Diesel Multiple Units.   Diesel trains where multiple trains can be hooked up to each other to run as a single longer train in the normal course of operation.

HSTs and Castles are NOT multiple units?
5 car IETs are multiple units?
9 car IETs are NOT multiple units?
Adelantes are multiple units

All of the above are diesel powered and with passenger accommodation within a virtually permamently coupled train.  Which (none / some / all) of the passenger accommodation has engines in the same vehicle will vary (but not change the definition) ... and whether or not they have electric capability too does not effect them being diesel multiple units (5 car IETs) or diesel units (others) west of Bedwyn, Bristol, Oxford and Swansea Newbury, Cocklebury Lane, Didcot and Cardiff and electric on the important sections east thereof.

Not just SWR ... TransWilts through Melksham is back up to 100% on Saturdays, and 88% on Monday to Friday - not as dramatic as Bookham, but still leaving a gap in the early evening - if you miss the train just after five thirty from Swindon (a good after-work train for central Swindon), you'll be waiting until quarter to nine for the next and final one of the day. 

How are other GWR lines doing?     Severn Beach?    Exmouth?   Gunnislake?  Falmouth?   Missing services on locals in the Bristol area?

Lots of short forms today ... from reports, although I thought they were supposed to be 2 cars only in the first place.

Interestingly, reports starting to come back of train use - including one suggesting that social distancing was / is beginning to be a bit tight and asking "should the train be stepped up to 3 cars?". 

But so much of the work has already been done. ... the Rail Delivery Groups's 2018 work, including stakeholder and community / volunteer input.  I didn't hear of them coming up with any brilliant changed / new fare system to sort out the mess - rather (as I understand it) the report fed into the Williams review to be part of the outcome of that. Whether it turns out to be a significant element in the larger plan, or consigned as a footnote to a dusty shelf, is a question as yet unanswered.  I do hope we'll see a substantive result with root and branch caches if they're what's recommenced, or a very strong conclusion along the lines of "the current system is far from perfect - but it's the best bad system we can have for the job involved and we should plan ahead with it broadly unaltered for the next decade".  To simply shelve the report would be an insult to all the time and effort put in the the community and volunteers - for free (though the consultants, I'm sure, were paid well); it would look like a lot of work done to console / occupy the community into thinking that the situation had been looked at, but with (perhaps) the initial intensity of showing that things  had been looked at, rather than actually making any changes.

Robin writes "This level of detail is exactly the sort of thing you DON'T want to get involved with now, because urgent action needs to be taken" but yet I'm not sure that I have applied any level of detail.  A dozen broad questions to set the scene, a few ideas (such as the appendix below) a handful of examples to see what it does to existing fares / likely payments by individuals and likely traffic flows, and go for it.  Could be done over a few days work, changes from the January fare change date.   An admission that "this may bring anomalies until [test end date]" and a leaving of the old fares in place / valid as an alternative until December 2021, with a review and decision on keeping the trial changes based on evidence gathered by the end of August 2021.

Three extras for my "are you looking" list - and you may think I am being cynical with these.
Are you looking to bring uncertainty so that you can take over the railways with subdued company and union complaint?
Are you looking to engineer use to balance general economic resurgence against some safety and freedoms?
Are you looking to meet or to suppress community and external stakeholder involvement?

Nice big sheet of paper (A00 or double elephant?) - matrix of ideas versus guesstimated outcome values, then applying importance factor to each of the intent items.   Each idea comes up with a score when they're combined (added or multiple together).

Appendix A:  Considerations of intent
Are you looking to maximise passenger journeys?
Are you looking to maximise income?
Are you looking to balance the load between services?
Are you looking to encourage competition between operators?
Are you looking to encourage multi-buy products to save collection costs and generate loyalty?
Are you looking to minimise the cost to the treasury?
Are you looking to like and be voted for?
Are you looking to encourage journeys that most enhance the economy?
Are you looking to avoid overcrowded trains at the new 'full' level?
Are you looking to set fares to encourage carbon neutral (electric train) use over diesel?
Are you looking to sell seats on quiet trains?
Are you looking for something that simplifies the system?
Are you looking for a scheme that encourages people away from driving and flying?
Are you looking to discourage travel on weekends when you have trouble staffing?
Are you looking to bring uncertainty so that you can take over the railways with subdued company and union complaint?
Are you looking to engineer use to balance general economic resurgence against some safety and freedoms?
Are you looking to meet or to suppress community and external stakeholder involvement?

Appendix B:  Possible changes to evaluate against desired outcome
* 3 day season tickets
* Off peak seasons
* Carnet of 9 journeys for the price of ten
* Advance fare sale at guaranteed price for half capacity of train up to 7 days ahead
* No peak fares
* Fares reset (so no peaks, but risen off peak fares to balance fare basket)
* Fares based on mileage rate + station use charge
* Day returns valid for 24 hours rather than midnight to 4 a.m. next day
* Free travel for accompanies children, 50% for 16 to 21 year olds
* Cycle and dogs to pay half fares (or, rather, their owners/guardians to do so)
* Railcards for all (Bronze, Silver, Gold)
* Groupsave nationwide
* Railcard and groupsave discounts to compound
* Railcards valid against season tickets
* Railcards right withdrawn on fare avoidance
* "Any reasonable route" added to routing guide; quickest route from when you arrive at the station is always valid.
* Bus operators (also under government control) must accept rail tickets for same journey

If the fare system was a bit of a complex mess, significantly inappropriate at times to best meet needs, then it's probab;y all that much more inappropriate now.  But the definition of "needs" - err - needs to be addressed.  What are the objectives your fare strucure and policy?

Are you looking to maximise passenger journeys?
Are you looking to maximise income?
Are you looking to balance the load between services?
Are you looking to encourage competition between operators?
Are you looking to encourage multi-buy products to save collection costs and generate loyalty?
Are you looking to minimise the cost to the treasury?
Are you looking to like and be voted for?
Are you looking to encourage journeys that most enhance the economy?
Are you looking to avoid overcrowded trains at the new 'full' level?
Are you looking to set fares to encourage carbon neutral (electric train) use over diesel?
Are you looking to sell seats on quiet trains?
Are you looking for something that simplifies the system?
Are you looking for a scheme that encourages people away from driving and flying?
Are you looking to discourage travel on weekends when you have trouble staffing?

I've come up with over a dozen things there with just a quick think ... most of them pull in a smiliar direction - but not the same direction, not headed for the same destination either.

I have, in hindsight, come across organisations which have felt the need to refactor what they do / provide for their stakeholders in  a negative way, and they have appointed a heavyweight in the twighlight of his / her career who can take the knocks a bruises as they reduce the organisation, clearing the way for a newcomer at some point a year or two in the future who can rebuilt it - not as good as it was, but then everyone will think of it being good having been through the hatchet and wreckit phase.    I just wonder.

They have a problem with the algorithm ....
"70% of weekly" type algorithm?  Would sometimes decimate income from people travelling twice in a week
"250% of daily type algorithm? Would sometimes work out higher than the weekly season

They have very little scope for coming up with a price on certain flows that is attarctive and people like without decimating the one day a week traffic / making people who travel just one day a week upset unless they cut there fares too.

Chippenham to Paddington
Daily   183.00
Weekly   290.20
Algorithms give 203.15 or 455.00 for 3 days

Peterborough to Kings Cross
Daily   118.20
Weekly   205.60
Algorithms give 149.90 or 295.50 for 3 days
or excluding LNER
Daily   63.10
Weekly   173.40
Algorithms give 121.0 or 157.75 for 3 days

Henley on Thames to Paddington (not Reading)
Daily   32.60
Weekly   100.90
Algorithms give 70.63 or 81.50 for 3 days

Sevenoaks to Charing Cross
Daily   24.60
Weekly   92.70
Algorithms give 64.90 or 61.50 for 3 days

But then they have had YEARS to discuss and think about this.  Me thinks that it's in the "too hard" box, still with no-one wanting to grasp the nettle!

As a none-expert, may I add some thoughts?

I think there are three single line sections - between St Budeaux and Saltash, Liskeard and Bodmin Parkway, and St Erth and Penzance.  The current 30 minute service is probably about the limit though those sections - especially as the through services have to be knitted to fit all three single line sections. But for Truro - Par, really no problem stepping up to a 15 minute service that I can see; might be signalling / headway issues.  Whether such extra trains could be synchronised to the single line to Falmouth running every 30 minutes, the offsets of the eastbound and westbound mainline trains necessitated by the remote single line sections, and the single line via St Blazey to Goonbarrow and then on to Newquay I question / doubt.

Expert comment welcome.


I'm going signal double amber not green ... I am not convinced that post-covid services will rise to pre-covid levels, or levels that were planned at that time.  There is both a risk and an opportunity there - the risk that trains which are doing more than simply adding capacity will be 'taken out', and the opportunity to put in something different and fit for the future.


Technically, it probably could be. Practically, it feels highly unlikely to me in terms of the financial model that would need to be found, the risk that someone would need to take to do it, and the utter off-putting complexity and roadblocks that seem to be thrown in the way of such proposals.

But ... we are in changing times.  We hear talk of localism.  We see some really good stuff from some councils such as Cornwall (and some less that helpful initial reports from our subnational transport boards).  It is not beyond the bounds of dreams to have a Cornwall Metro, run by and within Cornwall / extension to Plymouth. 

Robin, thanks for your strong support and example for keeping threads open for an unlimited period. Always been 'policy' here, totally agree with it, not changing ... and the root of the nightmare of stepping up to the current version of the SMF (Simple Machines forum) software.

The statement of a thread being stale after a couple of weeks is informational, and not a warning; it becomes a warning at 120 days.  Beyond that point, the word "warning" is added, the colour changes from blue to red, and the suggestion of a new thread is added.   For sure, if you've scrolled down and found a thread you'll likely know anyway.  But if you have followed a link from another thread, from away from the forum, from a search engine, from the latest posts of a quieter member, or are on a pinned thread you may not realise the age.

As I write this, I am actually tempted - very temped to change the "over 120 days" message to reflect the actual time period ... not to say "120 days" but perhaps "6 months" or "3 years" ... thoughts??.  As you think, please remember, no way am I suggesting that we close threads.

Difficult, isn't it 

Conclusion

* Threads remain open and available to post in ad infinitum - NO CHANGE
* "Warning - nothing here for over 120 days. Consider new thread" for old threads - NO CHANGE
* "This will be the first post in this topic for 20 days" (JUST AN INFORMATION MESSAGE) for threads over a fortnight old.

If I get screams of horror at the last element, I can take it back out ...

Full normal weekend timetable.   First time since March, last time for at least a month!

From a (different) article in City am

From City am

Dear Guests,

Delighted if you sign up and join us.  Free forum; membership gives you the ability to make posts as read, to post yourself, email yourself notifications and much more.

If you are signing up from an anonymous server, please email us too to let us know - otherwise our system is likely to reject your application.   To quote one of these servers:

The abuse from such systems may indeed be low - but "low" is a lot higher than the zero we see from most of our users, and without an alert you'll worry our server and system into rejecting you.    Few whistle blowers or Chinese dissidents are interested in GWR's trains, we're out-of-country for the US Military (I hope) and we prefer to engage with law enforcement if they need to speak with us knowing who they are.

Signing up requires an email address in any case ... so your anonymity wouldn't last for long from our admins anyway!