|
Title: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: vacman on August 24, 2007, 20:53:14 Despite all of the negative things that FGW have done, there are one or two positive things, back in the days of Wessex Trains, the Falmouth branch was reduced to a single 153 every summer in order to strengthen the StIves branch to four cars, which caused chaos as the "locals" on tha Falmouth were demoted so that the "bucket and spade brigade" at St Ives could travel in comfort, well this year the Cornish branches have been treated! all summer they've provided four cars on the St Ives branch, two cars on the Falmouth branch, two cars on local services on the Newquay branch and two cars on the Looe branch (previously unheard of for the M-F services), Gunnislake has been reduced to a single 153 OFF PEAK but retains a two car 150 for the morning/evening peak. Also lets not forget the cheap day returns that they reduced by up to 40% last year, then there's the rather sensitive subject of the Cornish Railcard, which I belive FGW did the right thing by withdrawing it in favour of cheaper season tickets.Yes they've had their moments but credit where credit's due.
Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: spike on August 24, 2007, 23:28:29 The 1626 Paignton to Exmouth was rammed today, so they didn't get this right! 2x153s, and a trainload of moaning passengers (rightly too if you ask me) made a nice trip back to Exeter St Davids. And it was 15mins late by Exeter too :(
Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: grahame on August 25, 2007, 11:24:37 Despite all of the negative things that FGW have done, there are one or two positive things, back in the days of Wessex Trains, the Falmouth branch was reduced to a single 153 every summer in order to strengthen the StIves branch to four cars, ..........Yes they've had their moments but credit where credit's due. The number of 153 units in the GW area has been halved since this time last year, hasn't it - wasn't it 15 down to 7? And it does seem that the reduction of services of just one coach in length that has resulted is a positive step. I notice that elsewhere in the country, one coach trains are being stepped up to 2 (or even 3) - I think I was reading about this on the Cumbrian Coast line, serving Tony Cunningham's Workington Constituency where labour's majority was slashed at the last election, just recently. I used to know the predecessor of the 153 (i.e. single coach previous generation units) as "Coffin Nails" because they were the last life on a line that was a potential target for closure. So it's good to see the step back up - perhaps this helps the threat receed. Certainly the economics of running a single coach lightly loaded train - with a crew of the same number of staff that would be required for 2 or 3 coaches - can be questioned, especially when you take all the extra layers of payment needed to organisations like the ROSCOs these days. And I'm delighted to see ... even on the services which were nearest the edge on the new December 2006 timetable - that a 1 car unit was getting to be inadequate due to traffic growth. The late lamented 17:02 Melksham to Swindon was getting pretty darned busy on days it ran with a 153 - still some seats available for sure, but I don't know how much longer that would have neem the case. And I recall the 17:42 return service (also no longer with us), which I used much less often, getting towards uncomfortable when run with 2 cars. There has been (and is ongoing) a campaign for the return of appropriate services on this line. For cheapness, we have suggested a 153 unit initially - but perhaps it would be more sensible to back suggestions of a 2 car (Pacer OK?) to avoid producing just a short term solution and then having to look at souring yet another carriage to deal with overcrowding in 2009 or 2010. Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: Lee on August 25, 2007, 16:10:00 Interesting station passenger figures comparison :
Barnstaple 2004 / 2005 - 194474 2005 / 2006 - 210846 Falmouth Town 2004 / 2005 - 85859 2005 / 2006 - 83899 Gunnislake 2004 / 2005 - 37190 2005 / 2006 - 43885 Looe 2004 / 2005 - 75510 2005 / 2006 - 70880 Newquay 2004 / 2005 - 83712 2005 / 2006 - 71301 St Ives 2004 / 2005 - 220300 2005 / 2006 - 171281 Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: grahame on August 25, 2007, 17:21:24 Lee, those figures make interesting reading; I'm not sure of the change from one individual year to the next, especially at a time when a new franchise operator was just finding its feet (and perhaps using new accounting methods), but I am struck by the level.
I'm aware that you are quoting terminus stations for branch lines, and not traffic on the whole line - but in the case of Looe and Newquay, aren't they the only substantive stations on the lines, with limited traffic only to / from intermediate stations? I'm not sure about Gunnislake - how many people use stations such as Calston and Bere Alston, and on the Falmouth line, how busy are Falmouth Docks and Penryn? What I'm getting at is ... what can we conclude about the total number of journeys? What am I getting at? Well - I know that figures of 109,000 and 121,000 journeys were quoted for the TransWilts service - which was cut back last December by 60%, no longer has its own train on the line, and no service at all from Swindon (it's "base point" now) between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Newquay, I know, hasn't got a conventional peak hour service but I suspect its market is different, but they all seem to have a far better service (and have suffered far less sever cuts) than we do up here. Is there someting I've missed, or has the population of Wiltshire been grossly mistreated? And if so, isn't there a strong case for getting one of those old pacer units that can't run west of Newton Abbott anyway to provide a level of service commensurate with the traffic on offer? Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: vacman on August 26, 2007, 11:54:22 Interesting station passenger figures comparison : A slight decrease in some, but since 2000 and until 2005 the St Ives branch is up 24.7%, Falmouth branch up 20.5%, Newquay up 40% and Looe valley line up 15.5% (source- Devon and Cornwall Rail Partnership) which does justify the extra units, also bear in mind that lines like the Falmouth branch are bursting with commuters in the morning and then bursting with holidaymakers in the daytime and the St Ives is just rammed from 1000 in the morning until 2200 at night! A lot of people (including DaFT) seem to think that the Cornish branch lines just cart fresh air around the countryside and that we should use these units for Bristol commuters instead, try travelling on the StIves branch in August at any time and you will see why they are needed down here!Barnstaple 2004 / 2005 - 194474 2005 / 2006 - 210846 Falmouth Town 2004 / 2005 - 85859 2005 / 2006 - 83899 Gunnislake 2004 / 2005 - 37190 2005 / 2006 - 43885 Looe 2004 / 2005 - 75510 2005 / 2006 - 70880 Newquay 2004 / 2005 - 83712 2005 / 2006 - 71301 St Ives 2004 / 2005 - 220300 2005 / 2006 - 171281 Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: Tractorman on August 26, 2007, 13:38:02 I'm aware that you are quoting terminus stations for branch lines, and not traffic on the whole line - but in the case of Looe and Newquay, aren't they the only substantive stations on the lines, with limited traffic only to / from intermediate stations? I'm not sure about Gunnislake - how many people use stations such as Calston and Bere Alston, and on the Falmouth line, how busy are Falmouth Docks and Penryn? What I'm getting at is ... what can we conclude about the total number of journeys? On the Gunnislake line the number of people using Calstock/Bere Alston if combined would at least equal the Gunnislake figure. On the Falmouth the number of people using Penryn/Penmere would exceed that of Falmouth Town. Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: vacman on August 27, 2007, 20:40:50 I'm aware that you are quoting terminus stations for branch lines, and not traffic on the whole line - but in the case of Looe and Newquay, aren't they the only substantive stations on the lines, with limited traffic only to / from intermediate stations? I'm not sure about Gunnislake - how many people use stations such as Calston and Bere Alston, and on the Falmouth line, how busy are Falmouth Docks and Penryn? What I'm getting at is ... what can we conclude about the total number of journeys? On the Gunnislake line the number of people using Calstock/Bere Alston if combined would at least equal the Gunnislake figure. On the Falmouth the number of people using Penryn/Penmere would exceed that of Falmouth Town. Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: Lee on September 06, 2007, 11:57:52 Here are the comparison figures for the rest of the Devon & Cornwall Branch Line stations (excluding main line termini and the Paignton line.)
Bere Alston 2004 / 2005 - 29552 2005 / 2006 - 27263 Bere Ferrers 2004 / 2005 - 12862 2005 / 2006 - 11459 Bugle 2004 / 2005 - 1362 2005 / 2006 - 1661 Calstock 2004 / 2005 - 24024 2005 / 2006 - 21123 Carbis Bay 2004 / 2005 - 66298 2005 / 2006 - 23737 Causeland 2004 / 2005 - 2281 2005 / 2006 - 2671 Chapelton 2004 / 2005 - 472 2005 / 2006 - 161 Coombe 2004 / 2005 - 96 2005 / 2006 - 59 Copplestone 2004 / 2005 - 356 2005 / 2006 - 1090 Crediton 2004 / 2005 - 22478 2005 / 2006 - 22550 Digby & Sowton 2004 / 2005 - 134804 2005 / 2006 - 155822 Eggesford 2004 / 2005 - 14152 2005 / 2006 - 16009 Exmouth 2004 / 2005 - 623832 2005 / 2006 - 611451 Exton 2004 / 2005 - 10583 2005 / 2006 - 10255 Falmouth Docks 2004 / 2005 - 38434 2005 / 2006 - 47316 Kings Nympton 2004 / 2005 - 2400 2005 / 2006 - 1781 Lapford 2004 / 2005 - 2104 2005 / 2006 - 1658 Lelant 2004 / 2005 - 8697 2005 / 2006 - 1653 Lelant Saltings 2004 / 2005 - 18281 2005 / 2006 - 23774 Luxulyan 2004 / 2005 - 791 2005 / 2006 - 1160 Lympstone Commando 2004 / 2005 - 55875 2005 / 2006 - 62141 Lympstone Village 2004 / 2005 - 63325 2005 / 2006 - 66739 Morchard Road 2004 / 2005 - 3442 2005 / 2006 - 2712 Newton St Cyres 2004 / 2005 - 702 2005 / 2006 - 780 Penmere 2004 / 2005 - 71676 2005 / 2006 - 76571 Penryn 2004 / 2005 - 53069 2005 / 2006 - 58759 Perranwell 2004 / 2005 - 9936 2005 / 2006 - 9545 Polsloe Bridge 2004 / 2005 - 43788 2005 / 2006 - 43773 Portsmouth Arms 2004 / 2005 - 372 2005 / 2006 - 510 Quintrel Downs 2004 / 2005 - 918 2005 / 2006 - 928 Roche 2004 / 2005 - 1137 2005 / 2006 - 1222 Sandplace 2004 / 2005 - 1429 2005 / 2006 - 865 St Columb Road 2004 / 2005 - 733 2005 / 2006 - 1031 St Keyne 2004 / 2005 - 1053 2005 / 2006 - 606 Topsham 2004 / 2005 - 127903 2005 / 2006 - 138905 Umberleigh 2004 / 2005 - 8301 2005 / 2006 - 10408 Yeoford 2004 / 2005 - 6883 2005 / 2006 - 6848 Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: devon_metro on September 17, 2007, 19:45:45 Any figures for Paignton? Whenever I board a train to Paignton its always wedged or do I just travel at stupid times?
Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: Jim on September 19, 2007, 06:50:15 Any figures for Paignton? Whenever I board a train to Paignton its always wedged or do I just travel at stupid times? Well, it's FGW, what do you think? Title: Re: FGW have got a couple of things right! (not many though) Post by: Lee on September 19, 2007, 14:01:39 Any figures for Paignton? Whenever I board a train to Paignton its always wedged or do I just travel at stupid times? Paignton line comparison figures : Paignton 2004 / 2005 - 345738 2005 / 2006 - 335491 Torquay 2004 / 2005 - 298494 2005 / 2006 - 292701 Torre 2004 / 2005 - 153214 2005 / 2006 - 150974 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 |