Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum [home] and [about]
from GWR - Travel with confidence
Forum in and beyond Coronavirus
DfT Covid Travel Advice
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - Tuesday Club - ONLINE
01/11/20 - Ashley Down Survey Closes
16/11/20 - TransWilts Stakeholders
18/11/20 - Melksham Rail User Group
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 27, 2020, 03:36:46 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[103] Edginswell Station
[90] HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general dis...
[82] Observations from a first major train journey for many months
[76] Devon Metro
[20] Great Western Railway: on-board catering, buffets, Travelling ...
[19] Bristol Temple Meads Station redevelopment
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Poll
Question: Would you like to see the new system designed ...  (Voting closed: September 30, 2020, 01:09:11 pm)
to avoid overcrowded trains at the new 'full' level? - 16 (6.7%)
to balance the load between services? - 14 (5.8%)
to be liked and be voted for? - 5 (2.1%)
to bring uncertainty so that you can run the railways with less union complaint? - 0 (0%)
to discourage travel on weekends when you have trouble staffing? - 0 (0%)
to encourage community and external stakeholder involvement? - 19 (7.9%)
to encourage competition? - 7 (2.9%)
to encourage journeys that most enhance the economy? - 13 (5.4%)
to encourage multi-buy products to save collection costs and generate loyalty? - 11 (4.6%)
to encourage people away from driving and flying? - 27 (11.3%)
to engineer use to balance general economic resurgence against some safety and freedoms? - 6 (2.5%)
to generate income from enhanced options such as catering, 1st class, luggage and cycle charges - 10 (4.2%)
to help marginal consituencies - 2 (0.8%)
to integrate with other modes of public and sustainable transport - 22 (9.2%)
to maximise income? - 3 (1.3%)
to maximise passenger journeys? - 17 (7.1%)
to minimise the cost to the treasury? - 8 (3.3%)
to promote social engieering towards working from home and fewer shorter commutes - 6 (2.5%)
to sell seats on quiet trains? - 18 (7.5%)
to set fares to encourage carbon neutral (electric train) use over diesel? - 12 (5%)
to simplify the system? - 24 (10%)
to suppress community and external stakeholder involvement? - 0 (0%)
to support a vehicle for city and pension investment - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 34

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: The new way of running the rails - what would you LIKE in the new system?  (Read 1259 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30938



View Profile WWW Email
« on: September 21, 2020, 12:59:23 pm »

The Government has announced the end of franchising, interim emergency agreements with the train operators, and will be publishing a white paper to look ahead to a system for the medium and longer term, based on advise from the Williams report.

Two questions.
This thread is what would you like to see as basic objectives of the new system?
Another thread - what do you expect the government to have as priorities in the new system? See http://www.passenger.chat/24041

I will run these two polls for 10 days ... members are allowed during that time to come back and change their votes if their vies change based on discussions.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2020, 01:16:25 pm by grahame » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Bob_Blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 482


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2020, 08:50:59 am »

Aside from all the above, somewhat woolly, options I am of the opinion that our government must not countenance under any circumstances a return to the nationalised British Rail scenario which would allow the calling of the much loved national rail strike.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3409



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2020, 03:31:23 pm »

I voted for simplified fares, and for increasing revenue from first class, catering, cycles and luggage.

The carrying of heavy luggage, cycles, and surfboards could in my view be charged for, especially on busy services. Carrying such items does cost money and could reasonably be charged for IMHO.
Any such charges need to be simple and easy to understand. A flat rate of say 5 pounds per oversize item, might be reasonable ? Applicable to anything within reason, that the owner can handle. Any item needing staff to assist could reasonably be charged at a much higher rate, perhaps 25 pounds.

I am not convinced that catering will ever be hugely profitable, but provision is an important part of running a railway service, and encouraging better provision, and better use of that provision would reduce the total costs.

First class accommodation is sometimes little used in the off peak, and off peak first class fares should arguably be considered.

I also voted for encouraging use of trains rather than flying or driving. If we are serious about climate change, we need to fly and drive A LOT less.

Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1376



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2020, 06:15:44 pm »

I voted for simplified fares, and for increasing revenue from first class, catering, cycles and luggage.

The carrying of heavy luggage, cycles, and surfboards could in my view be charged for, especially on busy services. Carrying such items does cost money and could reasonably be charged for IMHO.
Any such charges need to be simple and easy to understand. A flat rate of say 5 pounds per oversize item, might be reasonable ? Applicable to anything within reason, that the owner can handle. Any item needing staff to assist could reasonably be charged at a much higher rate, perhaps 25 pounds.


There is already provision for a GBP5 charge for oversized items, but it is seldom, if ever charged.
Logged
plymothian
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 655


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2020, 01:06:58 am »

I voted for simplified fares, and for increasing revenue from first class, catering, cycles and luggage.

The carrying of heavy luggage, cycles, and surfboards could in my view be charged for, especially on busy services. Carrying such items does cost money and could reasonably be charged for IMHO.
Any such charges need to be simple and easy to understand. A flat rate of say 5 pounds per oversize item, might be reasonable ? Applicable to anything within reason, that the owner can handle. Any item needing staff to assist could reasonably be charged at a much higher rate, perhaps 25 pounds.


There is already provision for a GBP5 charge for oversized items, but it is seldom, if ever charged.

The AAA Supplement has been abolished, so cannot be charged any more.
Logged

Please be aware that only the first 4 words of this post will be platformed on this message board.
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1413


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2020, 03:30:56 pm »

The poll options are mainly about a new fares system - but the topic title doesn't specify that so I'd like to add:
  • a joined-up decarbonisation strategy combining a rolling programme of electrification with neatly aranged rolling stock cascades to minimise the purchase of new diesel trains (inc. minimising the purchase of any bi/tri/quad-mode units fitted with diesel engines) and minimise running of diesel engines on electrified routes
  • mandatory rolling stock quality standards based on the Rail Delivery Group Key Train Requirements with hard seats and limited legroom etc. restricted to short distance routes
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
southwest
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 136


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2020, 11:30:08 pm »

  • Standardisation of rolling stock across the network.
  • Older diesels fitted with emission reducing technology where practical.
  • Better and more realistic fares that offer a competitive advantage over driving.
  • A better First Class product across all rail operators, no more rubbish hard seats, cheap & nasty fabric, little to no catering.
  • Standard Class to have minimum requirements for privacy, leg room, seat comfort.
  • Basic amenity's for Intercity services, a small buffet (like LNER OR Inter7City), Ability to walk through the entire train.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3409



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2020, 12:49:35 am »

Parts of the two previous posts read almost like a broadgage complaint about IETs.

"hard seats" (and undesirability thereof for long distance services)
"buffets being a basic amenity for inter city services"
"ability to walk through the whole train"
"better first class offering" with implied criticism of the present little or no catering. And not due to the pandemic, it was pretty rubbish before the pandemic.


Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30938



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2020, 08:10:26 am »

The poll options are mainly about a new fares system - but the topic title doesn't specify that so I'd like to add:
  • a joined-up decarbonisation strategy combining a rolling programme of electrification with neatly aranged rolling stock cascades to minimise the purchase of new diesel trains (inc. minimising the purchase of any bi/tri/quad-mode units fitted with diesel engines) and minimise running of diesel engines on electrified routes
  • mandatory rolling stock quality standards based on the Rail Delivery Group Key Train Requirements with hard seats and limited legroom etc. restricted to short distance routes


The poll options are/were intended to look forward far more to what you (or the government in the sister poll at http://www.passenger.chat/24041 ) want to achieve in the medium to long term - outcomes rather than how those outcomes are reached.  How those goals are best reached is for further discussion, with each of the strategies adopted leading to some intermediate operational tactics to help achieve them - vital elements but there to help reach the objectives.  For example, I don't see "softer seats" being a DfT goal, but as part of "maximising income" via getting more passengers on a better-enjoyed service, and charging each of them a higher price for a more expensive product, it's a logical consideration.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5199


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2020, 08:58:01 am »

  • Older diesels fitted with emission reducing technology where practical.

Good idea! I suggest a pantograph and electric motors.

Quote
  • Basic amenity's for Intercity services, a small buffet (like LNER OR Inter7City), Ability to walk through the entire train.

As a minimum, a sufficiency of port.
Logged

Now, please!
1st fan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 290


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2020, 10:31:18 am »

I voted for simplified fares, and for increasing revenue from first class, catering, cycles and luggage.

The carrying of heavy luggage, cycles, and surfboards could in my view be charged for, especially on busy services. Carrying such items does cost money and could reasonably be charged for IMHO.
Any such charges need to be simple and easy to understand. A flat rate of say 5 pounds per oversize item, might be reasonable ? Applicable to anything within reason, that the owner can handle. Any item needing staff to assist could reasonably be charged at a much higher rate, perhaps 25 pounds.


There is already provision for a GBP5 charge for oversized items, but it is seldom, if ever charged.

The AAA Supplement has been abolished, so cannot be charged any more.

Good thing for GWR as they can ban Surfboards then.
Logged
1st fan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 290


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2020, 12:23:53 pm »

  • Standardisation of rolling stock across the network.
  • Older diesels fitted with emission reducing technology where practical.
  • Better and more realistic fares that offer a competitive advantage over driving.
  • A better First Class product across all rail operators, no more rubbish hard seats, cheap & nasty fabric, little to no catering.
  • Standard Class to have minimum requirements for privacy, leg room, seat comfort.
  • Basic amenity's for Intercity services, a small buffet (like LNER OR Inter7City), Ability to walk through the entire train.
I think there's more chance of Concorde coming out of retirement and flying from Paddington to Penzance but I live in hope. [/list]
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 02:59:44 pm by 1st fan » Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3409



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2020, 12:47:21 pm »

  • Older diesels fitted with emission reducing technology where practical.

Good idea! I suggest a pantograph and electric motors.

Quote
  • Basic amenity's for Intercity services, a small buffet (like LNER OR Inter7City), Ability to walk through the entire train.

Certainly support the pantograph and electric motors as an effective means of reducing emissions. In the cases of Voyagers and similar units, there is a lot to be said for adding a single new pantograph vehicle to the existing sets, retaining the diesel engines for use away from the wires.
Diesel engine emissions are of less importance if use is reduced by electric power for a significant part of the route.

As a minimum, a sufficiency of port.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30938



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2020, 01:57:33 pm »

  • Standardisation of rolling stock across the network.
  • Older diesels fitted with emission reducing technology where practical.
  • Better and more realistic fares that offer a competitive advantage over driving.

  • A better First Class product across all rail operators, no more rubbish hard seats, cheap & nasty fabric, little to no catering.
[/b]
  • Standard Class to have minimum requirements for privacy, leg room, seat comfort.
  • Basic amenity's for Intercity services, a small buffet (like LNER OR Inter7City), Ability to walk through the entire train.
I think there's more chance of Concorde coming out of retirement and flying from Paddington to Penzance but I live in hope.

And yet ... there are elements where these are of have been worked towards

For longer distance expresses, new trains are pretty much A300 derivatives these days - whether you call them Javalins, Azumas, IETs, Paragons, Novas or Pip and Emma.  I would expect as the next generation of retirements comes - Adelantes, Castles, Voyagers, Pendelinos, and Meridians  - there to be builds to a new family, but consistent builds, bearing in mind progress made since the A300 was designed and the desire to balance up-to-date design against a single fleet.

We have seen retrofits over the years - re-engineering the Class 43 power cars away from Valenta engines, and we have also seen or are seeing refits of D76 and class 319 stock, and others may follow.

I believe there are already standards for seat pitch, etc;   part of the issue there is that some of the older, softer seats conform less to modern safety standards ... privacy (an in particular keeping one's breath to oneself) may be here sooner than we would have imagined.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3409



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2020, 03:05:56 pm »

I am in favour of standardised designs of new trains for the reasons given, at least as regards the mechanical design, IETs and variants thereof are the future.
One might however hope for internal improvements as suggested by many people in order that they become more suited to inter city operation.

I support the PRINCIPLE of bi-mode operation since it permits of through service to branches not yet electrified, I would hope for more electrification so as to reduce diesel operation.
I also support the fitting of limited diesel power to nominally electric trains for when the wires come down (or when the conductor rail ices up, remember Lewisham)

It should in my view be a statutory requirement that ALL new trains should be able to couple to each other, and to haul or propel each other in case of breakdown etc.
If IETs and variants thereof are to become even more widespread, a close watch needs to be kept to ensure  that ALL variants can couple to and haul each other.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
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] 2
  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 a customer 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). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page