| Archived Save the Train forum articles - 2005 to 2010. See below
Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2167 Written by Lee on Monday, 4th December 2006 Taunton / Weston - super - Mare - Gloucester & Avonmouth Circular Services - 8 x Class 143 units & 4 two - coach trains made up of 8 x Class 153 units. Portishead / Bristol - Great Malvern - 5 x Class 158 units. Welsh Assembly Funded Bristol - Cardiff Airport - 3 x Class 158 units (sourced from the rolling stock due to be released by First Great Western.) http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Draft%20Greater%20Bristol%20Metro%20Proposals.pdf London Paddington - Bristol / Cheltenham Spa / Wales - 24 "Inter - City" units. Oxford and Bicester from Westbury / Salisbury / Southampton / Bristol - 4 x Class 158 units (2 of which we have swapped with 2 x Class 166 units that are due to go into storage.) http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/melksham%20new%202007%20timetable%20proposals.pdf Portsmouth - Cardiff Airport - 8 x Class 158 units. http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested%20Portsmouth%20-%20Rhoose%20timetable.pdf Weymouth - Severn Beach - 6 x Class 158 units. http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested%20Weymouth%20-%20Severn%20Beach%20timetable.pdf (Message will modified from time to time in order to include extra links & rolling stock changes.) Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2169 Written by Graz on Monday, 4th December 2006 Interesting, Lee, your proposals required fewer trains than I first thought. But what about the number of Class 150 units FGW currently own? Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2170 Written by Sion Bretton on Monday, 4th December 2006 Yes very intersting but Lee could the 1 minute turn around at Didcot be long enough to drive to move from one end of train to the other. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2174 Written by streety7 on Monday, 4th December 2006 [quote author=Sion Bretton link=topic=741.msg2170#msg2170 date=1165266103] Yes very intersting but Lee could the 1 minute turn around at Didcot be long enough to drive to move from one end of train to the other. [/quote] Sian I have addressed your concern (I saw this as well once you pointed it out) and have rectified this on the PDF file (link above). On the southbound journeys I have shortened the wait at Oxford to one minute, and added a minute to each calling point including and after the Didcot Parkway departure time - giving a reverse time of 3 minutes. On the northbound journeys I have shortened the wait at Swindon to one minute, which gives 2 extra spare minutes which have also given northbound services at Didcot a 3 minute reversal time. If there are any more things that need editing let me know and I'll change them. If no-one has any objections to it I'll also begin typing up the Weymouth - Severn Beach timetable and Cardiff Airport - Portsmouth timetable aswell. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2179 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Tuesday, 5th December 2006 These are great timetables and presentations, Lee, Chris; I'm currently looking into exact dates / formats for inputs for the December 2007 proposals / timetable changes. I rather suspect the changes are radical enough that they should be persued with both DfT and First, and not simply with First in isolation through their consultation process which (last time around) brought only partial improvement - and in the case of the TransWilts a further backward step - on the original dreadful draft. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2181 Written by Lee on Tuesday, 5th December 2006 [quote author=Chris Street link=topic=741.msg2174#msg2174 date=1165269241] [quote author=Sion Bretton link=topic=741.msg2170#msg2170 date=1165266103] Yes very intersting but Lee could the 1 minute turn around at Didcot be long enough to drive to move from one end of train to the other. [/quote] Sian I have addressed your concern (I saw this as well once you pointed it out) and have rectified this on the PDF file (link above). On the southbound journeys I have shortened the wait at Oxford to one minute, and added a minute to each calling point including and after the Didcot Parkway departure time - giving a reverse time of 3 minutes. On the northbound journeys I have shortened the wait at Swindon to one minute, which gives 2 extra spare minutes which have also given northbound services at Didcot a 3 minute reversal time. If there are any more things that need editing let me know and I'll change them. If no-one has any objections to it I'll also begin typing up the Weymouth - Severn Beach timetable and Cardiff Airport - Portsmouth timetable aswell.[/quote] Many thanks guys , I guess thats what you call teamwork :) [quote author=Graz link=topic=741.msg2169#msg2169 date=1165262264] Interesting, Lee, your proposals required fewer trains than I first thought. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2193 Written by streety7 on Tuesday, 5th December 2006 Weymouth - Severn Beach weekday timetable now typed. In process of typing Rhoose - Portsmouth timetable. Any errors in the Weymouth - Severn Beach post it and I'll change it. Link here --> [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested Weymouth - Severn Beach timetable.pdf[/url] Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2196 Written by Graz on Tuesday, 5th December 2006 Again, fantastic work, Chris :D Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2201 Written by Lee on Wednesday, 6th December 2006 Chris , Having taken advice , I would like to make the following alterations , if I may. London Paddington - Bristol / Cheltenham Spa / Wales - 24 rather than 23 "Inter - City" units. This is to take into account the slightly longer Paddington turnaround time of the London - Cheltenham Spa service (or , as Network Rail would put it , to ensure that our timetable is "robust".) We still save 2 "non Inter - City" units by doing this. Weymouth - Severn Beach weekday timetable - I would like to make the following alterations to the 0621 - 1821 Severn Beach departures inclusive : Severn Beach xx15 - St Andrews Road xx21 - Avonmouth arrive xx24 depart xx30. This is to allow the Weymouth - Severn Beach service to pass the Avonmouth Circular service at Avonmouth , rather than on the lines around St Andrews Road. Also , could you possibly add the following note to the Rhoose - Portsmouth & Oxford and Bicester from Westbury / Salisbury / Southampton / Bristol timetables : "Dean & Dunbridge would also be served by SWT services during the off - peak." Sorry for not getting this into you earlier , and many thanks for all your efforts , which again look superb. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2211 Written by streety7 on Wednesday, 6th December 2006 Lee, Thanks for pointing out those changes - no problem, and has been done. I have uploaded updated versions of the files and have put the note on the Portsmouth - Rhoose timetable which I am typing up at the moment. Links for updated files: Bicester - Oxford - Didcot - Swindon to Melksham - Westbury - Salisbury - Southampton or Cheltenham via Stroud Valley Line or Bristol via Bath [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/melksham new 2007 timetable proposals.pdf[/url] Severn Beach - Bristol - Bath - Westbury to Salisbury or Frome - Weymouth [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested Weymouth - Severn Beach timetable.pdf[/url] Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2214 Written by Lee on Wednesday, 6th December 2006 Many thanks Chris. [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2181#msg2181 date=1165327755]It also looks like improvements can be made to the Thames Valley Services for the same number of units plus a reduction in train mileage , due to our proposals for extra services to Bicester. Watch this space.....[/quote] The Bicester Town line is single - track , which means that , in order to implement our Oxford and Bicester from Westbury / Salisbury / Southampton / Bristol timetable , The timetable below would have to be altered. http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Documents/Custom/Timetables/December%202006/Book%20C%20REVISED%20(London,%20Oxford,%20Bicester,%20Banbury,%20Worcester,%20Hereford).pdf I would also take the opportunity to address some of its shortcomings. The following timetable changes can be acheived using the same number of units as currently envisaged. ADDITIONAL SERVICES 0713 Oxford - Banbury calling at Tackley 0722 - Heyford 0727 - Kings Sutton 0735 - Banbury 0742 (starts from London Paddington at 0524.) 0800 Banbury - Oxford calling at Kings Sutton 0805 - Heyford 0814 - Tackley 0818 - Oxford 0831. 1802 Oxford - Bicester Town calling at Islip 1815 - Bicester Town 1828. 1826 Banbury - Oxford calling at Kings Sutton 1831 - Heyford 1840 - Tackley 1844 - Oxford 1853 (continues to London Paddington 2030.) 1834 Bicester Town - Oxford calling at Islip 1846 - Oxford 1903 (continues to London Paddington 2008.) WITHDRAWN SERVICES Oxford - Bicester Town - 0604 , 0716 , 0839 , 1326 , 1628 , 1746 , 1910. Bicester Town - Oxford - 0633 , 0757 , 0906 , 1355 , 1656 , 1816 , 1940. 1836 Banbury - Oxford section of Banbury - London Paddington train. SERVICE PATTERN AMENDMENTS Instead of "skip - stop" service pattern between Didcot Parkway - Oxford (i.e "slow" trains that miss out either Appleford or Culham) , these services would call at all stations. Worcester / Oxford - London Paddington service pattern altered as follows : Reading xx03 - Slough xx16 - London Paddington xx37. SUMMARY Oxford - Bicester Town - Service increased from 7 trains each way to 15 trains each way. Oxford - Banbury - Extra service each way to address inadequate morning peak timings. Appleford & Culham - Off - peak service increased from 2 - hourly to hourly. [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2181#msg2181 date=1165327755]FGW will have 17 Class 150 units available to them from next week. I have nearly finished my proposals for the Devon & Cornwall area (which include the return of the Class 180 Adelantes plus a business proposal to pay for their re-hire) and it looks like I can use these to improve services there as well.[/quote] Finally , you may have noticed from the timetable above that the Class 180 Adelantes have been scheduled to run London - Oxford / Worcester services from December 2006. However , the lease on these trains with Angel Trains runs out in December 2007. According to the Greater Western Franchise Agreement , the Adelantes will then be displaced by HST's. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2216 Written by streety7 on Wednesday, 6th December 2006 [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2214#msg2214 date=1165429895] ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1802 Oxford - Bicester Town calling at Islip 1815 - Bicester Town 1828. 1834 Bicester Town - Oxford calling at Islip 1846 - Oxford 1903 (continues to London Paddington 2008.)[/quote] Lee - would you like me to put this service into the Bicester - Oxford to the South timetable? Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2220 Written by streety7 on Wednesday, 6th December 2006 Below are the links to the three timetables which I promised to type... Bicester - Oxford - Didcot - Swindon to: Melksham - Westbury - Salisbury - Southampton or Cheltenham via Stroud Valley Line or Bristol via Bath [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/melksham new 2007 timetable proposals.pdf[/url] Severn Beach - Bristol - Bath - Westbury to: Salisbury or Frome - Weymouth [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested Weymouth - Severn Beach timetable.pdf[/url] Rhoose (for Cardiff Airport) - Cardiff - Bristol - Bath - Westbury to: Dilton Marsh - Warminster - Salisbury or Frome or Dean - Dunbridge - Southampton - Portsmouth Harbour [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Suggested Portsmouth - Rhoose timetable.pdf[/url] --ENDS-- Above three files correct at 06/12/2006. If there are any errors, misprints or changes you would like to make to any three timetables please post them and I will edit them ASAP. Also if there are any other timetables you want typing do not hesitate to post about that either as I'm willing to help. ;D Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2225 Written by Lee on Thursday, 7th December 2006 [quote author=Chris Street link=topic=741.msg2216#msg2216 date=1165431051] [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2214#msg2214 date=1165429895]ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1802 Oxford - Bicester Town calling at Islip 1815 - Bicester Town 1828. 1834 Bicester Town - Oxford calling at Islip 1846 - Oxford 1903 (continues to London Paddington 2008.)[/quote] Lee - would you like me to put this service into the Bicester - Oxford to the South timetable?[/quote] Could you possibly add a note along the following lines : "An extra return journey would run from Oxford - Bicester Town (Thames Valley timetable) between 1800 and 1900." Thats as far as I would want to commit before further feedback is received. [quote author=Chris Street link=topic=741.msg2220#msg2220 date=1165448403]Also if there are any other timetables you want typing do not hesitate to post about that either as I'm willing to help. ;D[/quote] After the weekend , I will be working on detailed timings for the main GBM timetable (link below.) http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=673.msg2026#msg2026 This will mainly involve sorting out the train paths for the evening frequency that would operate. Could you possibly type up a draft of what we have so far , so we can see what it looks like? Also , I think that we should develop the incremental alternative put forward by Graham , alongside our own proposals (link below.) http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=766.msg2221#msg2221 On this , I would suggest the following : 1) Keeping our London - Bristol / Cheltenham / Wales "main - line" timings , which I feel could be implemented straight away. This would also free up the unit required for Graham's incremental service. 2) Developing the incremental proposal by ensuring that Graham's timings do not conflict. Thanks again. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2242 Written by streety7 on Thursday, 7th December 2006 [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2214#msg2214 date=1165429895]ADDITIONAL SERVICES 1802 Oxford - Bicester Town calling at Islip 1815 - Bicester Town 1828. 1834 Bicester Town - Oxford calling at Islip 1846 - Oxford 1903 (continues to London Paddington 2008.) Could you possibly add a note along the following lines : "An extra return journey would run from Oxford - Bicester Town (Thames Valley timetable) between 1800 and 1900." Thats as far as I would want to commit before further feedback is received.[/quote] This has been added to the Bicester - Southampton timetable... link at the top of the page [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2225#msg2225 date=1165492860] After the weekend , I will be working on detailed timings for the main GBM timetable (link below.) http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=673.msg2026#msg2026 This will mainly involve sorting out the train paths for the evening frequency that would operate. Could you possibly type up a draft of what we have so far , so we can see what it looks like?[/quote] I have typed this up into a PDF file, and it shows: > Greater Bristol Metro area services > W-s-M - Bristol - Avonmouth - Bristol - W-s-M circular service > New Greater Bristol Metro station frequencies should proposals be carried out > Freight Train Path times Link --> [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/Draft Greater Bristol Metro Proposals.pdf[/url] [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2225#msg2225 date=1165492860] Also , I think that we should develop the incremental alternative put forward by Graham , alongside our own proposals (link below.) http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=766.msg2221#msg2221 On this , I would suggest the following : 1) Keeping our London - Bristol / Cheltenham / Wales "main - line" timings , which I feel could be implemented straight away. This would also free up the unit required for Graham's incremental service. 2) Developing the incremental proposal by ensuring that Graham's timings do not conflict. Thanks again. [/quote] This has also been carried out. Link to PDF --> [url]http://www.shinewithstyle.co.uk/literature/graham's melksham new 2007 timetable proposals.pdf[/url] In this timetable I have considered keeping units 3 & 4 of our Bicester - Southampton timetable (link at top) to run a Bicester - Bristol service, and edited Graham's proposals to fit this - all is explained in the PDF file itself. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2250 Written by Lee on Friday, 8th December 2006 Many thanks Chris. I am very much "on the move" at the moment , but I will have a good look soon. Could you possibly alter all references to Dunbridge station to read "Mottisfont & Dunbridge" ? I was there this morning & the station sign has been changed..... Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2256 Written by streety7 on Friday, 8th December 2006 [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2250#msg2250 date=1165583467] Could you possibly alter all references to Dunbridge station to read "Mottisfont & Dunbridge" ? I was there this morning & the station sign has been changed..... [/quote] This has been done. ;D Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2259 Written by Lee on Friday, 8th December 2006 GBM timetable looking good , Chris :) I shall do some further work on this & get back to you. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2300 Written by James on Sunday, 10th December 2006 Sorry, I have just noticed an error in the Portsmouth - Rhoose TT, the 2345 BRI - SAL would persumabally be worked of a 159, if so then a call at Dilton Marsh could not happen, as certainally as of the 2002 Sectional Appendix, they are not allowed to stop there Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2310 Written by Lee on Monday, 11th December 2006 Well spotted , James. Can you take out that stop please Chris? Chris & James - Can you suggest an alternative late evening Dilton Marsh stop? Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2323 Written by James on Monday, 11th December 2006 Surley 1 extra late night journey, formed of a late arrival at Bristol TM, giving a posiable connection in to the last PAD - BRI? Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2342 Written by streety7 on Monday, 11th December 2006 [quote author=James link=topic=741.msg2300#msg2300 date=1165779381] Sorry, I have just noticed an error in the Portsmouth - Rhoose TT, the 2345 BRI - SAL would persumabally be worked of a 159, if so then a call at Dilton Marsh could not happen, as certainally as of the 2002 Sectional Appendix, they are not allowed to stop there [/quote] This has been done and a note inserted. :) Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2350 Written by Lee on Tuesday, 12th December 2006 [quote author=James link=topic=741.msg2323#msg2323 date=1165855103]Surley 1 extra late night journey, formed of a late arrival at Bristol TM, giving a posiable connection in to the last PAD - BRI?[/quote] James , could you possibly post timings for this? Make sure that there are no pathing conflicts , and that we do not use an extra unit. Also , do we have to get rid of the 0710 Dilton Marsh stop as well? Many thanks. Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2369 Written by James on Tuesday, 12th December 2006 [quote author=Lee link=topic=741.msg2350#msg2350 date=1165920964] [quote author=James link=topic=741.msg2323#msg2323 date=1165855103]Surley 1 extra late night journey, formed of a late arrival at Bristol TM, giving a posiable connection in to the last PAD - BRI?[/quote] James , could you possibly post timings for this? Make sure that there are no pathing conflicts , and that we do not use an extra unit. Also , do we have to get rid of the 0710 Dilton Marsh stop as well? Many thanks. [/quote] Sorry for any confusion, I have just been told, that in the 2004 Appendix, they are cleared along with 170's, sorry about that :P Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2380 Written by Lee on Wednesday, 13th December 2006 Dilton Marsh stop now re-instated , thanks Chris Re: Rolling Stock Requirements For Timetable Proposals - 741/2382 Written by admin (Graham Ellis) on Wednesday, 13th December 2006 Lee, I've moved the topic for you to "Greater Western" to keep it in the same area. Pleas let me know if you would like me to lock one of the threads to bring them together! link to index of articles |
|||
Save the Train was the campaign to bring an approriate train service back to and through Melksham. Most big contributors are still around writing at the Coffee shop forum where new members are very welcome. The train has been saved - sort of - we have stepped back up from an unusable service to a poorish one but it's doing very well. We did that through setting up the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership. That fulfilled its early objectives; it has been taken over by local and regional government types who are now doing medium and long term work. The team from this forun can also be found at the Melksham Rail User Group (which was the Melksham Rail Development Group at the time these articles were written and we had no users. We mustn't loose sight, though, that the train service remains poor and needs our community support in marketing and campaigning to keep it going in a positive direction ... and all the more so when we're expecting to find a different normallity once we get out of the Coronavirus Pandemic and head for zero carbon via the climate crisis. Yes, it's saved ... it's now a key community facility ... the need for enhancement and the strong and near-universal local support remain, and the rail industry and goverment remain slow to move and provide the enhancements even to level us up with other towns. Please support the Melksham Rail User Group - now very much in partnership rather than protest with the rail industry and local government, including GWR, TransWilts and unitary and town councils. And please use the trains and buses, and cycle and walk when you can. -- Graham Ellis, (webmaster), February 2021 | |||
|
|||
Further Information:
Home
Current Summary
Daily update
User forum
Consultation
Service now
Service future
Future Analysis
Recent Statistics
Recent letters
Letter to DfT
Save the train
Presentation
Support us
Other Maps
Station facilities
Station approach
Pictures
Trains diverted
History
About Melksham
Site Map
About this site