Hello from Nailsea

[whole diary]

[Svejk]

Just signed up to the forum after Googling for fellow passengers frustrated at the 'service' that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) provide. I missed my 6 year old son's school carol concert this evening as a result of overcrowding and delays, which was enough for me to complain for the first time (all together now....ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!)

I'm already learning a lot more about the reasons for some of the problems I've experienced just by reading a few random threads, so thanks to you old-timers who have been busy here for a while - I'm already finding this place very valuable!

Cheers

Dave, Nailsea

[John R]

Hello. I'm also a regular from Nailsea, and have been "enjoying" the service over the last week or so. Hope you're not a regular on the 0745. (I'm an 0811 person myself.) Shame both have been arriving after 0830!   

John

[Timmer]

Just signed up to the forum after Googling for fellow passengers frustrated at the 'service' that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) provide. I missed my 6 year old son's school carol concert this evening as a result of overcrowding and delays, which was enough for me to complain for the first time (all together now....ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!)

I'm already learning a lot more about the reasons for some of the problems I've experienced just by reading a few random threads, so thanks to you old-timers who have been busy here for a while - I'm already finding this place very valuable!

Cheers

Dave, Nailsea

Hi Dave, a very warm welcome to the site. Delighted to hear that you are finding this forum of use to you. Do tell your fellow passengers about us as everyone is very welcome.

[Graz]

Welcome aboard Dave, looking forward to hearing news from somewhere quite familiar to me!

[Svejk]

thanks for the welcomes folks

To cut a long story short - I sent a fairly angry and sarcastic mail to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) yesterday evening, then forwarded it to Andrew Haines, and surprisingly received what I take to be a personal reply from Andrew Haines' BlackBerry (or whatever flavour of PDA he has) at about 11:30 last night. That was followed at 8:30 this morning by a 'stock' holding response from (presumably) his exec escalation team this morning saying that he would reply personally when he was able to.

He explained to me that he had been in the Nailsea, Yatton and Worle area last Friday meeting people and listening to their concerns, so it would appear that he at least is taking our concerns about the service seriously. I am a cynic generally, but I was pleasantly surprised by his response.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Dave, hi!

I've also just joined up, and for much the same reason - I missed out on taking my young son to his evening swimming lesson last Thursday, thanks to the abysmal 'service' from First Great Western.  In fact, every evening that I've had to catch a train home, last week and the week before (that is, since their new 'timetable' was introduced), I've suffered delays, cancellations, overcrowding and trains leaving passengers behind at Bristol Temple Meads.  "Enough!" I decided - so I've sent in complaint forms for each such incident, and I await their response(s).

I was impressed that you've apparently got Andrew Haines' e-mail address - could you share that with us, please?  I think he should be made aware of the scale of our collective dissatisfaction with FGW^▸ (First Great Western), and him being e-mailed with our comments personally would perhaps be more effective than just sending standard complaint forms to a call centre in Plymouth?

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year - but I'm dreading resuming my commuting on Wednesday 2 January!

Chris.

[Graz]

Hi Chris, welcome to the board, sorry to hear about the problems at Nailsea...let's hope the new year rings in (positive) changes for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services!!

[Timmer]

Hi Chris, welcome to the board, sorry to hear about the problems at Nailsea...let's hope the new year rings in (positive) changes for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services!!

We know one thing it will be ringing in and thats an increase in fares! But will it ring in an improvement in services?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Now, I know I'm going to be shot down in flames for even suggesting this, but here goes anyway:

I really do not have a problem with the cost of the ticket for my daily commute from Nailsea to Bristol Temple Meads. It is ^3.60 a day (^3.20 if I can start work a bit later in the morning). Compare that with the cost of running a second car so I could drive in, or the higher bus fare for a service which takes a much longer journey time, and there is no debate: travelling to work and home again by train is my best option.

However, that doesn't mean it is the most reliable option. Road traffic volume variations mean that driving or catching a bus are prone to delays - I know, I've done both. Trains, though, where there are regular and frequent scheduled services, run along a specific length of track to a pre-set timetable, ought to avoid those problems. But that is clearly not the case. Accepted, there are problems with wet weather, cold weather, broken signalling, essential members of staff not being available and just good old 'mechanical failures', but trains are not the clear winner they ought to be. 'Historic underfunding' has been the excuse used for some time by First Great Western to justify delays caused by any of these factors.

Which brings me to my (probably unpopular) point. If I could be absolutely sure that the particular train I had chosen from the published timetable would (a) arrive on time; (b) have an empty seat available for me, should I wish to use it; (c) depart on time; and (d) arrive at its destination on time, I would be prepared to pay ^5.00 for that return service. Compare that with the ^3.60 each day that I have to pay now for a service which usually does not deliver (a), (b), (c) or (d) in either direction, and I hope you will see what I mean. It would still compare favourably with the cost of driving and parking a car in Bristol for a day, for example.

On the other hand, I do accept that many will say that we ought to be able to pay ^3.60 and enjoy (a), (b), (c) and (d) anyway, in an ideal world.

In some trepidation, can I ask for any comments on this suggestion?

[grahame]

Which brings me to my (probably unpopular) point. If I could be absolutely sure that the particular train I had chosen from the published timetable would (a) arrive on time; (b) have an empty seat available for me, should I wish to use it; (c) depart on time; and (d) arrive at its destination on time, I would be prepared to pay ^5.00 for that return service. Compare that with the ^3.60 each day that I have to pay now for a service which usually does not deliver (a), (b), (c) or (d) in either direction, and I hope you will see what I mean. It would still compare favourably with the cost of driving and parking a car in Bristol for a day, for example.

In some trepidation, can I ask for any comments on this suggestion?

Chris, that's a very similar point to a number of us have been making with regards to the TransWilts line (Swindon to Westbury and on to Salisbury), where there's a funding shortage and we're looking to work with the local transport authority, the franchise awarder, and the train company to get back to an appropriate level of service - in terms of both timetable and reliabiity.  Put the price of a Melksham to Swindon return up by a couple of quid, put on services every 2 hours (with careful peak hour timings), and you have a real service for the customers and not a system designed to - just - meet the specification where the main timing criterion is when there's a train that's not wanted elsewhere.

I don't know the specifics of Nailsea and Backwell to Bristol ... so I'll leave it to you and others to say how realistic (or otherwise) fares are for that journey. At present, though, I can find you some places where fares bought on the day are around 10p per mile, and others where the fare is 55p per mile.  I can also find you journeys where over 20 different single fares are quoted (plus goodness knows how many returns), and many journeys where you can save a lot of money by doing silly things such as purchasing split or overrrun tickets.  Basically, I think the system is an overcomplex hotchpotch of controlled fares that were set based on how good the lines were in BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days, marketing ploys to fill trains or to generate as much revenue as possible, with further skews depending on competition situations - from other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) or from buses (but does the same company run the buses anyway?)

Interesting you come down to a five pound fare.  How you worked that out in pence per mile?   Would you then consider it rising to match inflation in subsequent years?

[Mookiemoo]

Now, I know I'm going to be shot down in flames for even suggesting this, but here goes anyway:

I really do not have a problem with the cost of the ticket for my daily commute from Nailsea to Bristol Temple Meads. It is ^3.60 a day (^3.20 if I can start work a bit later in the morning). Compare that with the cost of running a second car so I could drive in, or the higher bus fare for a service which takes a much longer journey time, and there is no debate: travelling to work and home again by train is my best option.

However, that doesn't mean it is the most reliable option. Road traffic volume variations mean that driving or catching a bus are prone to delays - I know, I've done both. Trains, though, where there are regular and frequent scheduled services, run along a specific length of track to a pre-set timetable, ought to avoid those problems. But that is clearly not the case. Accepted, there are problems with wet weather, cold weather, broken signalling, essential members of staff not being available and just good old 'mechanical failures', but trains are not the clear winner they ought to be. 'Historic underfunding' has been the excuse used for some time by First Great Western to justify delays caused by any of these factors.

Which brings me to my (probably unpopular) point. If I could be absolutely sure that the particular train I had chosen from the published timetable would (a) arrive on time; (b) have an empty seat available for me, should I wish to use it; (c) depart on time; and (d) arrive at its destination on time, I would be prepared to pay ^5.00 for that return service. Compare that with the ^3.60 each day that I have to pay now for a service which usually does not deliver (a), (b), (c) or (d) in either direction, and I hope you will see what I mean. It would still compare favourably with the cost of driving and parking a car in Bristol for a day, for example.

On the other hand, I do accept that many will say that we ought to be able to pay ^3.60 and enjoy (a), (b), (c) and (d) anyway, in an ideal world.

In some trepidation, can I ask for any comments on this suggestion?

Thats exacty how I feel

If my cotswold line season ticket was - even - twice the price - I would pay it - IF I had a reasonably reliable service OR could rely on not sitting on a turbo for 3 hours!

[John R]

But then I would suggest that you are in the top 1% or 2% of earners, and could afford to pay twice the price. Rest assured if prices were doubled you would not have any problem with overcrowding. The majority of the population find trains fares are already quite high enough as a proportion of their income and would not wish to see further steep fare increases. On a journey like Nailsea to Bristol the fare is relatively low because of the distance, so 40% fare increases son't seem much in absolute terms. But once you get beyond 15 miles or so, the cost is already quite steep, and so would the increases be in absolute terms.

Besides these fare increases would not be required if FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were not required to pay a premium to the DaFT^» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about) and instead were able to invest the money in providing a better service. I think most people would resent having effectively to pay the government more for the priviledge of travelling to work. It would effectively be a tax.