Keeping Commuters happy!

[whole diary]

[Commuting Bookworm]

But we use the trains more, and we are helping reduce this countries carbon foot print. We are staple income and therefore help keep the railways going.

[inspector_blakey]

Debatable - read the posts above.

Whilst in absolute terms you're handing over considerable sums to the railways, per mile you're travelling at a huge discount over most. Add into this the fact that train companies need to lease, maintain and operate large amounts of stock to cater for commuter demand which may not make many journeys earning revenue outside a couple of peak trips Monday to Friday and the suggestion that commuters keep the railways going becomes somewhat less black and white.

[SDS]

Abolish season tickets and make everyone pay for normal tickets.
You'll soon stop moaning when you realise what discount you get.

So who should get a seat?
A person with a gold card with massive discount....
A person with a walk up peak anytime ticket....

[grahame]

So who should get a seat?
A person with a gold card with massive discount....
A person with a walk up peak anytime ticket....

My amended emphasis on your question.

My answer ... everyone who wants a seat and is travelling on a the train for 30 minutes or more should be able to get one.  Isn't there a DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) paper somewhere that talks about when people can be reasonably expected to stand?

[paul7575]

The overcrowding guidelines are summarised in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) reply in the recent thread about FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 'top ten' services.
Basically, for services that have no stops within 20 mins of the major [London] terminus, the capacity is just the number of seats, and no one should stand at all.  For stopping services the capacity is generally seats plus a number per m^2 usable floor area.

ISTM that even in an ideal world, with seats for all, there will be those who insist that sitting at the wrong end of the train for their stop won't be acceptable, and in any case there will always be those who'd rather stand than travel 10 mins earlier or later - as the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) suggested in their Woking - Waterloo example.

[grahame]

The overcrowding guidelines are summarised in the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) reply in the recent thread about FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 'top ten' services.

Ah - thanks.  Got it - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8288.0

Basically, for services that have no stops within 20 mins of the major [London] terminus, the capacity is just the number of seats, and no one should stand at all.  For stopping services the capacity is generally seats plus a number per m^2 usable floor area.

So the official answer to SDS Pad's question, at least in relation to services from Paddington with a first stop or Reading, is Everyone should get a seat if they want one, though they may have to move down the train.  The official answer on Reading -> Basingstoke, where there is standing allowed for (less than 20 minutes, not departing from London) is less clear when it comes to questioning who should be seated and who should not.

Sorry - SDS Pad - this doesn't give you folks at Paddington a practical answer when you have people fighting over seats!

As an aside, if the rule is different for services from London that don't stop within 20 minutes and all other services, does that mean that CrossCountry trains are at liberty to apply the local level (standee) loadings on even their longer distance services.

[broadgage]

Abolish season tickets and make everyone pay for normal tickets.
You'll soon stop moaning when you realise what discount you get.

So who should get a seat?
A person with a gold card with massive discount....
A person with a walk up peak anytime ticket....

I consider it reasonable to sell season tickets at a slight discount, if only because less time is spent on selling numerous single or return tickets.
The present discount seems excesive though, since as others point out, expensive rolling stock has to be purchased for limited rush hour only use.

Ideally there should be a seat for every ticket holder except on very short journies.
In practice this is not the case, and I would argue that the holder of a full fare ticket has more right to a seat than the season ticket holder paying half fare.

[SDS]

Exactly what I think as well.

Sorry sir but this person who has paid ^200 for their SOR ticket has more of a right to a seat then you whos paid an average of ^70 for the same ticket. Yeah you may have paid ^5000 but pro rata youve paid next to nothing.

[Deltic]

I think we need to consider the wider "society" issues in this question.

There is a high demand for travel (by all modes) at peak periods.  Trains are busy and roads are slow.  If we increase the cost of season tickets, we will increase the level of road congestion and probably damage the economies of our major towns and cities.  Depending on the elasticity of demand (in relation to other modes), we may also reduce overall revenue to the train operator.

Having some stock which is only used at peak periods is not necessarily a bad thing.  It can receive maintenance between the peaks so less maintenance capacity is required, with the balance of the stock receiving maintenance at night.  It also provides capacity for other high demand occasions at weekends.

Season-ticket holding commuters are the staple of the railways and provide them with financial certainty, which is why they get a discount and a few fringe benefits.  From the train operator's point of view, it also locks in customers for a period. 

Clearly we need more stock to meet current and future demand but we shouldn't discriminate against the railway's core customers, just because there are too many of them for the capacity of our rolling stock!

By the way, I'm not a season ticket holder!