités De Lignes-designed timetable.

 
Let’s hope for a similar public backlash should the axe loom too large over here then.

 
SWR train services from December are now in the system and can be seen on RTT.

I have selected SWR trains passing through Westbury on Monday December 13th which shows services only running Salisbury to Yeovil via Westbury services, none to Bristol:
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WSB/2021-12-13/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=SW

 

Bizarre !  That's not a train service................looks more like ECS movements picking up a few people en route. Makes Yeovil look a bit like Kabul - lots leaving but not much coming in.

 
RTT won’t necessarily paint an accurate picture this far in advance.

 
Normally I would agree with you, but with SWR not making major changes to their timetable until December 2022 I don’t expect what is on RTT, in the case of SWR services, it will change much between now and December.

 

See title of thread. :-)

 
Well yes Mark, Bristol to Waterloo services excepted 

 
If it's really the case that the DfT required both SWR and GWR to cut services and for the Bristol to Salisbury line and they initially did just that but *without reference to each other's actions* then it's

a) embarrassing

b) going to be a bit of a rough year for people travelling by rail, not least if they're expecting a connection at Salisbury.

There might not be time to sort this before the larger timetable change in 2022 - which always offered an appropriate timescale in which to reorganise the through Waterloo-Bristol trains rather than a bit of short-term slash and burn in the rail equivalent of the bird nesting season*.

Mark

* Given the looked for recovery of leisure travel.

 

Don't think it's *quite* as simple as that ... from what I'm gathering, independent initially but then co-ordinated is my best guess.   With GWR running the extra in the evening as far as Westbury, and also (in another case of TOC cutting back) taking over the Cross Country Cardiff to Bristol service in the morning peak.

Will write more on SAL->WSB this evening - out of the house in 10 minutes

 

Few minutes now ...

Taking (initially) northbound departures from Warminster, the Decemeber 2019 (i.e. precovid) timetable, here are the passenger train calls. "X" are the SWR Bristol services marked for the chop in December, and "Y" are the GWR services that we are told won't run south of Warminster from December.  There has to be more to that latter than simply terminating at Warminster, as there's no siding to store the train in until it comes back about 2 hours later.

06:29   SAL   GLC
X 07:02   SAL   BRI
07:28   WMN   GMV
07:38   PMH   CDF
09:00   PMH   CDF
09:22   SOU   GMV
09:44   WAT   YVP
10:01   PMH   CDF
10:12   WMN   WSB
11:01   PMH   CDF
X 11:12   WAT   BRI
11:32   BTN   GMV
12:01   PMH   CDF
13:01   PMH   CDF
Y 13:26   SOU   GMV
14:01   PMH   CDF
X 14:12   WAT   BRI
14:44   WAT   YVP
15:01   PMH   CDF
15:30   WMN   WOF
16:01   PMH   CDF
17:01   PMH   CDF
17:30   WMN   GMV
18:01   PMH   CDF
18:15   WMN   BPW
X 18:21   WAT   BRI
19:01   PMH   CDF
19:31   BTN   BPW
20:01   PMH   CDF
20:18   WAT   CLC
21:01   PMH   CDF
X 21:17   WAT   BRI
22:01   PHM   CDF
Y 22:13   SOU   WSB
23:19   PMH   BRI

You'll note a very patchy service at present - 3 trains within 31 minutes in some hours, but then gaps of an hour or more at other times. The whole thing COULD provide a service about every 30 minutes, and save 3 trips per day, changed as follows:

0 Move 07:38 to 08:00
+1 Add 08:30
-1 Remove either 09:22 or 09:44
0 Move 10:12 to 10:30
-1 Remove 11:12
+1 Add 12:32
-1 Remove either 14:12 or 14:44
+1 Add 16:30
-1 Remove 18:15
0 Move 20:18 to 20:30
-1 Remove 21:17
-1 Remove 22:13

BUT ... where do they come from / go to? 07:32 and every 2 hours from Waterloo and feed into becoming the stopper to Bristol from Warminster, except the 11:32 and 19:32 which start from Brighton.  Alternate hours are Romsey "6" trains which are alternately extended to Swindon. All these :32 trains to call at Dilton Marsh.

If there isn't time to set this up for December 2021 (and there IS more timetabling work to be done), please leave the service alone this Christmas and do it December 2022.

Note that this also reduces the service a little north of Westbury by sharing the local train with the :32 off Warminster ... slows down the London to Bristol slightly by adding extra station calls.

 
Given that we're now at the end date for the Bristol Temple Meads engineering works: tomorrow, SWR intended to resume the remaining through services from Waterloo - but they've just announced that they're cancelled - along with a raft of impactful changes on the line to Exeter.

Especially as I have travel booked for both routes next week, I'm wondering how the staff shortages will manifest themselves from Monday through to Friday, especially as... GWR are ramping up the number of  trains that they're running between the likes of Bristol and London, yes?

 

Services which will no longer run in a forthcoming timetable are likely be the first to be cut at times of staff shortage, and indeed staff numbers aren't going to be built up just to be cut down again. Look at GWR's 17:50 Gloucester to Southampton via Melksham ... 19:37 from Westbury, over the past 4 weeks, planned to "terminate at Warminster" from December:

 
... which is unprofessional. Transport operators of all flavours should deploy a timetable that matches their staff provision. It does no-one any favours to deem certain services secondary to others and to be constantly cancelling them.

 
Been saying that for years. I’d also say the same when it comes to having enough rolling stock to provide a service as well.

When I see all this talk about restoring hourly London-Cheltenham, Cardiff and London to Bristol express services, I think how can you when you can’t even provide proper length IC services with the current timetable

 
From a very well informed, usually with a seed of truth, but rarely grammatically correct:


With two all-stations trains an hour from Bristol Temple Meads to Westbury, it would make sense to extend one of them to Salisbury and give the 30 minute service Chris Heaton-Harris described (erroneously suggesting it's running already)  in .. oops .. letter to a constituent of one of our local MPs that's not in the public domain, and for that to carry on from there as the 2nd train in the hour off Salisbury to London Waterloo (so that's all stations from Temple Meads to Basingstoke).   Class 158 or 159.  Alternative extension from Salisbury could be the "Romsey Six" rather than every hour to London, and that would be an efficiently improvement, making better use of the 158 that sits in Platform Six at Salisbury for 45 minutes in the hour. Two of the extensions per day onward to Brighton, which not only provide another loved and buildable service, but also provide rush hour capacity into Brighton from the coastway in the morning and back out in the evening.

Frome / Yeovil / Weymouth services to be via extension of the other all-stations train from Bristol Temple Meads
 

 
{Jaw drops emoji}

Drat, I've just missed being able to include that in my submission to Transport Focus. Metro West really shouldn't involve the cessation of popular through services to clear paths for it.

 

I have enquires in - réponses promised within 20 working days - to learn a but more about how the decision came about. These things are often akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, but we can still take steps to see if we can catch the horse.

 

I've slightly lost track of this metaphor. What are you going to say to the horse if you catch it? "Why the long face?"

 

I'm suggesting it should be put back in the stable so that we can check it can be let back out if that's found to be appropriate in December 2022, and with something else in the stable to give rides.

 
Sooo... Using the SWR app, an attempt to buy a ticket routed via Salisbury produces an error message and the advice to 'Try again later'. I'll log a bug.

 

Oh - that won't help their ticket sales (overall, or in terms of what SWR can report), will it? Or will it help them report in the direction that [insert driver of service loss] wants them to go - "look - it was already not doing well".