For the Thames Valley local services the new NRT^▸ (Network Rail Telecoms) separate Tables 122 and 123 are a great improvement on the old Table 116, and Table 123 seems to cover all of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)’s T8 and T10, which duplicate each other to a large extent could perhaps be combined next time.

The new NRT typeface and layout is also much better and easier to read.

Yes, I suspect any proper risk assessment for passengers at Reading this morning would show that the risk of harm from the slippery conditions on the footbridge far exceeds that from being in the same lightly loaded (and air-conditioned) coach as a passenger not wearing a mask.

One conclusion from the published pictures is that both trains were moving when they came together and collided. Note that the trailing cab of the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) train shows no sign of being hit by the leading cab of the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) train.

Last week Mrs GTBE and I spent a few days in Exmouth.  One day we took the ferry across to Starcross.  Not having dome this before, I was surprised to find that the only egress from the ferry pier is a fenced path running parallel and close to the DM.  The path leads to the platform ramp at the south need of the Down platform.  There is then a walk along the very narrow platform (for a main line) to the footbridge over to the Up platform and the station exit.

This quaint access to the pier, owned by the Starcross Pier and Ferry Company, is presumably protected by some ancient agreement which has survived through to NR^» (Network Rail - home page) and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway). 

My concern is that up to 100 people, including excited children and cyclists, can come off the ferry at one time.  I did not see any signs warning people approaching the platform ramp that
•   trains passed at up to 50 mph (or is it more?)
•   they should stay behind the yellow line
•   cycling is not permitted on the platform (we saw 2 cyclist riding their bikes from the footbridge along the platform and down the ramp).

It seems to me that there is an accident waiting to happen here.  I hope someone somewhere has a Risk Assessment that stands up.

I too have reason to be grateful to Mr Power (as we knew him) when he was CM&EE at Paddington.  In 1973 he appointed me as an Engineering Assistant in his department based in the Departure Side offices at Paddington.  He was very keen on training and career development, and he expected us to work hard and deliver what we were there to do.   If something had gone wrong, we all dreaded the phone call from his secretary Anne asking us to pop down to see him.

He moved on to become CM&EE of the London Midland Region in Derby around 1980 I think.  As ET says, he made his mark on the railway.

I expect to attend in person.

I was thinking more about minimising risk, not apportioning blame.  Of course the motorist should have obeyed the red lights, but seeing the train approaching might have helped avoid the incident (and the train driver may have had the chance to hoot – again?).  A building in the sight line can’t be moved, but a hedge can be cut down.  It’s all a question of doing whatever can be done AFAIRP to minimise risk.

On a slightly different tack, the motorist may well have been local, but I wonder whether non-locals from urban backgrounds are more used to level crossings where it’s light first, then barriers come down, then train (and look at the second bullet point at the bottom of the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) press release).  Again, no excuse for the motorist, but an avoided incident is better than a real incident and a prosecution. 

Re the Burneside incident, not trying to excuse the car driver at all, but ensuring there are adequate sight lines for both car drivers and train drivers (at this type of crossing) is essential.  So the height of the hedge on the train’s left and the car’s right should be maintained accordingly. 

Sight line issues are often mentioned in investigations into uncontrolled crossing incidents.

So the obvious question is why was the decision taken to route 2P42 along the UM when its booked route on the UR was available, resulting in the cancellation at Pangbourne and delays to 2 Class 1 services?  Was 4046 expected to run rather slower than it did or to sit down on the UR?

I’m not asking for or expecting a detailed explanation, I accept that this Forum is not the place for investigations of every incident.   The important issue is the last sentence of my previous post.  I’m happy to leave it at that.

I think that the “late running freight train” story was perhaps a product of the railway industry’s Random Excuse Generator, and that the real reason was that 2P42 was wrongly routed at Didcot East, maybe as a result of manual intervention for the preceding 4046.  I’ve seen similar examples around Didcot when trains are running out of course.  Would the Driver of 2P42 have queried the route?  Maybe not, before now I’ve been on a stopper from P4 out on to the UM at Didcot East and then back on to the UR at Moreton.  It’s a regular move from P3 of course. Presumably there are relevant instruction in the SA. 

2P42’s trundle along the UM to Tilehurst East calling everywhere (except Pangbourne of course) caused 9 minute delays to the following 1P23 1102 Oxford – Padd and 1L70 0959 Cheltenham – Padd.

In fairness, it must have been a very busy morning for the Reading area signallers at TVSC^» (Thames Valley Signalling Centre - about) as they were sorting out platforming in Reading following the derailment at Triangle sidings.

Maybe I'm completely wrong.  But I agree with Grahame, the bigger point is that service reliability is vital to attract and retain custom.  Whether the new railway structure will incentivise operators to do this is another question... 

Mrs GTBE went to Pangbourne station to-day to catch the 1122 to Reading (2P42 1108 Didcot Parkway – Padd).  Being “Pangbourne cancellation survivors” I checked on OTT^▸ (Open Train Times website) that the down train had arrived at Didcot Parkway and was sitting in P4 ready to depart, so I told Mrs GTBE her train was definitely running.

At 1112 she phoned from Pangbourne station to say the 1122 was cancelled.  According to the very helpful ticket office lady the train was running UM to pass a late running freight train on the UR so could not call at Pangbourne (I paraphrase – she spoke normal English to the passengers).  The advice was to go to Didcot and come back from there.

Looking at RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) the only possible late-running freight train to blame was 4046 Trafford Park – Southampton, running about 3 hours late.  This train passed Didcot East at 1101 and Reading West Junction at 1124, so on the basis of the evidence I see would not have been a threat to 2P42. 

So I drove to Pangbourne station and took Mrs GTBE and 2 other “cancellation victims” to Reading. 

We are still on a hourly service rather than the pre-Covid half hourly, so it is all the more important not to cancel trains (and for Pangbourne it was a cancellation, whatever Journeycheck-speak may say).  If GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) really wants to retain the off peak market around here it needs to do better than it’s doing now. 

1   Is the GTBE family just unlucky with cancellations?
2   Who can I send my petrol bill to please?

I drove into Reading yesterday to drop a car off for servicing.  Came back on the local bus to Pangbourne: all 5 of us wore masks. 

Went back into Reading on 1422 train (8 coach, air conditioned of course) from Pangbourne.  About 8 people on the platform, none wearing masks. I hopped in the second coach: there was one other person already there, not wearing a mask, and I sat down well away from him and didn’t either. 

I hopped off at Tilehurst and walked down to the Reading Bus 16 bus stop.  Everyone on the bus wore masks, including me, except one teenage girl who got on later shouting into her mobile phone.

So, allowing people to make their own judgements seems eminently sensible.  I doubt any “rules” would have had any impact on the teenage girl.

Can any compulsory mask advocates explain the logic of anything different?   

Is it a coincidence that those favouring “rules” tend to be those on the left of politics eg the unions? Personal freedom is of course anathema to them, and wearing a mask is seen by some as a badge of dutiful and unquestioning compliance with those in authority.

Wearing a mask is an attack on my freedom to decide what I think is best for myself and others.  I probably would wear a mask on a busy train or bus, but I am capable of making that decision myself and do not need others to tell me.

I don’t like the tone of Travelwatch Southwest’s letter. “..disdain for the well-being of its passengers and front-line staff”?.  That is shallow and emotive, and appears to be trying to shame GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) into doing what TWSW^» (TravelWatch SouthWest - website) wants. 

Finally, those who worry (and there are always those who worry) or have particular medical problems that increase their susceptibility to respiratory infection can wear a surgical grade face mask that protects them as the wearer, which is probably better for them than relying on the variable quality of masks worn by their fellow passengers.   

Presumably, over the coming days and weeks, the number of available IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) units can only reduce as cracks are going to propagate more quickly than a Repair Plan can be devised and implemented.

Or maybe, as the cracks in these 17 are closely monitored, the experience gained will allow more stopped trains to run.

Yesterday I went on the train from Pangbourne into Reading (for an eye examination, so a valid reason).

I headed back to Reading station for the 1126 to Pangbourne.  This ran in on time at 1115: it had a late platform change from 12 to 13, and I noticed a few yellow vests on the platform by the cab.  Later I realised why.

We all (about a dozen) hopped on.  The Driver then announced that the because of a train fault the train was going to be divided and only the front 4 coaches would be going forward to Didcot.  Those in the back 4 duly moved forward to the front 4.  The Driver then announced that the train was going to be cancelled.  One of the platform staff suggested that another train would be coming from the depot.  It didn’t.  So we had to wait until the next train, the 1223 departure.

There was one PA^▸ (Public Address) announcement that the 1126 to Didcot was cancelled.  That was it.  Despite the fact that we were within sight of Reading Depot with many spare 387’s stabled (the Padd – Didcot stoppers are currently running hourly instead of half-hourly) and presumably no shortage of Drivers, it was not apparently possible to provide a replacement set.

What I found frustrating and depressing that TVSC^» (Thames Valley Signalling Centre - about) obviously knew there was problem with the train before it got to Reading which is why it was re-platformed from 12 to 13 (there’s no access to the east end entrance to Reading Depot from P12), so there was surely time for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to arrange to get a fresh set into the station. 

Perhaps what GWR should be most concerned about is that most of the affected passengers seemed to accept this level of service as normal.