Skip to main content

To: Transport for Wales (Train Company)

Reverse TFW decision for 2 hourly services

Reverse TFW decision for 2 hourly services

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/public38/images/councillor.gif

Reverse a decision for 2 hourly services serving Gobowen, Chirk and Ruabon in the December 2019 timetable in preference for a faster services from Cardiff to Holyhead which does little for for Wrexham County Borough constituents and a backwards step. These faster services will pass local stations without stopping.
https://news.wrexham.gov.uk/transport-for-wales-proposed-timetable-changes-from-december-2019/ . There was no consultation with key stakeholders on these changes whatsoever.

Why is this important?

Train Services are important to residents and the local economy given the Welsh Government Decision to declare a Climate Emergency. Reducing carbon emissions and investing in the Rail Network is critical to meet carbon emission targets by 2030. This line has increased passenger numbers at each of the stations year on year of up to 20% over the last 5 years and continues to grow.

How it will be delivered

Petition to be given to Lee Robinson Director of Development for North Wales for Transport for Wales.

Shrewsbury to Chester Rail Services

Maps © Stamen; Data © OSM and contributors, ODbL

Category


Reasons for signing

  • Local links are very important not just getting to London a few minutes quicker.
  • Rail services have been growing in recent years to reflect rapidly growing demand and importance. While faster services over long distances are also important, these should not be at the expense of useful local links between intermediate localities. The answer lies in providing adequate capacity for both. These cuts run counter to TfW's otherwise ambitious plans to develop rail services in Wales.
  • This change takes the service below the minimum service level specification. This is suppose to safeguard passengers by setting an absolute limit below which the service must not be reduced. If this is to be ignored then the whole specification process is shown to be nothing but a paper exercise, offering the public no protection whatsoever and flying in the face of accountability. If it is ok on this line why not do it somewhere else? These changes should be quashed.

Updates

2019-10-23 09:17:20 +0100

1,000 signatures reached

2019-10-21 09:38:24 +0100

500 signatures reached

2019-10-19 18:40:29 +0100

100 signatures reached

2019-10-19 16:48:18 +0100

50 signatures reached

2019-10-19 15:44:20 +0100

25 signatures reached

2019-10-19 15:08:37 +0100

10 signatures reached