Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 => Topic started by: grahame on May 21, 2020, 10:48:23



Title: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: grahame on May 21, 2020, 10:48:23
Yesterday I posted a piece "How Coronavirus could welcome in a new age of the train" ... today from Christian Wolmar (http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2020/05/5907) - By acquiescing to impossible rules, the railways are killing themselves

Quote
By trying to do the impossible, the railways are on a suicide mission. Trying to enforce social distancing while running a train service is simply impossible.

Traditionally, railway safety has been determined by a concept called ALARP – risks should be as low as reasonably practical. Somehow, the word ‘reasonably’ has been lost in the railways’ frenzied rush to comply with the rather arbitrary requirements suggested by government who now effectively control them through management contracts.

Yesterday, Sir Peter Hendy, the chairman of Network Rail who has been charged with trying to reconcile these two impossible tasks, admitted that at best the railways could cope with 15 per cent of their former number of passengers. Such a railway system doesn’t work, either practically or economically.

The clue is in the name: the railways are a ‘mass transit’ system. (etc)


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Robin Summerhill on May 21, 2020, 17:01:30
I have been concerned about this for some times, and I often get shot down in flames when I talk about it, but here goes again...

I can’t be bothered to look up the exact figures right now, but the Beeching Report told us that something like 80% of railway traffic was being generated by 20% of their stations/ depots. And that is why what happened in the 60s happened in the 60s with, incidentally, the bus industry going down much the same route in the early 1980s.

Perhaps now might not be the right time, but it’s not far away. People need to be weaned back on to public transport, and the first thing that needs to go will be the “don’t travel unless you really have to” mantra.

Perhaps it needs to be more nuanced (cue the wails of “we need definitions!”).  Leisure travel is already beginning to resume – see the news reports from the beaches over the last few days – and public transport should be encouraged to pick up some of that traffic. It makes little sense, for example, if you are allowed to drive from Yatton to WSM but not take a train for the same journey. OK, the revenue from a few off peak returns from Yatton to Weston, or Bath to Avoncliff isn’t going to be huge, but every little helps. Perhaps “Is your journey sensible” might be a better slogan than “don’t travel.”

I don’t envisage a large-scale return to commuting by car in major urban areas if for no other reason because there will be few places to park the things when the drivers arrive. Personally I am quite confident that commuting will reduce as working from home catches on (there are advantages for both employers and employees) but it is not yet possible to quantify what the reduction in commuting may be. It is doubtful whether any government policy could affect the outcome because in essence it will depend on thousands if not millions of individual decisions. In the short term it will be a case of observation, “suck it and see” if you like. But we will need to change the “message” on public transport before we can even begin to find out.

Leisure travel is discretionary if not spontaneous. There are many things in this world that people think they want before they have experience of it (the saying is “be careful what you wish for”) and compulsory reservation is one of them. It would theoretically be fine for long-distance non-stop trains, but as we know there are examples all over the country where through expresses serve intermediate stations only 10 to 15 minutes apart, and trying to enforce compulsory reservation on people who wake up one morning and decide to go to the next town is not only unlikely to attract travellers, but will actively encourage them into their cars. That is not something that we might want to do for all manner of social, economic and ecological reasons.

The future will only be rosy for public transport as a whole if the return is managed properly. And I’m not sure that the empire builders in the DfT are the best people to do it.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: grahame on May 21, 2020, 18:33:47
I have been concerned about this for some times, and I often get shot down in flames when I talk about it, but here goes again...

[snip]

The future will only be rosy for public transport as a whole if the return is managed properly. And I’m not sure that the empire builders in the DfT are the best people to do it.

You are very right to be concerned.

At the SWR conference today, Peter Williams (their commercial Director) did an excellent piece on how we return to a public / mass transit system - I've posted my notes as some of his slides  at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=23517.msg288719#msg288719 . Be optimistic in that (at least) it's being looked at.   Be optimistic that the minister at the start of the day pointed towards massive promotion once it's safe for mass transit / leisure traffic again. Be optisimstic that there I so much for our health and planet to gain from sustainable travel into the future.

But ... who can manage it properly?   Who is best for the job?   I don't know - by the first step of sorting out a very big issue is realising that the issue exists, and clear that realisation is there.   Be optimistic, partner (even is that is sometimes being the critical parntner), lets get it done


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 21, 2020, 21:08:57
Wolmar says trains carrying fresh air are environmentally less sustainable than cars. That might be true in terms of carbon footprint – though presumably it will depend on factors such as how the train is powered (or the car, come to that) – but in other aspects of sustainability and environmental impact, such as noise, land take, accidental deaths and injuries, and perhaps most of all, social cohesion, even an empty steam train is more sustainable than cars.

I also think he's optimistic in saying a vaccine might take a year, though I note he says a year to be found, rather than fully trialled, manufactured and distributed.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Trowres on May 22, 2020, 00:36:51
Reading Robin's comments above, several thoughts come to mind (although the link with the original post might be obscure):

One is the railway mantra of "concentrating on what the railway does best". Well, the railway concentrated on bulk freight; particularly coal, steel and oil; trains were certainly good at carrying them, but all for differing reasons are declining traffic.

Secondly, despite there being many nice individuals working for the railway, there is what I could call an institutional arrogance that the railway has a right to exist, that it can cherry-pick what it likes to carry and leave cast-off traffic as someone else's problem. Also, that it doesn't have to work very hard on its customer's needs as "they will come anyway" (the latter perhaps a DfT problem as much as the railway itself).

Thirdly, the idea that driving to a station to commute 50 miles by train is "sustainable", while driving to a local job is somehow not.

In coming out of the current situation, it would be opportune to consider these points afresh.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: CyclingSid on May 22, 2020, 06:51:24
One would like to think that the environmental and public health issues for using active and sustainable transport would be considered, both by individuals and government. Unfortunately, on past experience I am not hopeful. It is back to the issue of behaviour change. We have "terrified" them off public transport, how do you terrify them back onto it?


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: TaplowGreen on May 22, 2020, 07:35:39
Reading Robin's comments above, several thoughts come to mind (although the link with the original post might be obscure):

One is the railway mantra of "concentrating on what the railway does best". Well, the railway concentrated on bulk freight; particularly coal, steel and oil; trains were certainly good at carrying them, but all for differing reasons are declining traffic.

Secondly, despite there being many nice individuals working for the railway, there is what I could call an institutional arrogance that the railway has a right to exist, that it can cherry-pick what it likes to carry and leave cast-off traffic as someone else's problem. Also, that it doesn't have to work very hard on its customer's needs as "they will come anyway" (the latter perhaps a DfT problem as much as the railway itself).

Thirdly, the idea that driving to a station to commute 50 miles by train is "sustainable", while driving to a local job is somehow not.

In coming out of the current situation, it would be opportune to consider these points afresh.

…...what he said!  :)


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Bob_Blakey on May 22, 2020, 08:30:54
Humans are, in general, creatures of habit and I am therefore of the opinion that once our world returns, as it will, to some semblance of medical normality - and I think that could be as early as August (2020, for the avoidance of doubt!) - travel patterns will very quickly revert to those last seen in the second half of 2019.

I don't believe the dire predictions of public transport wipeout due to mass uptake of WFH, we have been told that is going to happen for ages, or the move of large numbers from train to car (just check out the peak hour traffic jams in a comparatively small place such as Exeter).


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 22, 2020, 11:05:09
Yesterday I posted a piece "How Coronavirus could welcome in a new age of the train"
I missed this one. Could you post a link to it, Grahame, or to the previous thread?

Edit: No need, I've just found it. The thread below this one.  ::)


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: stuving on May 22, 2020, 11:48:53
Humans are, in general, creatures of habit and I am therefore of the opinion that once our world returns, as it will, to some semblance of medical normality - and I think that could be as early as August (2020, for the avoidance of doubt!) - travel patterns will very quickly revert to those last seen in the second half of 2019.

I don't believe the dire predictions of public transport wipeout due to mass uptake of WFH, we have been told that is going to happen for ages, or the move of large numbers from train to car (just check out the peak hour traffic jams in a comparatively small place such as Exeter).

Immediately before the current unpleasantness, SWR were in discussions about replacing their franchise. The issue was the Central London Employment mechanism, which was meant to adjust the profit share to cope with changes to commuter numbers caused by ups and downs of the London business economy. The (no doubt very involved) sums involved use measures of business activity, which have been registering "boom" for several years, and have computed a bigger share for DfT of the revenue from those commuters. But SWR (and GA) haven't seen those extra commuters, and suspect they may have been at home much of the time (or possibly in one of those work-near-home offices).

There have been other signs of non-commuting (in)activity, and it seems reasonable to expect that to get a big boost now that a lot of unbelievers have been forced not just to try it but make a real effort to get it to work for them. But I agree that a lot of those will conclude that, on balance, it wasn't a good enough substitute for the real thing.

On the other hand, most discussions of infrastructure plans and capacity requirements to be met, for a long time, have said the huge costs could be avoided if more people did work at home a lot of the time. In other words the peak passenger numbers dominate the capital budget, which is the main reason why it looks as if London gets too big a share of that. If those peaks really do get flattened out, even by a modest amount, some of those plans will look wrong. Of course the timescale for planning those big capital projects is such that putting them off for a couple of years for a review would barely be noticed.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 22, 2020, 12:22:53
It would also go some way to countering the 'long trains running empty all day' accusations, if those peaks both temporally and geographically were evened out.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Trowres on May 22, 2020, 18:32:37
If, in a year's time, people are still worrying about going on public transport, then it's likely that they will also be worrying about attending a pub / concert / football match / TWSW meeting. The world would remain very different from a year ago.

Of course, there's a grey area in which people are weighing-up risks and benefits - and in this grey area the quality of the public transport offering would be an important factor.

By now, there are some lessons we should have learned:-
  • being prepared. Leaving things to the last possible moment (or beyond) isn't a good idea
  • having some spare capacity in the system for resilience
  • being honest with each other
  • going back to normal is not the best route forward

What might we think about?
Is Covid-19 a 1 in 100 year problem; a freak that needn't feature in future planning, or will we need to think of SARS etc as near-misses that are more likely on a crowded planet? How would that affect planning?

Climate change looms; while we are currently (if optimistic) looking forward to life after Covid-19, but climate change tends to persist for millenia once a tipping point is reached.

Transport Planners, as much as any other group, tend to flog a particular horse. For the benefit of public transport, high density developments have been favoured, while cities have been seen as the answer for both economic growth and (relative) sustainability. Just now, gardens seem so useful compared to blocks of flats with communal gardens (no matter how good some of the examples in Netherlands are) while the advantages of cities and connectedness are perhaps being challenged by alternative ways-of-working or by the rate of spread of a tiny virus.

Dare I mention economics? - the unthinkable is being suggested, or even done.

No answers here, just questions. I value this forum because it has more thoughtful argument than drum-banging. Let's get thinking collectively.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Bmblbzzz on May 22, 2020, 19:26:27
What might we think about?
Is Covid-19 a 1 in 100 year problem; a freak that needn't feature in future planning, or will we need to think of SARS etc as near-misses that are more likely on a crowded planet? How would that affect planning?
A pandemic has been expected in medical and similar circles for a couple of decades at least. Covid-19 has, so far at least, been fairly mild compared to what might have been (and what was in the past). Everyone leaps to the 1918 comparison but once every 50 years seems to be a standard assumption. One in an average lifetime?

I don't know if a crowded planet makes it any more likely but rapid, long-range transport (ie flying) certainly helps it spread faster, as does lack of transparency and preparedness. Nothing so far gives me reason to think any of those are going to change.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: GBM on May 23, 2020, 08:24:56
Whatever government is in power, the most immediate problem will be "Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooz goona pay for all this".
Well, we are of course.
Just how, apart from taxes and pay freeze will be decided quite quickly, but the recession across the world will take some time to shake off.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: eightf48544 on May 23, 2020, 11:15:58
One thing I've never reconciled is the cost per person of making a journey by public transport or car.

I was suppose to be in Burton upon Trent in April and I worked out that the cost would be roughly similar between car and train for just myself. I was favouring the train because as well as boat blacking it tends to be a boozy weekend.

However if there were 2 of us the train would cost twice as much but the car would be roughly the same. For 4 people it's even more marked.

I suppose the answer is to be like Estonia? and make all public transport free. Although how you'd cope with demand I don't know.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: ellendune on May 23, 2020, 17:21:40
Whatever government is in power, the most immediate problem will be "Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooz goona pay for all this".
Well, we are of course.
Just how, apart from taxes and pay freeze will be decided quite quickly, but the recession across the world will take some time to shake off.

Of course the balance between taxes rises and (public sector) pay freezes is a political decision. If you are a monetarist (like Thatcher) then tax cuts would be the last thing you would do as that takes money out of the economy. However, if you are a follower of Keynes then you would not freeze public sector pay as most public sector workers are low paid and so any increase would be spent (not saved) and would go back into the local economy. 


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Robin Summerhill on May 24, 2020, 10:10:47
Whatever government is in power, the most immediate problem will be "Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooz goona pay for all this".
Well, we are of course.
Just how, apart from taxes and pay freeze will be decided quite quickly, but the recession across the world will take some time to shake off.

Of course the balance between taxes rises and (public sector) pay freezes is a political decision. If you are a monetarist (like Thatcher) then tax cuts would be the last thing you would do as that takes money out of the economy. However, if you are a follower of Keynes then you would not freeze public sector pay as most public sector workers are low paid and so any increase would be spent (not saved) and would go back into the local economy. 

There is also the issue of low paid workers tending to be entitled to more state benefits, so freezing low pay is often a lose-lose situation for the Treasury.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: stuving on June 02, 2020, 18:33:51
This was one of today's Zoom-bites, for which I've now found my source - the Times of 15 may. It was based on what Grant Shapps said at the previous day's press conference, largely ignored though it was in the Telegraph and the Mail. All headlined it as about free car parking to keep workers off public transport.

This is the start of the Times's piece (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/free-car-parks-to-keep-workers-off-public-transport-22b7hk09h):
Quote
Free car parks to keep workers off public transport as lockdown eases
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
Friday May 15 2020, 12.01am, The Times

Motorists could be spared parking charges in town and city centres amid claims that commuters have a “civic duty” to avoid public transport during the coronavirus crisis.

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, said yesterday that the government was in talks with councils and entertainment venues to use their car parks to allow more people to drive to work free of charge.

The £11.50 a day congestion charge in central London has already been suspended to allow key workers to reach the city and it is hoped that local authorities across Britain could follow the same spirit.

Later, he is quoted as saying "We are encouraging people to drive perhaps close to but not right into a town or city where they work in and find a place to park. So we are working not just with local authorities but also with some large entertainment venues which have car parks that aren't being used at the moment."

The Telegraph (and I think the others) cited the suspension of the London Congestion Charge as an example of the same kind as free parking - but of course that was reintroduced on the same day (15th May) as the papers appeared, and with the proposal from TfL to increase it to £15.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: grahame on August 21, 2020, 07:09:32
From The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-this-the-end-of-the-line-for-public-transport-)

Quote
Is this the end of the line for public transport?

News that rail fares are to rise by 1.6 per cent in January, and public transport fares in London by 2.6 per cent, would normally be met with outrage – how dare they jack up the fares again when the trains are late and I can’t get a seat. Yet this time around the news has hardly raised a whimper. After all, who uses trains any more? There’s some sort of semblance of normality returning to shops, pubs, restaurants. But larges parts of the public transport network have been all but abandoned – even though the government is no longer officially telling us not to use them.

Department for Transport figures from Monday show use of national rail services to be running at just 23 per cent of the level they were at the beginning of March. Tube journeys are running at 30 per cent, London bus services at 53 per cent and buses outside London at 41 per cent. There are relatively few passengers left to complain. Many commuters have seized the opportunity presented by Covid-19 to try to free themselves from the daily slog to the office – and will do all they can to put off returning to their offices.

[snip]

Quote
Sooner or later, the government is going to have to confront this. Is it going to go on subsidising public transport in the hope of trains, buses and trams picking up where they left off, or is it going to revisit public transport investment? What about Crossrail 2, HS2 and Transpennine services? Is investment in them still going to be justified?

Don’t be surprised if urban planners start reimagining public transport not in the form of carriages but pods – automated vehicles which take individuals and small groups of people at a time. The cattle trucks which transported commuters in the early 20th century may soon seem a relic.

Edit: Fixed link - RS


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: TaplowGreen on August 22, 2020, 10:50:21
Private Eye has a very interesting and similarly pessimistic view in it's latest issue on page 17 "Losing tracks", followed by a typically incisive view of another aspect of the HS2 saga from Dr B Ching!


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 22, 2020, 14:25:02
From The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-this-the-end-of-the-line-for-public-transport-)

Quote
Is this the end of the line for public transport?

News that rail fares are to rise by 1.6 per cent in January, and public transport fares in London by 2.6 per cent, would normally be met with outrage – how dare they jack up the fares again when the trains are late and I can’t get a seat. Yet this time around the news has hardly raised a whimper. After all, who uses trains any more? There’s some sort of semblance of normality returning to shops, pubs, restaurants. But larges parts of the public transport network have been all but abandoned – even though the government is no longer officially telling us not to use them.

Department for Transport figures from Monday show use of national rail services to be running at just 23 per cent of the level they were at the beginning of March. Tube journeys are running at 30 per cent, London bus services at 53 per cent and buses outside London at 41 per cent. There are relatively few passengers left to complain. Many commuters have seized the opportunity presented by Covid-19 to try to free themselves from the daily slog to the office – and will do all they can to put off returning to their offices.

[snip]

Quote
Sooner or later, the government is going to have to confront this. Is it going to go on subsidising public transport in the hope of trains, buses and trams picking up where they left off, or is it going to revisit public transport investment? What about Crossrail 2, HS2 and Transpennine services? Is investment in them still going to be justified?

Don’t be surprised if urban planners start reimagining public transport not in the form of carriages but pods – automated vehicles which take individuals and small groups of people at a time. The cattle trucks which transported commuters in the early 20th century may soon seem a relic.

Edit: Fixed link - RS

I think he means 21st century rather than 20th.

There may be something in some of what he says. Just as the open-plan office (loved by employers but not-so-much by the folk who work in it) may be killed off by COVID-19, so too may be the open railway carriage. Personally I'd be more than happy to see a return of the compartment, at least as an option.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 22, 2020, 21:02:12
I'm a fan of compartments, but it does depend who else is there. And I know some women who have rather unpleasant experiences in the seclusion of a compartment that would be unlikely in a larger, more open carriage. So yes, bring them back, but as an option. Though I dare say there are structural reasons against them nowadays (weight? crashability?).


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Wizard on August 23, 2020, 10:13:15
I imagine there is far more likelihood of the railway being closed altogether than compartments returning to the network.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: eightonedee on August 23, 2020, 17:35:11
Surely a confined compartment in a railway carriage shared with strangers is the last thing anyone would want in the current circumstances?

If you go back to cellular offices you either are on single occupancy or can run a shift or rota system in shared rooms which is what my firm is doing in offices with such accommodation.

Not a fan of compartments myself, although my view is probably tarnished by commuting in tired old Mark 1 stock in the 1980s


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 23, 2020, 19:01:09
I imagine there is far more likelihood of the railway being closed altogether than compartments returning to the network.

We'll see. In my limited experience of returning to shops since the outbreak, 'compartmentalisation' using perspex screens of one sort or another seems to be becoming the norm. Possibly this might not help in trains, where air-conditioning systems may make a nonsense of it...

Surely a confined compartment in a railway carriage shared with strangers is the last thing anyone would want in the current circumstances?

If you go back to cellular offices you either are on single occupancy or can run a shift or rota system in shared rooms which is what my firm is doing in offices with such accommodation.

Not a fan of compartments myself, although my view is probably tarnished by commuting in tired old Mark 1 stock in the 1980s

Compartments can work very well if you are travelling in a family group. If railways are ever going to produce a modal shift from the private car, mightn't this be a way forward? I'm not suggesting that all trains should offer this kind of accommodation for every seat, but that perhaps some trains should offer it for some seats.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: stuving on August 24, 2020, 22:55:52
There was Paul Clifton piece on South Today2 about the new SWR trains (class 701) now sheepishly showing their faces. It was introduced with "are they really needed now?", and involved asking Mark Hopwood that question. At lunchtime he was asked much the same thing several times, and all his answers expressed confidence that passenger numbers would recover, to a limited extent, once the schools were back and, to a less limited extent, once the virus was overcome. Money wasn't mentioned (apart from the 1 £Bn price tag.

In the late evening show this bit was edited down tom just one question, but the Paul Clifton bit still dwelt on the fact that they were designed to maximise passenger load and un/loading speed by their greater standing space, and the recovery of that peak loading is far from certain on any timescale.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: MVR S&T on August 24, 2020, 23:17:57
Might be a good opertunity to get rid of the 455/456, as I note the 701 have at least some toilet provision. Which I was surprised about.


Title: Re: Bright or bleak? pundits both ways!
Post by: grahame on March 10, 2021, 09:24:39
From The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-this-the-end-of-the-line-for-public-transport-)

Quote
Sooner or later, the government is going to have to confront this. Is it going to go on subsidising public transport in the hope of trains, buses and trams picking up where they left off, or is it going to revisit public transport investment? What about Crossrail 2, HS2 and Transpennine services? Is investment in them still going to be justified?



From Building Design (https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/tfl-mothballs-crossrail-2-and-bakerloo-line-extension-because-of-pandemic/5110836.article)

Quote
TfL mothballs Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo line extension because of pandemic

Crossrail 2 and the extension of the Bakerloo line have officially been put on hold, the commissioner of Transport for London has said.

Speaking at a meeting of the London Assembly's transport committee yesterday, Andy Byford confirmed TfL has now paused the two projects, which are worth a combined £36bn.

50953191306_0db10c4bc6_k
Problems on the Crossrail scheme have helped mothball work on Crossrail 2
He said: “We’re not tone deaf. We do know that there is a financial crisis in the country, £2 trillion of debt now. So, we won’t be able to do everything.

“The two headline projects that are on hold are Crossrail 2 and the Bakerloo line extension."

But he pointed to transport secretary Grant Shapps’ recent safeguarding of the route for the £4bn Bakerloo line scheme as an indication it has been delayed rather than cancelled completely.

Last week, Shapps published guidance on safeguarding the route, due to run from the Elephant & Castle to Lewisham via the Old Kent Road and New Cross Gate, which protects necessary land from development.

Byford said TfL would also be seeking safeguarding for Crossrail 2, which involves building a railway line linking south-west and north-east London, as well as towns across Surrey and Hertfordshire.

[Article continues]




This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. 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 content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net