We want more room!

[whole diary]

[Ollie]

My local station is Reading.
For some reason whenever I get a train from Reading it's always around quarter to the hour.

[swlines]

Did you use SWT^▸ (South West Trains) when it ran into Reading? I think they should start running into Reading again really.

[grahame]

Whats a 142? Whens the referb? What will this give us? How much more will our season tickets cost? Guys, you have to remember not all of us understand your jargon! 

Three letter acronyms (or 3 digit ones) and other jargon are always a bit of a debatable point.  Avoid them and you end up with very long posts, use them and you render the whole thing hard to follow.

We have a page of acronyms at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html which at least tells you what some of the train types and other abbreviations are. And please ask about any others or for clarification - if you are wondering, then so are others!

[grahame]

All the same I have to confess, travelling from Melksham to Basingstoke via Reading (as I regularly do) I think I'd much rather have the admittedly crowded two coach half-hourly service I get at the end of the journey than the no trains at all between dawn and dusk service I get at the start. Maybe that's just me being unreasonable though.

Yes, I sometimes get that jealous feeling too when I hear of a train service that runs 36 times as often as our, Phil (3 and hour v 2 a day!).   Miss the 07:17 at Melksham (my home town too), and your next train in the same direction is at 19:47.

What we need to focus on, though, is the right improvements for everyone, and as rarely as possible do so based on having winners in one area provoking major loosers in another. And what is "right" will differ.   

On the TransWilts (that's your line through Melksham), a truely appropriate service would be one train each way every hour, according to a report I received under FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information). That's not going to happen any time soon, but major steps towards it might, and it would not be done by using stock from the same pool as Reading - Basingstoke uses.

On Reading - Basingstoke, frankly, I don't know what would be appropriate and I will defer to others to tell us.  Longer trains?   More of them?  More authoritative Train Managers to tell people to get their bags off seats?

I have referred elsewhere to a standard that I made up for train loading and I called in "Nesting" - that's "Nearly Every Seat Taken" and it's a loading limit that would be nearly reached as often as possible without being exceeded apart from as rarely as possible - a tipping point if you like.   How does Reading - Basingstoke match up to NESTing?


P.S. By "taken", I mean with a human traveller and not someone's luggage 

[Commuting Bookworm]

In my carraige this morning, there was 4 seats empty, however 5 people standing. The reason no one sat on the seats, was it would of been rather squashed and since we are not London commuters, not used to squashing.

[devon_metro]

So in essence, a third carriage would be a waste??

[Commuting Bookworm]

No, becuase tonight more will be standing, and since we all pay for a seat, and also if people could get on the train knowing they could get a seat then that surely would releve presure from the x country services?

[devon_metro]

As a matter of fact, a ticket does not entitle you to a seat!

Over to swlines...

[swlines]

Yup - slightly busy at the moment, but a ticket only entitles you to travel - a seat is just an added benefit.

Will add more in 30 minutes.

EDIT: From NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage):

When you buy a ticket to travel on the National Rail Network you enter into an
agreement with the Train Companies whose trains you have the right to use. That
agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the
stations or within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought.

7. Train Company^s responsibilities
The Train Company whose trains you have the right to use, or who has agreed to
provide you with any other goods or services, is responsible for providing the
goods or services it has agreed to provide. However, the Train Company or its
agent(s) are not responsible for:
(a) another Train Company not running any trains;
(b) another person not providing goods or services;
(c) any losses that occur while you are travelling on any other Train Company^s
trains;
(d) any losses that occur while you are using those other goods or services.
However, each Train Company or its agent(s) will help you if you have a claim
(see Condition 63) or a complaint about your journey, either by dealing with the
matter itself or by passing it on to the Train Company(s) or other person(s)
providing the goods or services in question.

[Phil]

On Reading - Basingstoke, frankly, I don't know what would be appropriate and I will defer to others to tell us.  Longer trains?   More of them?  More authoritative Train Managers to tell people to get their bags off seats?

From my experience I'd say cancelling the little-used late morning (circa. 11am) and early afternoon (circa. 2pm) trains - especially a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) unit which runs just behind a Cross Country one on the same route - and using the stock to double the length of equivalent rush-hour trains would probably go a long way towards restoring the goodwill of the regular commuters on that route.

[Commuting Bookworm]

Phil, That sounds like a really good idea!

[Lee]

On Reading - Basingstoke, frankly, I don't know what would be appropriate and I will defer to others to tell us.  Longer trains?   More of them?  More authoritative Train Managers to tell people to get their bags off seats?

From my experience I'd say cancelling the little-used late morning (circa. 11am) and early afternoon (circa. 2pm) trains - especially a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) unit which runs just behind a Cross Country one on the same route - and using the stock to double the length of equivalent rush-hour trains would probably go a long way towards restoring the goodwill of the regular commuters on that route.

How many services would Mortimer and Bramley lose under this proposal? Are you proposing service gaps (vigorously opposed by stakeholders and passengers when tried at stations in the Greater Bristol area) or something along the lines of the Jacobs recommendation (again likely to be seen as a service cut, and strongly opposed) ?

Our analysis has identified low off-peak usage at Tilehurst, Pangbourne, Goring, Cholsey, Mortimer and Bramley. In this option the off-peak service frequency at these stations is reduced from 2tph to 1tph.

These frequency reductions will offer a worthwhile performance benefit with the removal of 1 tph on what are both congested route sections.

This option may have a negative impact on rail^s contribution to the market, however it may release paths which could be used by other operators (e.g. freight.)

The reduction in operating costs from reducing the off peak frequency at certain stations outweighs the revenue loss. The option is broadly neutral in economic terms.

My personal opinion is that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FGW wouldnt risk it, given the opposition they encountered when proposing service cuts elsewhere in the franchise.

[Phil]

My personal opinion is that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) wouldnt risk it, given the opposition they encountered when proposing service cuts elsewhere in the franchise.

Speaking as a resident of Melksham, my personal opinion of the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) and FGW's likely reaction to public opposition to service cuts is probably unprintable here.

[Lee]

My personal opinion is that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) wouldnt risk it, given the opposition they encountered when proposing service cuts elsewhere in the franchise.

Speaking as a resident of Melksham, my personal opinion of the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) and FGW's likely reaction to public opposition to service cuts is probably unprintable here.

On Melksham/TransWilts, as you know, I strongly agree with you.

There is a different mindset in certain other parts of the franchise area, though, and the key to understanding why that is probably lies in continued study of the plans put forward (past, present and future) by the DfT, FGW, Network Rail and others, along with the relevant political aspects.

[grahame]

I'm probably missing something here folks, but I don't see how cutting out a train in the middle of the day (which is something i would not suggest in all but the most exceptional of circumstances!) would make it more available in the peak hour.  Wasn't that what was being suggested - perhaps it was tongue in cheek?

If someone could invent a way for a train being in two places at the same time between 7 and 10 a.m. and then again between 4 and 7 p.m., at the "expense" of it being nowhere at all in the six hours in between, then that person would transform the whole economics of commuter services at a stroke.