|
grahame
|
 |
« on: June 19, 2007, 08:55:59 » |
|
.............. Sometimes the short formed train doesn't stop at stations further down the line. The major issue when penalising train companies for late running, is that in an attempt to minimise their liability, trains miss out intermediate stops. FGW▸ have now raised this to an art form. Trains arrive at the terminal station on time - but the passengers are late.
I've requoted this here as I think it's of more general interest than just the specific line under which it was originally posted.  The 19:35 from Westbury to Swindon, due to stop at Chippenham at 20:02, runs through non-stop last Sunday ... I understand from station staff that it had missed out Melksham too. Never mind - there was another train due two hours later  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2007, 17:19:21 » |
|
This really annoys me when train companies do this though I dont think they miss a penalty for doing it, anyone confirm this? It just means more chance that the next service that the late running train is booked on either runs on time or not as late if the previous service had stopped at every station. Either way it's not a good practice as far as the travelling public are concerned and FGW▸ appear to be doing it quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
simonw
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2007, 20:30:25 » |
|
The other trick to avoid late penalties is to retime the service.
BPW» to Reading
Until Dec 06, 0701-0750 : BPW - Reading
Until May 07, 0655-0750 : BPW - Swindon - Didcott - Reading
Current, 0655-0758 : BPW - Swindon - Didicott - Reading
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2007, 07:37:31 » |
|
I think I would rather see a reliable rather than a fast-timed train, but adding 14 minutes onto a 49 minute journey does seem to be very generous.
Seeing your post and noticing (amongst the chaos this morning) a 5 minute early arrival of the 07:00 Westbury to Swindon - at 07:45 when it's scheduled at 07:50 triggered a thought. I thought that the Service Level Specification required all trains on this line to run, end to end, in 49 minutes or less ... I wonder what's happened - a change in specification, perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2007, 16:38:17 » |
|
I would rather see a timetable with virtually no slack. If it late, its tough, but when it runs on time everyone is lardy da with the new 'improved times'
No doubt they will slack 5 mins of slack off and make a compaign out of it.
'Journey times 5 mins faster than last year'
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vickeryadam
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2007, 15:20:39 » |
|
This really annoys me when train companies do this though I dont think they miss a penalty for doing it, anyone confirm this? It just means more chance that the next service that the late running train is booked on either runs on time or not as late if the previous service had stopped at every station. Either way it's not a good practice as far as the travelling public are concerned and FGW▸ appear to be doing it quite a bit.
I had this the other day, when i wanted to commute back from Bath, I found my train had been terminated at Chippenham, then returned to Padd. Presumably they ran it down to Thingley Jnct and back, although if anyone could shed any light on what is most likely to have happened.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jane s
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2008, 10:29:40 » |
|
Last night I was on the (25 mins late) 15:37 from Ealing Broadway & it was only once we were actually in Reading Station waiting to pull out that they announced it would now be non-stop to Oxford.
Result - mad panic & scramble to get off before we got whisked off to Oxford (I wonder if everyone made it - anyone who was listening to a personal stereo wouldn't have had a hope!), very angry passengers, & a 30-minute wait for the next train.
Why can't they make it a performance requirement to minimise the number of cancellations (a cancellation being counted as every STATION missed out, not just every train)?
That should sort it!
(Of course, what we should have done was stay on the train, then pull the communication cord at Tilehurst because "they didn't give us enough chance to get off at Reading! Hindsight is a wonderful thing!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2008, 23:40:24 » |
|
Last night I was on the (25 mins late) 15:37 from Ealing Broadway & it was only once we were actually in Reading Station waiting to pull out that they announced it would now be non-stop to Oxford.
Result - mad panic & scramble to get off before we got whisked off to Oxford (I wonder if everyone made it - anyone who was listening to a personal stereo wouldn't have had a hope!), very angry passengers, & a 30-minute wait for the next train.
Why can't they make it a performance requirement to minimise the number of cancellations (a cancellation being counted as every STATION missed out, not just every train)?
That should sort it!
(Of course, what we should have done was stay on the train, then pull the communication cord at Tilehurst because "they didn't give us enough chance to get off at Reading! Hindsight is a wonderful thing!)
And delay the whole GWML▸ whilst they try to "find the fault"?? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2008, 21:21:31 » |
|
Many thanks for clarifying this for us and welcome to the forum Topham Hatt. Some of us had been wondering if there was any penalty if a train operator decides to miss out stops in order to get the train to its destination quickly if its running really late. There are some who would argue that it helps the next service the late running train is due to run but its no fun if the train you are waiting for speeds by without picking you up! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2008, 21:33:55 » |
|
... and it's also no fun if the train you are on speeds through your station without letting you get off ...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
swlines
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2008, 21:35:37 » |
|
I'm not entirely sure how the PPM‡ works for GW▸ nowadays - but in Thames Trains/Wessex days it used to operate like this:
TT/WX: PPM is met if the train carries out the full route with no adjustments or cancellations. The train must not be any longer than 5 minutes late.
GW: PPM is met if train carries out the full route with no adjustments or cancellations. The train must not be any longer than 15 minutes late.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jane s
|
|
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2008, 11:07:50 » |
|
There are some who would argue that it helps the next service the late running train is due to run Not unless it's directly behind it! Why do they not just make it "become" the later service, i.e. if the trains run 30 minutes apart & a train is 30 minutes late, it then just "becomes" the next train. They could then pull one out at a later stage once two trains are close enough together. The 30-minute interval could then be maintained for everyone on the platform, & people already on the train would not be made any later than they already were. Of course, this would also require them to keep a spare set near each terminus, and extra drivers "on standby" so that the missing return journey could be started on time at the other end (both of which they should be doing as a matter of course anyway!) That way they would not have to cancel services due to "drivers exceeding their hours" because all they would have to do is ring up the standby guys and get them to report in. Or is that just too simple? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 06, 2008, 11:12:15 by jane s »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #13 on: February 07, 2008, 17:56:56 » |
|
... and it's also no fun if the train you are on speeds through your station without letting you get off ... There's ONE HELL of a big issue here, the term Kidnapping comes into play and there are those out there who would just love to sue the TOC▸ for carrying them FURTHER than the contract agreement (TICKET) states. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2008, 19:16:11 » |
|
I've never known a service do that without announcing it in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
