Bedwyn - London Paddington Service Was The UK's Most Overcrowded In 2006

[whole diary]

[Lee]

The 0635 Bedwyn - London Paddington service was the most overcrowded train service in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) in 2006 (link below.)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2007/july2007/foitenmostcrowded/foicrowdedtrains2

The 0614 Oxford - London Paddington , 1752 London Paddington - Worcester Shrub Hill and the 1806 London Paddington - Oxford also made the "overcrowding top ten."

So , just to recap , 4 OUT OF THE TOP TEN most overcrowded train services in the UK in 2006 were operated by FIrst Great Western , whose fleet size was agreed to be reduced as part of the new franchise.

An interesting aside is this March 2007 Transport 2000 link revealing the 10 train services "that most urgently need their capacity increased." (link below.)
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=365

For some reason , no FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services appear.

[Lee]

A caveat would be that , although the request asked for the 10 most overcrowded services in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) , the table states that "this table refers to arrivals in or departures from London , for London & South East commuter services."

That said , number 10 on the list , the 0637 Hertford East - London Liverpool Street service , had a load factor of 147% , whereas number 1 on the Transport 2000 list , the 0759 Durham - Newcastle service was over capacity by 88%.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) table states "Load factor - the value in this column refers to the number of passengers in excess of the maximum allowable passenger capacity for that service , expressed as a percentage."

However , it also states "a train which has the same passenger load as the passenger capacity has a load factor of 100%"

So it could be read both ways.

The figures suggest that the top 4 services on the DfT list were between 50 - 55% over capacity. This means that they should all have made it into the Transport 2000 list.

3 of them are FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services , and the other one , poetically enough , is a First Capital Connect service.

[Lee]

The Times have picked up on this (link below.)
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/article2051555.ece

[Timmer]

The Times have picked up on this (link below.)
http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/article2051555.ece

A concerning article. December's timetable change is going to be very interesting indeed and remains to be seen how FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are going to run extra services when they lose more rolling stock which looks like its going to happen despite rumours of renogiations with Dft. Surely we are not going to see another repeat of last December's chaos??

[grahame]

Surely we are not going to see another repeat of last December's chaos??

There is a school of thought that says that the train operator knew there would be chaos last December and consulted widely in order to have passengers think that they really had an input ... and to think that the input provided lead to the best solution that was managable in the circumstances.   But the train operator is more sure that it can provide some positive changes this time (and it damned well should be able to, considering how low the current quality is!) so it doesn't feel the need to consult as widely.

[Lee]

Here is a BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) link on this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6289430.stm

[Timmer]

Surely we are not going to see another repeat of last December's chaos??

There is a school of thought that says that the train operator knew there would be chaos last December and consulted widely in order to have passengers think that they really had an input ... and to think that the input provided lead to the best solution that was managable in the circumstances.   But the train operator is more sure that it can provide some positive changes this time (and it damned well should be able to, considering how low the current quality is!) so it doesn't feel the need to consult as widely.

A very strong school of thought I would think. A five year old could have told you that if you run a four coach train between Bath Spa and Bristol and that on most days the service is pretty busy but enough room on most occasions to get a seat. You then remove two of the four coaches and what do you get? chaos and people left behind in the rain at Oldfield Park and Keynsham. Things are back to the OK stage at the moment because theres enough stock on hand once again, but what happens when we wave bye bye to 12 158s come december? 

I hope MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) are on standby for that but isnt it FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s plan to stop HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) from London at Oldfield Park and Keynsham so services from Frome and Warminster can run as two coaches as they won't need to pick up so many passengers at Bath, Oldfield and Keynsham?

I can see it now all the managers at FGW with cheeky grins round a table thinking we can solve all our problems at once, get rid of more stock saving lots of money, get even more return on the cattle truck refurb HSTs by stopping them everywhere where theres a platform, shut all those moaning commuters by giving them a nice long train and to top it all off whilst they are singing our praises cos we've solved the overcrowding problem and given them nice trains to travel to work on, we'll jack the fairs up again in January...Sorted! (well they will do that whatever stock they are running I know)

[grahame]

I can see it now all the managers at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) with cheeky grins round a table thinking we can solve all our problems at once, get rid of more stock saving lots of money, get even more return on the cattle truck refurb HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) by stopping them everywhere where theres a platform, shut all those moaning commuters by giving them a nice long train and to top it all off whilst they are singing our praises cos we've solved the overcrowding problem and given them nice trains to travel to work on, we'll jack the fairs up again in January...Sorted! (well they will do that whatever stock they are running I know)

I don't mind them making good use of resources to provide a good service - praise where it's due - but I wouldn't want to forget that we took 10 steps back last December and need to take an awful lot forward to get things even back to where they were.

On the line I use (we've really wandered on this thread!) that would be be 3 extra round trips each day AND retiming the other two so that they're at a time when people want to travel.    And to be fair again - I don't know that the 06:19 from Swindon to Westbury is nearly empty as I've never had the means to get up to Swindon to try it out.   Has anyone used it?  Can they tell me about the loading?

[Lee]

I hope MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain) are on standby for that but isnt it FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s plan to stop HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) from London at Oldfield Park and Keynsham so services from Frome and Warminster can run as two coaches as they won't need to pick up so many passengers at Bath, Oldfield and Keynsham?

Keynsham yes , Oldfield Park no. See quote below.

I take it the sentences with strike thoughare services that are being changed/dropped?

Proposed new wording is underlined , proposed deleted text is lined through.

What I particularly noticed was the following :

- Certain London - Bristol services to call at Keynsham but NOT Oldfield Park as originally suggested by FGW.

- No change proposed to the routeing of the Cardiff - Portsmouth specification.

- No changes proposed to either the Melksham or Severn Beach line specifications.

[BandHcommuter]

The 0635 Bedwyn - London Paddington service was the most overcrowded train service in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) in 2006

As a regular user of this service, I would contend that this is a complete misrepresentation of reality. Before the December 2006 timetable change, this was a 6 car turbo, and I would often enjoy four seats to myself throughout the journey. Following the timetable change it became a 5 coach adelante (starting back from Westbury), with a significantly shorter journey time. Even now, with fewer seats, I wouldn't call this train crowded (there is some standing between Theale and Reading). I can only assume that a single count took place on a day when there happened to be some service disruption, causing exceptional numbers to joint the train at Reading.

From my considerable experience of peak travel on several routes into London, I would say that Paddington commuters still enjoy relative comfort compared with some others (e.g. Thameslink, South West Trains), and I would seriously question the integrity of data which suggests otherwise.

[Lee]

Here are a couple of other views on this :

You may be interested to know that the Bedwyn to London train in question was run under the old timetable, and has now been replaced by two trains - a rare case of an improvement in the service due to the new timetable! It was a two set turbo, which on my observation (I board at Newbury) normally had no seats after stopping at Reading West. It filled up with standing passengers at Reading, though the number quoted in the FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) request sounds excessive.

The two replacement services were one set Adelantes (I believe 282 seats each), which came from Westbury and Frome respectively. The result was that both trains had no spare seats by Thatcham, and were absolutely packed from Reading - more so than the one service they replaced. I don't think this was not helped by a reduction in high speed capacity through Reading. Following the efforts of a number of people, including the Newbury MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), FGW^▸ (First Great Western) agreed that the later service should be run as a two set Adelante, the second set being open from Newbury. Even this morning, this two set service still has standing from Reading.

I suspect a similar FOI request for 2007 would show a far worse position for a number of FGW services through Reading - particularly those from Oxford, and the those stopping at Maidenhead and Twyford.

Interesting reading, though I am always slightly sceptical of the accuracy of these reports/surveys. Who exactly counted the 771 passengers so accurately on the 06:35 ex Bedwyn? It couldn't be done ON the train as nobody could move through the train as it's so crowded full of punters, and on all platforms at Paddington there is more than one exit to watch, coupled with passengers boarding/alighting trains on adjacent platforms.

From my experience several arrivals at Paddington (and doubtless other London termini) are about as full as a train can get, though I would argue that the busiest section on FGW in the London area is between Southall and Ealing Broadway. It is simply not possible to cram anyone else on board the several 3-car Turbos that run in the morning peak. The Heathrow Connect trains are now all enhanced from 4 to 5-car units (bar one which should be ready soon), and this is giving much needed capacity between Hayes and Paddington, but it only needs one of these to be cancelled or delayed and it's situation meltdown again! Ideally of course all peak hour trains in/out of London should be operated by 5-car Connects, 5/6 Car Turbos, HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s or 10 Car Adelantes. Nobody will fund these extra resources though, so it'll just keep getting worse and worse.