Further to previous correspondence, meetings and
discussions the RPC Wales would now wish to provide its comments on the
version of the Standard Pattern Timetable (SPT) circulated by Arriva
Trains Wales (ATW) on 27 April. We note the comment that “as a
result of the last round of consultations…..we have been able to amend
a number of areas of the original SPT proposals”. However, this
Committee has identified few significant improvements beyond a small
number of minor changes, but has noted further deterioration in many
areas.
This response should be read in conjunction with our previous
submission dated 31 March 2004 where we commented that the advantages
of a standard pattern timetable can be negated by the provision of a
timetable that worsens journeys at key times for rail passengers either
because of inappropriate timings or broken connections. There are
many examples of this throughout the SPT, while changes by other
operators, notably First Great Western, since the first round of
consultations have served to make poor features worse.
While the SPT appears to be attempting to provide an improved range of
services within Wales compared to those offered in recent years, as you
claimed was your objective, these have only been achieved at the
expense of significant service level reductions for many long term,
large flows that depend on effective, robust connections with other
operators. In reality the provision of rail services within Wales
depends on good connections into England and key centres such as
London, Birmingham and Manchester. Your proposals have an almost
wholly detrimental effect on the latter. In the absence of full
details of the services to be provided by other operators it is
sometimes difficult to judge the overall effect but from what we do
know the Committee can only conclude that consultation between ATW and
these other operators has been sadly lacking throughout the process.
Similarly many important flows at peak times will be prejudiced by your
proposals because the Standard Pattern does not fit in with what is
required to satisfy the demands of commuters, school children
etc. All key centres should have services arriving between 08.20
and 08.45 if these demands are to be satisfied.
It is also important that evening and late evening service provision is
not prejudiced by strict adherence to the Standard Pattern. This
particularly applies where connections are involved. At such
times an off pattern delay of 5-10 minutes in order to provide a robust
connection on a previously well-served axis is of much greater
importance than adherence to the pattern.
Table 75 Birmingham to Chester/Aberystwyth/Pwllheli
It is unfortunate that the opportunities presented by the SPT have not
extended to the Coast Line north of Machynlleth which remains virtually
unchanged compared to the existing timetable with all its current
deficiencies. Indeed the Committee notes that in some cases
earlier running of down trains from Shrewsbury has not been balanced by
earlier departures for the Coast, resulting in no overall journey
improvement. The Committee is concerned to note in the latest proposals
that the first train from Aberystwyth departs “off pattern”, some
half-hour earlier but still arrives “on pattern” in Birmingham because
it is used to form an “all-stations” service between Wellington and
Wolverhampton. This is wholly unacceptable for long distance
travellers from Wales, who will suffer to ensure a commuter service in
England.
This provision contrasts with the effect the SPT on commuting
opportunities into/ out of both Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth. Loss
of the present 08.45 arrival at the latter, in particular will cause
hardship to regular users. Perhaps this service could still be
retained if a Class 153 unit were used, and then used to strengthen the
09.36 from Aberystwyth. It would also appear that some of the
connectional opportunities originally proposed at Shrewsbury every two
hours between Cardiff/Holyhead and Aberystwyth / Birmingham services
will be lost for no apparent reason, even though the heroically
optimistic operational requirement of getting four trains through the
restricted layout in a short space of time remains. For example:
10.30 Holyhead 13.15 – 13.19 to Cardiff
11.20 Cardiff 13.18 – 13.26 to Holyhead
11.36 Aberystwyth 13.24 – 13.28 to Birmingham
12.34 Birmingham 13.25 – 13.32 to Aberystwyth
So passengers from Holyhead can get a connection to Birmingham but only
have 1 minute to do so in the other direction, while passengers from
Aberystwyth can get to neither Cardiff nor Holyhead, although there are
good connections from those places into the Aberystwyth train.
The Committee are at a loss to understand the underlying thoughts
behind this situation.
Nevertheless it appears connections to/from Cardiff have been
prioritised in the SPT, but at the expense of the proven long-term
flows to Crewe and Manchester, which is a more natural axis for
movement. Again provision for a potential development of an intra
– Wales flow while current significant flows into England suffer
significant deterioration in service.
Table 81 Crewe and Manchester to Holyhead
The fundamental flaw with your SPT proposals remains unaddressed and
highlights the problems caused by concentrating on intra-Wales
services. In introducing your original proposals you stated that
“Opportunities to develop services in Wales have been prioritised
compared with additional links with England”. While that may be a
laudable aim, to provide new services at the expense of reduced links
with England is not.
Provision of a through service between Crewe and North Wales only every
two hours is unacceptable. Even with the Virgin services, it will
result in an inappropriate reduction in service provision. What
consultation have ATW had with Virgin Trains to ensure an even spread
of services? There is clear demand for trains to Crewe with the
connectional opportunities available from there, while the case for a
two-hourly service to Cardiff is unproven. Again, a potential new
flow should not be developed at the expense of proven long-term flows.
The Committee had presumed ATW were seeking to encourage passengers
from Holyhead to the Midlands to use the Cardiff trains as a single
change at Shrewsbury alternative to the Crewe route and the previous
excellent through service precluded by WCML modernisation. Even
so, this route will be slower: for example even the 18.35 Holyhead will
now take half an hour longer to reach Birmingham direct via Shrewsbury
than currently via Crewe. However, as shown above, while there
will be excellent interchange at Shrewsbury for passengers from
Holyhead to Birmingham, passengers in the opposite direction will
arrive from Birmingham, 1 minute before the train to Holyhead
departs.
Similarly, a 3 minute connection appears to apply at Chester between
the arrival of the xx.03 Crewe service and the departure westwards of
the Cardiff/Holyhead train. This is less than the normal
connectional allowance: which platforms are to be used to facilitate
this interchange? What arrangements will be made in the event of
late running by the Crewe train? Will there be staff on hand to
assist elderly people or those with disabilities?
The Committee notes the equivalent eastbound connection will generally
be more robust, but again the choice of platforms and the potential
need to cross the bridge could cause issues. Even if these can be
sorted, however, the need for passengers from North Wales to change at
both Chester and Crewe will be a serious service reduction and
disincentive for passengers.
Moving west, it is of great concern that Llandudno will have no
suitable connections from the Crewe or Cardiff trains for much of the
day. Even where a connection could be provided at Llandudno
Junction out of the key 17.43 Manchester/Holyhead, only one minute is
allowed before departure of the Blaenau Ffestiniog to Llandudno
service. Once again the dangers of slavish adherence to standard
patterns are exemplified.
However, the whole concept of running the Manchester/Llandudno service
in advance of the Holyhead train from Chester must be questioned.
Running 10 minutes ahead from Chester, but making all stops, there are
occasions when the faster Holyhead train is shown as
only 2 minutes behind at Llandudno Junction: yet still the Manchester
train is not held and no connection to Llandudno is made. Such
poor service provision to a centre the size and importance of Llandudno
is almost beyond belief, as are the poor connections to/from the Bangor
direction and Llandudno for much of the day. A good service
between the two main centres in North Wales should surely have been a
key aim of the new service if it is driven by passenger demand rather
than operating convenience.
Finally there are also questions about the appropriateness of the
proposed timings of the service into/out of Bangor in both directions
at key times for school children and other commuters. Have your
proposals been discussed with the relevant authorities?
Table 101 Wrexham to Bidston
The weakness in the current timetable of no arrival at Wrexham before
08.30 is carried forward into the SPT. An extra service, at least
from Shotton southwards is required, in order to develop commuting
opportunities.
Table 131 Cardiff to Manchester
As has been made clear in previous submissions, the success of this
route depends as much on the connections it provides at key
interchanges such as Newport and Crewe as on the through journey
opportunities it provides. The through journeys from West Wales
generated by extension of the existing Cardiff/Manchester trains
to/from Carmarthen will be negated by much greater disruption to long
standing travel patterns of the large number of passengers who
interchange at Newport.
The Committee can only “congratulate” ATW on proposing connections at
Newport that are far worse than those provided in the current
timetable, which are in themselves a significant deterioration compared
to the service levels of the previous 10 years and more. The
Committee finds it incredible that throughout the day, in both
directions there will be examples of connections just missed or too
tight for the recognised interchange allowance of 7 minutes. As a
result the effective connectional times at Newport between ATW and FGW
becomes about 25-35 minutes in both directions. This is an
absolute disgrace: we can only presume ATW are seeking positively to
discourage such interchange.
In particular the Committee can see no reason for the first train from
Hereford running 15 minutes earlier when the London service is
unaltered meaning a 31 minute connection at Newport. Then, while
the 05.05 Crewe continues to fail to provide a connection into the
07.39 London departures from Newport, the new 7 minute connection
between the 06.19 Shrewsbury and the 08.09 train to London is offset by
the loss of connection into the 08.39 departure – the 06.05 Crewe
arriving only at 08.35 and so failing to provide guaranteed
interchange. Where please is the attention to detail to satisfy
what rail passengers want?
In the evening the situation in the opposite direction is, if anything,
worse. The connection into the 20.50 Cardiff is from the 18.45
Paddington and involves a 36 minute wait at Newport. Yet the
19.15 Paddington will arrive 1 minute before the ATW train departs, so
the connection from that train will be the 21.50 Cardiff after 61
minutes and booked to depart Newport 1 minute after the 20.15
Paddington arrives. A classic example where delaying the ATW
trains off pattern by 8 minutes would ensure appropriate and robust
connections that passengers have hitherto taken for granted at Newport
Finally the 00.20 Cardiff is shown to leave Newport at 00.40, just 4
minutes before the 22.45 Paddington arrives.
The Committee trusts that these nonsense’s are being addressed in the
final stages of the planning process and seeks assurances they will be
eliminated before the SPT is implemented.
The Committee notes all references to services to/from the West of
England from the Marches line have now been eliminated from the
SPT. This is a retrograde step as there is a proven need for even
the current limited through service provision on this axis. Of
the three services that used to be provided from the Marches line to
off-route destinations, those to Portsmouth and Waterloo were withdrawn
at the behest of the SRA, despite being well used. It is
regrettable that ATW are withdrawing the third service even though it,
too, remains well used.
The Committee will welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive
discussions with Arriva at the earliest possible opportunity in order
to try to find acceptable solutions to the clear issues highlighted
above before it is too late. There is now less than six months
until the SPT is implemented, but if it is brought in as set out in the
Consultation document it will sound the death knell of much current
rail travel within, to and from Wales. Hopefully, something can
be salvaged, even at this late stage.
CLIVE G WILLIAMS
Director
