Alright, which four lunatics voted for Voyagers  ;  )

Mark III would be useless as it needs something to haul it ; )

Underfloored engines with wide centre doors win every time for this sort of work. 170 variants are by far the most suitable, although to be fair for short distance stop start stuff, electric units win every time.

It's also slower as everything now stops at Reading and a lot more trains stop at Didcot. I don't think any services miss Reading out now, even the Bristolian now stops there.

Personally I'd axe the Heathrow Express, double the frequency of Connect, and use the fast lines to provide an improved commuter service to Reading and Didcot. It might then be possible for some of the longer distance trains to skip these stops. This of course will never happen.

Removing buffet cars from trains not only means less seating but less standing room as well, with no buffets that passengers can prop up on. Also the H vestibule is now needed by staff for the PA^▸ (Public Address) and trolley storage as there is no buffet car, and hence some staff have banned passengers from standing there, because it now becomes the only place the staff can stand. The natural barrier between first and standard is also lost.

The only exception to this is if a member of traincrew is booked to take their break on the train, then they are entitled to a seat. Equally retired staff do not have to give up their seats.

Guards are certainly are allowed to travel in the rear cab or brake van, when travelling on duty. Plus at least other staff will know where they are if there is an incident, rather than trawling the whole train for them.

Incidentally drivers used to be allowed to ride up the front when on duty travelling, but this has been stopped now. Presumably to avoid distracting the driver of the train, although given that HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s had two drivers until the 90's, I don't see the logic in it.

Oh and Maggot Wagon (looks like a maggot on wheels), Ice Cream Van, Doner Van, Variety Sunshine Club bus...

These figures are listed here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2007/mar/26/travelnews.transportintheuk1

Note that it mentions the 07:26 Northampton to New Street, which is incorrect is is supposed to be the 08:01 Coventry to New Street.

This train used to regularly have to turn passengers away, although it was slightly alleviated by the previous service, stopping at Tile Hill when the timetable was changed.

Seems logical therefore to provide an improved and more suitable commuter / regional type service on this part of the network, and leave the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s to what they do best, i.e. 125mph running with limited stops. HST's with their door layout and acceleration just aren't suitable trains for this sort of job.

I'd assume there is still some demand for direct Weston to London services though, so maybe have a small number of through ones, which only serve Weston and Nailsea (for easier changing purposes than Bristol), assuming a decent alternative and more suitable commuter service can be provided to make up for the smaller stations.

Of course this isn't likely to happen unless more stock is sourced from somewhere.

Definitely! The same applies to catering and cleaning. Staff morale and standards are much higher when the staff are part of the company, and have travel facilities and proper pensions, rather than being contracted agency workers, many only temporary and low pay.

But at least OTHER TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s including First ScotRail etc, are running most of their services correctly, and not cancelling them like flies around a jam jar
[/quote]

As another poster as pointed out, Central trains and to a lesser degree Silverlink and Midland Mainline have done exactly just that. Great Western certainly is nowhere near perfect, but it's a myth that other operators are much better.

There is an action that can be taken by passengers, that will delay On train staff greatly, but thats another story.
[/quote]

Which isn't likely to endear them to the cause, if they are being made to fill in extra reports about delays or incidents.

Voyagers are without a doubt the worst long distance stock I have ever travelled on. Overcrowding is often horrendous, it's not too infrequent that passengers are turned away from travelling on them, and the seating is far too upright and uncomfortable. Two four car voyagers actually have less seats than one 2+7 HST^▸ (High Speed Train).

They don't appear to be overly popular with the staff either, the guard rather than having a guards van or a back cab appears to share a tip up seat in a fairly public area with the stewards, and doesn't actually even have a window to look out of. Indeed I've seen their own staff rammed in vestibules with the punters on a regular basis, as they don't appear to have any proper accomodation for themselves to sit in!

Because of the tapered bodysides, the standing room in vestibles is also far more uncomfortable than other trains. The fixtures and fittings rattle away, which I believe is due to poor design rather than underfloor engines, the 170's, 180's and 158's certainly don't seem anywhere near as bad.

However the increase in frequency was definitely welcome, timekeeping isn't generally that bad, and the onboard staff are superb.

It would be against the national conditions of carriage not to show a ticket when requested, if you have one in your posession. However my understanding is that if that you are not in possession of a valid ticket or don't show it, but you give an authorised fares collector a correct name and address when requested, then you can dispute the subsequent unpaid fares notice or penalty fare in writing as long as you do it within ten days of receiving it. Of course the company has the right to take you to court, and claim court costs as well as the outstanding fare. If you refuse to give a name or address or a false one, or ignore the penalty fare then you can be prosecuted.

If passengers do believe they have a case to 'fare strike', then they should politely give the staff their name and address and then fight their case in the court. Obviously that would require someone who knows the law fully to confirm if this is an option, but I am fairly sure you have a legal right to dispute it.

Certainly on occasions where police are called to fare evaders, the first question they tend to ask the guard / ticket collector is 'did you ask for a name and address'.

Surely the solution is for the fare strikers to refuse politely to show a ticket, but give their correct name and address to any authorised ticket collector. That way when they are given a penalty fare, or unpaid fares notice for not having a ticket, instead of paying it, they can exercise their right to dispute it and remain within the law. Of course it may well then go to court, but if they do have a case, then they can debate it there.

Then let the lawyers on both sides debate the case, and let the courts deal with it rather than causing hassle for frontline staff or having riots on the platforms. No doubt the fare strike groups are aware and have researched all of the legal issues, and have appropriate people to defend their case, if members are taken to court.

A side effect being that, going down the this route would also mean the usual assorted bunch of ticketless miscreants and general human sewage who never pay and cause trouble for decent passengers and staff alike can't hide behind this 'political protest', as another excuse to bunk the train.

National Express?

They've done a sterling job with 'One' and Central Trains. Both First Great Eastern and Anglia had reasonably good reputations, Anglia Intercity in particular. One in comparison is dire.

Central Trains meanwhile was a continual hotbed of industrial action. Loads of strikes and large scale bustitution on Sundays. Also ask Northampton commuters how they feel about their Birmingham to London Silverlink service being severed in two, and what was once an express service, now turning into an extension of the West Midlands PTE^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) stopping Birmingham to Coventry train.

Stagecoach?

SWT^▸ (South West Trains): Handing back perfectly good 442 units (effectively a 3rd rail unit version of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)), and cascading 3+2 seating commuter units onto Portsmouth to London mainline expresses, so that the express trains from the Portsmouth routes could be used to on the Weymouth line, in order to save a bit of money.

East Midlands Trains: Removal of buffet cars, replacing HST's on London to Sheffield services with Voyager derivative trains.

Things aren't always as perfect as they might seem!

I think the vast majority of the problem with all of this is that HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s are now being used to deputise for local stopping commuter services, which they just are not designed for. SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) and serving these stops is a positive step, if it allows HST's to pick up and set down when local services are cancelled or delayed, but they just aren't suitable traction for stopping services.

Stopping HST's at places such as Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Thatcham or Reading West is rather strange it must be said. It is similar to using Virgin's Pendolinos to serve Wembley Central, Cheddington, Wolverton, or using East Coast 225's on Peterborough - Kings Cross stoppers. I agree there is a case for additional calls of HSTs at sizeable towns at the very extremities of the old NSE^▸ (Network South East) network (e.g.) Hungerford and support stopping more trains at Didcot Parkway.

I'd also question as to whether places like Worle and Weston Milton actually warrant an HST to London. It's not dissimilar to stopping Wolverhampton to London Intercity Trains at all intermediate suburban stops between Wolverhampton and New Street or Birmingham International and Coventry. Surely the vast majority of these people are commuting just to Bristol?

Great Western appear to be stuffed up somewhere where local and commuter services are concerned, and don't have enough suitable local and regional stock, and it appears to be a rushed and panicky solution, to what is a long term problem. The priority should really be looking at suitable ways to provide high quality commuter and regional services. No doubt someone will point out that there is some good reason why companies like London Midland can have a fleet of turbostars and new 350's on order to replace their 150 and 321 fleet, where as Great Western cannot. Personally, I think a decent order of a fleet of 4 or 5 car 172s with corridor connections for Thames Valley and West services is a far better use of money, and would do far more for the reptuation of Great Western than tinkering around with the electrics of 30 year old trains designed for limited stop mainline express routes. As for the question of who will pay for it, who's paying for the recent London Midland, South Eastern or Southern orders? If they can get new traction, why can't Great Western? And isn't getting rid of 180s largely insane?