Severn Beach Line; trains, performance, tickets and usage

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

So he's become aware of the delays and unreliability, yet hasn't amended his travel plans to get an earlier service to sign on.

Were I a potential employer, I would be concerned that Mr Brindle hadn't found himself able to adjust his personal plans and invest an extra 40 minutes to ensure he was on time when it became clear to him there was a problem.  It could be that there are issues that prevented him from travelling earlier - for example having to drop off the little one at childcare, but if that were the case it would raise concerns about his taking this story to the media.

I'm very conscious that we don't invade passenger's personal space and issues here. However, by going to ITV Mr Brindle has put himself and his situation in the public domain.  Should he happen to read this, he is very welcome indeed to sign up, fill us in, comment ... as always with this sort of media thing, our story might not be complete.

Two points - firstly, a customer, whether he is employed or not and irrespective of their personal circumstances, should not have to fit his schedule around the daily failure of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to provide the service that they are advertising, however the sentiment typifies the attitude of the railways and their cheerleaders towards the travelling public.

Secondly, and in respect of the Press article, GWR have not "invested in a fleet of Turbo trains", they have just moved a few 20+ year old trains from one area to the other, judging by the reaction of some to this, it would seem to be akin to a visitation from the Messiah. 

[John R]

Two points - firstly, a customer, whether he is employed or not and irrespective of their personal circumstances, should not have to fit his schedule around the daily failure of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) to provide the service that they are advertising, however the sentiment typifies the attitude of the railways and their cheerleaders towards the travelling public.

I agree a customer should not have to, but ultimately it is the employee's responsibility to present themselves to work on time. And in the case in question, with an appointment time past noon, it's unlikely that childcare arrangements would prevent him taking an earlier train.

[JayMac]

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are providing an unreliable service and our collective answer here is to question how the person highlighting this lives his life?

[John R]

As has been noted, Mr Brindle has put his personal situation into the public domain, and thus I think discussion is reasonable.

As an employee for over 30 years I have made it my responsibility to get to work on time, because it is what my employers would expect, and indeed what most employers would expect. That isn't to say that there have been unforeseeable situations whereby I have been late, but where on the balance of probabilities there has been a risk of delay, I have made the appropriate adjustments. If I were in his situation, I would get an earlier train until such time as it appeared that the problems were resolved.

[broadgage]

In theory, people should not have to adjust their lives to compensate for the regular inefficiency of the railway.
Back in the real world, if continued employment, or continued receipt of benefits is at risk due to regular railway failures, then yes it would be prudent to allow a generous safety margin when travelling on todays railway.

One of the reasons that I left London was the poor and subjectively worsening public transport. I had the choice of southern/thameslink, which was relatively quick but so unreliable that I had to take the train prior to the one that should have got me to work. There was of course no question of getting a seat after the new shorter trains were introduced.

There was also the risk of being trapped for hours when everything stopped due to signalling improvements.

Alternatively, I could take the bus. This was cheaper and less stressful but very slow. I always got a seat on the bus, but only because I boarded at the second stop. After the first few stops the bus reached GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) standards of overcrowding. Each year the bus journey took slightly longer, due to ever increasing road blocking and traffic obstructing schemes.

So yes, I had to plan my life around the inefficiencies of the public transport system, as do many others.

[TaplowGreen]

In theory, people should not have to adjust their lives to compensate for the regular inefficiency of the railway.
Back in the real world, if continued employment, or continued receipt of benefits is at risk due to regular railway failures, then yes it would be prudent to allow a generous safety margin when travelling on todays railway.

One of the reasons that I left London was the poor and subjectively worsening public transport. I had the choice of southern/thameslink, which was relatively quick but so unreliable that I had to take the train prior to the one that should have got me to work. There was of course no question of getting a seat after the new shorter trains were introduced.

There was also the risk of being trapped for hours when everything stopped due to signalling improvements.

Alternatively, I could take the bus. This was cheaper and less stressful but very slow. I always got a seat on the bus, but only because I boarded at the second stop. After the first few stops the bus reached GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) standards of overcrowding. Each year the bus journey took slightly longer, due to ever increasing road blocking and traffic obstructing schemes.

So yes, I had to plan my life around the inefficiencies of the public transport system, as do many others.

No need to quote the real world at me Broadgage, I've been coping with GWR's (and their predecessors) versions of it for many years - your points however do serve to illustrate why the car remains a far, far better and more reliable option, and any pretence that the railways have to supersede it as a realistic option are a mere pipe dream.

[LiskeardRich]

your points however do serve to illustrate why the car remains a far, far better and more reliable option, and any pretence that the railways have to supersede it as a realistic option are a mere pipe dream.

My current commute by car can take from 20 mins to 90 mins depending what time I start. Those delays can be no different to that of the train.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Yes - I wouldn't doubt your experience, TG, but you can't extrapolate it everywhere. Whatever indignities Thames, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have visited upon us in Charlbury over the years, in aggregate the train has been far more reliable than Wolvercote and Peartree roundabouts.

[TaplowGreen]

your points however do serve to illustrate why the car remains a far, far better and more reliable option, and any pretence that the railways have to supersede it as a realistic option are a mere pipe dream.

My current commute by car can take from 20 mins to 90 mins depending what time I start. Those delays can be no different to that of the train.

Do you ever find yourself so overcrowded in your car that you spend the entire journey standing wedged between other people for over an hour? Or confined in similar conditions in over 100 degree heat because there is no working aircon or open windows?

[LiskeardRich]

your points however do serve to illustrate why the car remains a far, far better and more reliable option, and any pretence that the railways have to supersede it as a realistic option are a mere pipe dream.

My current commute by car can take from 20 mins to 90 mins depending what time I start. Those delays can be no different to that of the train.

Do you ever find yourself so overcrowded in your car that you spend the entire journey standing wedged between other people for over an hour? Or confined in similar conditions in over 100 degree heat because there is no working aircon or open windows?

I've an MPV so lots of room, and ice cold climate control

[IndustryInsider]

...your points however do serve to illustrate why the car remains a far, far better and more reliable option, and any pretence that the railways have to supersede it as a realistic option are a mere pipe dream.

Has anybody on here ever suggested that the train always trumps the car?  The car wins in some situations, the train in others, just as a plane, bicycle or good old fashioned walk can be the best option.

The fact journey numbers have more than doubled over the last twenty years, far more than the population increase over the same time period, indicates the train has become the best option for more people and more journeys, but of course it's never going to replace the car.

[TaplowGreen]

...your points however do serve to illustrate why the car remains a far, far better and more reliable option, and any pretence that the railways have to supersede it as a realistic option are a mere pipe dream.

Has anybody on here ever suggested that the train always trumps the car?  The car wins in some situations, the train in others, just as a plane, bicycle or good old fashioned walk can be the best option.

The fact journey numbers have more than doubled over the last twenty years, far more than the population increase over the same time period, indicates the train has become the best option for more people and more journeys, but of course it's never going to replace the car.

I think you're missing the point - journey numbers have indeed more than doubled but you're confusing two issues -  reliability, capacity, cleanliness, customer service etc have nowhere near kept pace - the usage of something increasing doesn't necessarily indicate that it's the "best" option, for a large number of people it has been, and remains, the only option, and that allows the Rail Industry to get away with a great deal, including attitudes like "well you'd better leave home an hour earlier" in response to the issue of reliability/punctuality causing people problems reaching work, appointments etc on time rather than getting it's own house in order in respect of increasing punctuality and reliability.

[IndustryInsider]

Who from the railway industry has ducked responsibility and said it's up to the passenger travelling to get an earlier train?

[TaplowGreen]

Who from the railway industry has ducked responsibility and said it's up to the passenger travelling to get an earlier train?

I've cited an attitude, not a statement. There is a difference.

One is implicit, the other is explicit.

[John R]

There are two separate points here, and it's important not to confuse them.  The first is should the railway run a reliable service, and I am sure we are all in agreement that it should.

The second point is what attitude and personal responsibility people adopt when faced with a situation whereby the service is flakey on a regular basis (as experienced out of our region by many Southern commuters for the last year unfortunately). The person seeking work who was complaining to the media appeared to take the view that he wasn't going to change his approach, and if he was late for his appointment then so be it. Other courses of action are possible, even if they involve a bit more effort of personal inconvenience, and they may be more symptomatic of a work ethic and attitude that is likely to encourage prospective employers to take him on.