Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 tomorrow - RailFuture National, Bristol
25/09/2019 - WWRUG / Transport Focus
03/10/2019 - ACoRP Community Rail Awards
05/10/2019 - WSR shuttle last for 2019
10/10/2019 - IET Signalling Talk - Reading
16/10/2019 - MRUG meeting
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
September 20, 2019, 09:20:37 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[154] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[75] St.Erth Park and Ride
[69] Rail firms should not be paid when trains run late
[66] Templecombe
[56] Summer Uprising Bristol Occupation by XR Southwest
[46] Travelogue observations - 17th September 2019 - switching
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Should Heart Of Wessex Transfer To South Western Franchise?  (Read 2229 times)
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6583

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile WWW
« on: August 29, 2018, 11:00:48 am »


Many thanks for that link, Lee ... a little light reading  Wink ... see you when I surface!

Edit to add - What a long URL - mirror at http://gwr.passenger.chat/gwf_consult_output.pdf

Very interesting quote from the DfT stakeholder briefing document and consultation response:

Quote from: DfT stakeholder briefing document and consultation response
Four Members of Parliament, who responded on behalf of their constituents, expressed the view that the Heart of Wessex route should be transferred to South Western franchise. This view was supported by a councillor and several other consultation respondents.

Whilst there have various proposals put forward over the years in terms of the future of Heart of Wessex, this one does seem to have a semi-official air of co-ordination between elected representatives and the people they serve.

So, should Heart of Wessex transfer to the South Western Franchise? If so, where should any redrawing of boundaries and provision in terms of line, stations and services take place?

Thoughts?
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line

http://twitter.com/research_gwchat
Timmer
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5226


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2018, 11:08:15 am »

I think its a very sensible move to move it to the SW franchise. Boundary would be to restore the service terminating at Bristol as was previous. Joining it to services heading north to Gloucester/Worcester/Malvern has not helped with reliability.
Logged
devonexpress
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2018, 11:57:50 am »

Considering we've just had the GWR franchise consultation report, I think the morons suggesting this should foxtrot oscar!  Don't the DFT have anything better to do then keep going on about splitting up the GWR franchise?
Logged
WelshBluebird
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 148


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2018, 12:20:32 pm »

The biggest issue with this is the splitting of the Bristol - Bath services between two ToC's.
At the moment with them being run by the same ToC, if disruption hits specific services then the other services often pick up the slack (e.g. if the stoppers have issues, the Cardiff - Pompey or sometimes even the high speed services stop off at Keynsham and Oldfield Park). I somehow doubt that would happen as often if it was another ToC!
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26513



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2018, 01:01:10 pm »

Bristol to Bath already has three operators. Services were much more evenly split prior to 2005 than they are at present, and there may have been a time that both Wales and Borders (Waterloo trains from Maesteg / Manchester / Milford Haven) and Wessex operated there.

Should this government bring in "more competition" on the Bristol to Bath run by moving Heart of Wessex services to SWR, it would remove competition between Weymouth and Dorchester, which could be re-introduced by a future government transferring the Heart of Wessex line back ...

There is logical sense in the SWR franchise being all-electric, with their Salisbury depot and services that run from there ... I will go and get my hat!
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
bradshaw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 640



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2018, 02:56:32 pm »

The possible problem with shifting it to the SW Franchise is the logistics of the rolling stock.
In addition the limiting stations of the HoW route. Currently the northern limit is Gt Malvern and Gloucester. Do you envision the service to be limited to Bristol/Weymouth?
The logistics of the rolling stock; would you see Salisbury supplying the units?
To my mind it would be better to have Westbury as a central rolling stock base dealing with services from Swindon/Southampton; Cardiff or Bristol/Portsmouth; Bristol/Weymouth and possibly Reading/Taunton(via B&H). If that is done then SWR or GWR could run it but the latter might be preferred.
That might see the 166/165 fleet centred on Westbury with out and back workings through it. It would make replacing failed units easier, following the practice carried out at Salisbury. A single maintenance depot servicing these routes might improve reliablity.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26513



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2018, 03:29:12 pm »

Considering we've just had the GWR franchise consultation report, I think the morons suggesting this should foxtrot oscar!  Don't the DFT have anything better to do then keep going on about splitting up the GWR franchise?

Over the past few days, I have been seeing footage of the late Senator John McCain on the TV.   At a rally when he was running against Barrack Obama for president, a lady in the audience used a term similar to 'moron' to describe Barrack Obama. And what did John McCain do?   He turned to the lady and said "Mr Obama is an honourable and well reasoned man.  I happen to disagree with many of his conclusions, and that is why I am running against him, but I have a deep respect for him and will not accept his being decribed as you did".

Members on this forum are very welcome to discuss and disagree with others - those here and those who are not here to speak for themselves.  But this is not somewhere to hurl personal insults. Please by the wise man who puts his case and commands respect, and not the person in the audience who by their own words belittles their own view.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
devonexpress
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2018, 07:46:44 pm »

Considering we've just had the GWR franchise consultation report, I think the morons suggesting this should foxtrot oscar!  Don't the DFT have anything better to do then keep going on about splitting up the GWR franchise?

Over the past few days, I have been seeing footage of the late Senator John McCain on the TV.   At a rally when he was running against Barrack Obama for president, a lady in the audience used a term similar to 'moron' to describe Barrack Obama. And what did John McCain do?   He turned to the lady and said "Mr Obama is an honourable and well reasoned man.  I happen to disagree with many of his conclusions, and that is why I am running against him, but I have a deep respect for him and will not accept his being decribed as you did".

Members on this forum are very welcome to discuss and disagree with others - those here and those who are not here to speak for themselves.  But this is not somewhere to hurl personal insults. Please by the wise man who puts his case and commands respect, and not the person in the audience who by their own words belittles their own view.

If you'd properly read my comments Grahame I wasn't referring to anyone on this forum and was actually referring to those in the Dft, I should have made that more clearer. It just annoys me that instead of focusing on sorting out the problems with the franchise they seem more interested in finding a good reason to split it up.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 08:00:26 pm by devonexpress » Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26513



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2018, 08:26:22 pm »

If you'd properly read my comments Grahame I wasn't referring to anyone on this forum and was actually referring to those in the Dft, I should have made that more clearer.

Thank you for that confirmation ... it could have been taken two ways.  Having said which, I have to take a bit of a stand and suggest that neither the description nor wording for description is really appropriate for the people who staff the DfT either.   

I happen to strongly agree with you on splitting the franchise ... I'm a little less sure about moving lines and / or services around the border between franchise as things develop and journey patterns and frequencies change over the years.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 08:31:39 pm by grahame » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
devonexpress
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2018, 11:38:08 pm »


Thank you for that confirmation ... it could have been taken two ways.  Having said which, I have to take a bit of a stand and suggest that neither the description nor wording for description is really appropriate for the people who staff the DfT either.   

I happen to strongly agree with you on splitting the franchise ... I'm a little less sure about moving lines and / or services around the border between franchise as things develop and journey patterns and frequencies change over the years.

Considering that they oversaw the GWR electrification, IEP introduction, GWR fleet loses to Scotrail/Northern and several other failures, I think ill stand by my wording if thats ok.  As for the removal of routes I would argue the Reading to Gatwick route would be better in SWR hands then Cardiff to Portsmouth.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26513



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2018, 06:59:53 am »

Considering that they oversaw the GWR electrification, IEP introduction, GWR fleet loses to Scotrail/Northern and several other failures, I think ill stand by my wording if thats ok. 

It's specifically described in our acceptable language and style guide:

What is acceptable language and style on "The Coffeeshop"?

A brief guide for new posters, who should remember that this forum can be read by anyone and everyone, including children, the train company we travel with (or in the case of Melksham WISH to travel with), and groups and individuals who we may criticise .. and who we may wish to talk to and work with in the future.

Language

1. The words that "I can't bring myself to type" - you know the ones, I'm sure - certainly are out. And, no, I am not coming up with a list.

2. The "arse", "scum", "bastard", "moron" level - certainly out when used to refer to a member, an identifiable person, or one of a small group of people. Probably out too when used to talk about larger groups - a very slightly grey area there.  But some of these words have to be acceptable in their original meaning. "They was a horrid scum on the coffee I was served in the buffet at Dilton Marsh station" has to be AOK.

3. Calling an identified peron a "silly cow" or "twit" starts getting even more questionable.  Again I would say "no" when an identified person, but the team behind the scenes does not wish to drive you to come up with colourful new phrases which might be even more difficult to moderate.

4. It has to be a case by case basis with many of the lesser terms and content which may offend by its combination of totally innocent words.  I personally found a comment that I felt to be sarcastic referring to me as "his holyness" to be offensive, although I let it go by without comment at the time as it provided me with a userful reminder of my place.  And that also reminded me just how many others may be offended from time to time, but not say anything!

The moderation team takes a delight in the fact that there a number of us moderating. Any poster who seriously transgressed the acceptable level of any one of the group may get asked to change his/her language (or have it changed), so we cannot be 100% predictable and people should if in doubt, leave it out

Style

a. I would like to discourage the use of texting language as it's not universally understood. We have a common language in English and we're talking about a British company and operation in England and Wales - so really we should all stick to posts in standard English to be universally understood by our readers.

b. Please try to cut down on the number of acronyms you use - we DO have an acronym page on which I try to list them all as they come up, but at times I get my GOSW mixed up with my GOBLs - so what must it do to the newcomers?   If you introduce an acronym to make your post less verbose, please define it the first time in full.

c. Whilst we don't wish to go round and round (and round and round) the same subject in a thread, remember that we are rapidly growing and that there are many newcomers here all the time - and guests, and people who find our pages via search engines.  So you are encouraged to go back to basics, provide full explanations, re-open matters that we discussed a couple of months back, and should NOT assume that everyone is up to speed. Established posters - if you see a subject repeating itself in a short timescale, please help us by adding a link back to the old subject so that we can keep "churning" at acceptable levels.

In spite of the comments above, the general approach to moderation is a "lighter touch" with moderators very much looking to facilitate the use and usefullness of the board.  Typically, we will NOT jump in and correct spellings nor grammatical errors, nor alter posts that we feel could have been explained better in another way - after all, it's your forum. We may point out via a personal message that a post could be understood in two different ways if we feel there could be a chance the original poster didn't realise this. As a "backstop" we (or rather I as the administrator) have a legal responsibility to act on posts that are (or may be considered) indecent, incite hatred, incite illegal actions, break copyright laws, are libellous and a whole host of other things which - thank you everyone - are very rare indeed here.

Claims of authority to represent

From time to time, new members claim to represent or work for a company or an organisation in the rail business, or to be a well known person, but then that claim turns out to be false.  If you want to do that - sorry - it's not allowed; it's against the very first sentence of the forum agreement that you have to accept to post here (top of this thread). It's a very serious matter to pretend to represent an organisation you don't represent; it's also serious to pretend to work for someone when you don't. 

We've always checked posts that are potentially false in this way, and how we make those checks has been tested and honed pretty well now. That's fantastic news for everyone else, as it means that official ans staff posts have that greater validity - something of a stamp of authority.


That's a very old post - but it is under "beginners start here" and pinned on "introduction and chat", so hardly in a dusty archive - more on display in the glass cabinet as you sign in for the first time.   The suggested style - and reasons - remain as valid today as they did a decade ago; please heed them in future.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
CyclingSid
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 492


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2018, 07:57:31 am »

All these questions and consultations about splitting the franchise suggest to me that it is a done deal. The consultations are just a fig leaf to legitimise the eventual announcement.
Logged
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 16981


Coffee Shop Forum Roving Reporter


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2018, 09:19:58 am »

If handing over the Heart of Wessex to SWP results in service and rolling stock improvements for trains to Weymouth I'm all for it.

A more frequent service provided by Salisbury depot's excellent Class 158/159s would be most welcome.
Logged

tramway
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 617



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2018, 12:09:01 pm »

If memory serves, and happy to be corrected, I think the area group was Wales and West covering the services under discussion, old regional railways.

SubsequentlyWales and Borders and Wessex. At hat time the Weymouth's terminated at Bristol. The same stock then formed the Bristol GT Malvern bit, it may have stood for 15+ mins at Bristol before continuing.

As a group the Wessex routes seemed to work very well as a devolved management area, although quite different areas it felt as though it had an individual identity that could be managed and marketed across the whole region without any 'Capital' influence or dominance. That sadly changed once First got their hands on it. A similar fate may well befall HoW in SWR hands.

I hope I don't seem to be saying it was better when I was young type argument, I just have a gut feeling that although numerous different demands the 'Wessex' model wasn't really given sufficient time to develop into a valuable regional public transport asset.

Leave the Bristol Gloucester route with GWR or XC. Taunton Cardiff to the Welsh.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26513



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2018, 05:05:32 pm »

At that time the Weymouth's terminated at Bristol

Splitting / joining routes at Bristol is an interesting choice.   I understand that in the aborted franchise process for the GWR a few years ago, at least one (none-First) bidder spent some time observing through passenger flows .. to the extent he got asked to leave the station as h was acting suspiciously!

Splitting might avoid problems with Midland sheep echoing all down to the seaside:

Quote
12:51 Great Malvern to Weymouth due 17:10
12:51 Great Malvern to Weymouth due 17:10 was started from Worcester Shrub Hill and will be terminated at Bristol Temple Meads.
It will no longer call at Great Malvern, Malvern Link, Worcester Foregate Street, Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bath Spa, Freshford, Avoncliff, Bradford-On-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury, Frome, Bruton, Castle Cary, Yeovil Pen Mill, Thornford, Yetminster, Chetnole, Maiden Newton, Dorchester West, Upwey and Weymouth.
It has been previously delayed, has been further delayed at Cheltenham Spa and is now 23 minutes late.
This is due to sheep on the railway.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page