Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 17:55 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
* Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Woman found murdered on Orpington to London train (*)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:48 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
18:04 Bedwyn to Newbury
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
18:26 Newbury to Bedwyn
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
18:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
18:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
14:49 Plymouth to Cardiff Central
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:30 Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 18:02:09 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 63
  Print  
Author Topic: Class 387 coming to Thames Valley - ongoing discussion  (Read 459719 times)
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: March 28, 2015, 17:25:20 »

Charge them a full single from origin to the first advertised stop, yes.

I wonder though whether such a charge would stand up to legal scrutiny?

I think that greater efforts should be made to prevent pax boarding a pick up only service, rather than looking at ways to penalise. Also I don't think it right that west bound Reading passengers should be inconvenienced by the complete removal of stops just because PAD» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-RDG(resolve) commuters are using services they shouldn't.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1243



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 28, 2015, 18:11:21 »

I wonder though whether such a charge would stand up to legal scrutiny?
Theoretical case ...  A person with a full single ticket to Didcot (the first advertised stopping place) decides to break his journey at Reading from a service which is pick-up only Reading.  What could Revenue Protection do in this case? Charge him for another ticket to Didcot? I think BNM's comments refer.
Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: March 28, 2015, 18:51:54 »

Would be interesting to know exactly how this would be policed. I have been on a number of westcountry services over the years that were advertised as pick-up only at Reading, yet there has always been a large exodus on arrival at Reading.

Easiest way in the morning is for all the p/up trains to use one island platform (both sides if needed) with revenue protection at the top of the escalator. Thinking aloud, that would work in both directions actually

Theoretical case ...  A person with a full single ticket to Didcot (the first advertised stopping place) decides to break his journey at Reading from a service which is pick-up only Reading.  What could Revenue Protection do in this case? Charge him for another ticket to Didcot? I think BNM's comments refer.

Thinking aloud now.....
If a service is advertised as p/u only at any location, then somebody with a valid ticket for the specified train, but breaking their journey at a p/u only location is still deliberately flouting the timetabled restriction, so should be charged a penalty fare - whatever that maybe. There is absolutely no excuse. But, I guess the only 'legal' (for revenue protection purposes) way would be to introduce a new ticket restriction.  Then use the mechanism stated by ChrisB above. (??)
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #63 on: March 28, 2015, 20:18:03 »

BNM, no one's suggesting a complete removal. There still needs to be capacity to carry all those widhing to travel (from) there in the peaks. I doubt dufficient extra services can be introduced with acceptable stopping patterns (say Maidenhead &/or Slough?, so some longer distance trains will still need to be full stops there

If the trains p/u only used a pair of separately barriered platforms (one island), intro of smart cards would enable gates to be programmed fir each train & could then refuse entry to Reading smart tickets
Logged
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1243



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2015, 21:00:05 »

But, I guess the only 'legal' (for revenue protection purposes) way would be to introduce a new ticket restriction.  Then use the mechanism stated by ChrisB above. (??)
I honestly think that the best, and fairest way, for all passengers (Reading uploads included) is for key long-distance services - in the peak - not to stop at Reading.  That way it is self policing, passively punitive, and fair to those that want a seat for travel beyond the Thames Valley.  Those from Reading heading west should hopefully find plenty of seats vacated by their resident burghers (who are heading for the exit gatelines) on the allowable subset of Paddington-Reading down fasts.
Logged
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #65 on: March 28, 2015, 21:54:41 »

The two points I'm making are:

1) Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

2) Don't inconvenience westbound Reading passengers by reducing the choice of services they have by having more services non-stop through Reading. And I include in the coming years with increases in frequency to points west. Why shouldn't westbound Reading passengers also benefit from that frequency increase? Reading is a major interchange and nothing should be done to reduce connection opportunities.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #66 on: March 28, 2015, 22:38:18 »

Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

That, I understand.  Wink Cheesy Grin
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #67 on: March 29, 2015, 10:16:16 »

If Reading want a premium metro-style service, let them pay a premium price is my view. They can subsidise others who get a twice hourly service.
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 29, 2015, 12:06:06 »

The two points I'm making are:

1) Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

2) Don't inconvenience westbound Reading passengers by reducing the choice of services they have by having more services non-stop through Reading. And I include in the coming years with increases in frequency to points west. Why shouldn't westbound Reading passengers also benefit from that frequency increase? Reading is a major interchange and nothing should be done to reduce connection opportunities.
I agree that connection opportunities are important, but I don't see how you can stop the wrong passengers boarding at PAD» (Paddington (London) - next trains) except by providing them with a strong disincentive to board. Issuing them with some kind of penalty on arrival at Reading seems to be one way of doing that, but can anyone think of any other approach?
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: March 29, 2015, 14:01:22 »

If Reading want a premium metro-style service, let them pay a premium price is my view. They can subsidise others who get a twice hourly service.

I agree. Given that the main capacity issues on the GW (Great Western) mail line are east of Reading and the price per mile is much lower than the longer distance services it does seem like they want their cake and eat it. 

Stooping boarding at Paddington seems a better option, but considering how short the turn-round times are in the peak sometimes, controlling entry automatically at the barriers would be the only possible way. 
Logged
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1424


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: March 29, 2015, 14:54:03 »

This seems to have gone onto the general service plan rather than just the 387s.

However, in looking at such issues as the Reading stops, considering only the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services via the main line, the suggested stopping pattern per hour for the 9 services in the peak given in the consultation response is:

Reading - 5 (2*Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham, Hereford)
Didcot - 4 (Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham, Worcester SH)
Swindon - 5 (2*Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham, Swansea)
Bristol Parkway - 3
Bristol TM(resolve) - 3
Cardiff - 3
Swansea - 1

Putting it another way, 4 out of 9 services are not scheduled to stop at Reading if that is the adopted pattern.
Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2015, 15:26:19 »

This seems to have gone onto the general service plan rather than just the 387s.

apologies for staying off the original O/P, but maintaining the general service plan discussion...
However, in looking at such issues as the Reading stops, considering only the IEP (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services via the main line......, the suggested stopping pattern per hour ... is:
Reading - 5 (2*Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham, Hereford)
...............
Putting it another way, 4 out of 9 services are not scheduled to stop at Reading if that is the adopted pattern.

Then, add in the other main line services (i.e. via the Berks & Hants @ 2 p/h [??] ) which are all likely to stop at Reading, so 4 out of 11 not stopping is not unreasonable. As a user of longer distance services, whose family has in the past been denied access to seat reservations and had to stand because of Reading commuters, I would like to see some sort of measures put in place to prevent this abuse.
Logged
didcotdean
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1424


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: March 29, 2015, 16:38:42 »

How were you denied access to seat reservations?
Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: March 29, 2015, 18:03:45 »

How were you denied access to seat reservations?
I meant denied access to our reserved seats as opposed to seat reservations.
This occurred a few years ago. Very simply, we could see from the platform at Paddington that our reserved seats had already occupied by 'four suited gentlemen', but because the train was already crowded, we could not actually get to the seats and had to stand [the TM(resolve) would not have been able to walk down through the train if I had been able to find him to complain!] These gentlemen alighted at Reading despite the service being advertised as p/u only and only then were we able to confirm that those were indeed 'our' seats and were able to sit down. 
Logged
trainbus
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: March 29, 2015, 20:21:20 »

I am not a fan of pick-up only trains nowadays. Sadly, in these aggressive open data computer app days, many have scant respect for staff, rules or penalties and the ONLY way you can stop abuse of 'pick-up' only stops and avoid conflict is not to stop! This should apply to those long distance services that, in this case, are expected to be full upon departure from Paddington without Reading only customers. Not such a problem with inbound services as seats will already have been occupied upon arrival at Reading.

Trains with capacity should stop at Reading non-restricted, with westbound customers using space vacated by alighting commuters.

Non-stopping Reading gives a worthwhile commercial advantage to a small number of key trains in the down direction. In other words, bear in mind those high fare customers seeking a fast journey to, say, Exeter, who understandably would prefer not to be in competition with relatively short distance commuters for seats or otherwise.

Whilst I understand the comment about disadvantaging westbound customers from Reading, the flow is nothing like it is from Paddington. Using this argument perhaps all trains should also stop at Ealing Bdy, Slough and Maidenhead!!??  Grin Angry

My golden rule on long distance journeys is to arrive at Paddington before most of the commuters to ensure no problem getting a seat, reserved or otherwise!! Numbers of commuters arrive last minute as they cut it fine, have many trains to choose from and take the first fast whenever that is! Thus introducing a fast shuttle with pick-up only services will not resolve the problem. The first fast train is the first fast train so far as commuters are concerned, irrespective of any nominal restrictions that may or may not apply, or where it may or may not be going after Reading!! Roll Eyes

These are personal views of course, in the full appreciation that capacity is as ever finite, like it or not! The allocation of that capacity amongst the various traveller markets always has been and always will be subject of healthy tension! Grin

« Last Edit: March 29, 2015, 20:48:51 by trainbus » Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 63
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the 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 the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page