|
Title: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: grahame on October 05, 2012, 06:36:22 Passenger Focus report [here] (http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/research/publications/rail-passengers-experiences-and-priorities-during-engineering-works?utm_source=http%3a%2f%2femail.passengerfocus.org.uk%2fpassengerfocuslz%2f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Rail+passengers+experiences+and+priorities+during+engineering+works&utm_term=Rail+passengers%27+experiences+and+priorities+during+engineering+works&utm_content=2436)
Summary of findings Quote ^ Most passengers, including those travelling for business or leisure, feel that engineering works should be planned to have minimal impact on daily commuters, even if the alternative impacts on them. ^ Rail passengers want to travel by train rather than bus (55% of passengers would not travel by train at all if part of the journey was to be by bus). ^ Most rail passengers will tolerate an extended journey time of up to 30 minutes on a normally one hour journey if the train is diverted around engineering works (94% at 15 minutes extra; 75% at 30 minutes extra). ^ Unless a replacement bus will be quicker by 40 minutes or more, most rail passengers will opt for a diverted train over 55% of passengers would not travel by train at all if part of the journey was to be by bus a faster replacement bus. ^ When passengers buy tickets it is not made sufficiently clear when the journey will involve a bus or a diverted train with a significantly extended journey time (42% of passengers in our sample of those buying tickets online for a journey affected by engineering works did not see a warning to that effect). ^ Passengers report poor customer service when transferring between train and replacement bus and vice versa, citing lack of signage to the buses, lack of clarity about which bus is going where and inadequate assistance with luggage. ^ Passengers with disabilities have similar needs to other passengers when it comes to engineering work, but with an even stronger preference not to use a replacement bus and even greater need for practical assistance in transferring from train to train and bus to train when that is necessary. ^ An overwhelming proportion of passengers (85%) felt that having to use a replacement bus warranted a discount on the normal train fare. Some passengers suggested that a complimentary tea or coffee would at least be an acknowledgement that the service is not what it normally is. ^ While further research is needed to fully understand this, passengers appear dissatisfied with the current practice of major closures taking place at Christmas and Easter ^ and feel that scheduling works at other times of the year, notably during school holidays and in the summer, would be preferable. Full report 78 pages ... which I have not yet had an opportunity to read. Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: broadgage on October 05, 2012, 13:46:28 I would certainly agree that an extended rail journey time is preferable to changing onto a bus.
I have had numerous negative experiences of rail replacement buses. Including Train from London to Taunton, bus onward to Exeter. Train late, bus left on time and presumably empty. Trains from inner London suburban stations that are replaced by buses not to the London terminus, which might be reasonable, but by buses to somwhere furthur outwards. 20 minute train journey replaced by a 30 minute bus trip, AND a half hour wait, AND a 30 minute rail trip. 90 minutes instead of 20 And being surcharged for missing the booked train only stated on the ticket, because the railway provided bus could only take less than half of those with tickets. The rest had to wait an hour or so for another bus, and then stand on an overcrowded train, and pay a "fine" of over a hundred pounds for the privelage. And they cant even get the train part of the journey right ! I remember on Southwest trains that during engineering work one weekend, most services started from Surbiton with a connecting shuttle train service from Waterloo. This consisted of a 4 car EMU and was totally unsuitable. And why ? apart from incompetance ? Both Waterloo and Surbiton take 12 car trains, hardly likely to be short of rolling stock with so many services cancelled. Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: TonyK on October 05, 2012, 16:46:38 Pretty much the answers I would have given, if asked. I had the choice of a one-hour delay from Bristol Parkway to Paddington once, or bus to Swindon, then train, estimated 40 minute delay. I chose the first, had a lovely trip, and arrived within a minute of the amended time. A colleague who boarded the other service at Newport and opted for the 40-minute bus detour, and was eventually 90 minutes late.
Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: Brucey on October 05, 2012, 17:04:44 And being surcharged for missing the booked train only stated on the ticket, because the railway provided bus could only take less than half of those with tickets. That should not be happening. If you miss a connecting train due to a delay on a previous part of the journey, you are entitled to complete your journey on the next available service at no additional charge.The rest had to wait an hour or so for another bus, and then stand on an overcrowded train, and pay a "fine" of over a hundred pounds for the privelage. Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: broadgage on October 06, 2012, 12:11:32 And being surcharged for missing the booked train only stated on the ticket, because the railway provided bus could only take less than half of those with tickets. That should not be happening. If you miss a connecting train due to a delay on a previous part of the journey, you are entitled to complete your journey on the next available service at no additional charge.The rest had to wait an hour or so for another bus, and then stand on an overcrowded train, and pay a "fine" of over a hundred pounds for the privelage. You are of course correct, BUT in this case the RPI argued that passengers were at fault for not allowing extra time for engineering work. Some paid up, others threatened violence against the RPI and did not pay. What other business would "fine" its paying customers for being delayed by an hour or more, beyond the advertised delay, and then having to stand. The service in question left paddington at the advertised time, with an advertised bus link in the middle of the journey for those going to the far west. Only a single bus was provided and could not accomadate all those with through tickets. Those who boarded the bus were delayed, but only by the advertised delay due to engineering work. Those unable to board the bus for lack of space, had to wait for another bus, or perhaps for the same one to return. This meant that they boarded a latter train than the advertised one and were told that a "fine" was payable. "and dont even think about complaining about standing, it is YOUR FAULT for being on the wrong train" The situation was complicated AFAIR by two different TOCs. The first train, the bus, and the intended connecting train were FGW, and the train actually boarded was virgin cross country. Strictly speaking, virgin might even have been right, but the whole episode showed the rail industry in a very poor light. And BTW they would not let me sit in first class, despite me having a first open ticket, valid on any service. They said first was only for virgin ticket holders. A number of victims vowed "never again" and others offered encourgment to anyone who would "deal with" the RPI. Imagine what would happen to a supermarket, if they kept customers waiting for longer than usual at the checkout, and then charged an extra ^100 for the delay. Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: Rhydgaled on October 08, 2012, 00:02:39 Supprising just how much people seem to hate buses...
They aren't generally as comfortable as trains (actually, the few rail-replacment 'buses' I have seen have actually been coaches, which in my experience are worse than most of the service buses I've traveled on) and public bus services, I think, are seen as having cheaper fares. On that basis, I think it reasonable for passengers to expect discounted fares if alternative road transport has to be provided, and to prefer a diverted train service to road transport. However, it concerns me that over half would not use rail (and presumably use private transport instead) because of a replacment-road service for part of the journey (even if the fares were discounted?) If over half of the population are really that keen to avoid buses/coaches, would they insist on driving to their railhead for a train even if reliable connecting buse services into and out of every train to/from that station exist? I expect a sustainable public transport system cannot be achieved using rail alone, somehow or other passengers are going to have to be pursuaded to use buses to reach the rail network. Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: broadgage on October 08, 2012, 00:57:38 The dislike of rail replacement buses is not just a matter of the vehicle itself often being inferior to a train, but also the risks of incidents like that to which I refer above.
To be delayed by an hour, as advertised due to a connecting bus, is arguably fair enough. To be delayed by several hours, and have to stand for much of that time, and then be surcharged is not acceptable. The other reason, IME that a through train is prefered, even if delayed/diverted, is that if one obtains a seat on the train then this seat may normally be utilised for the entire journey. If changing to a bus and then another train, there is more risk of standing on the connecting service. Buses are generaly considered to be slower and inferior, but cheap. In the case of local or suburban rail trips, a rail replacement bus can take a lot longer than existing buses. As an example, Nunhead to London Blackfriars is about 20 minutes by train. In case of engineering work, a 30 minute bus ride to AFAIR Herne Hill is required, then a 30 minute wait for a train to London victoria, and then a London Underground trip back to Blackfriars. And this involves a battle with Underground staff, "rail ticket. not valid on underground. penalty fare or I will call the police" This all takes 2 or 3 hours and at least one argument. Or one could ignore the whole farce and use local buses, or drive, or stay at home. I have never understood why they cant provide a bus to Blackfriars in this case. Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: grahame on October 08, 2012, 03:03:03 Supprising just how much people seem to hate buses... It's not a hatred of buses in general. But rail replacement buses - as often implemented - destroy the pleasure of a journey. And in doing so, they also seem to do so without explanation of why such discomfort / changes to plan are happening in the way they do. There is also a disappointment of a delayed journey / inconvenience if you hadn't learned of the change when you booked. Some examples? On a rare occasion that I had splashed out on a first class ticket, I found myeslf in a less-than-third (2+3 mid type) seat on a coach, luggage on my lap because of nowhere else for them to go. Journey of 15 minutes station to station by tran up to 40 minutes, tossed around roundabouts. 15 minutes by train (a different station to station) took just 20 minutes by coach. But the onward train left on time, leaving a 55 minute wait for the next train. And, being a Sunday, the buffet at the ongoing station was closed. Rail replacement bus failed to turn up at intermediate station ... Standing in a queue in an unsheltered car park in a hail storm, my protective clothing deep in a pack on my back ... Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: IndustryInsider on October 08, 2012, 16:57:46 The dislike of rail replacement buses is not just a matter of the vehicle itself often being inferior to a train, but also the risks of incidents like that to which I refer above. To be delayed by an hour, as advertised due to a connecting bus, is arguably fair enough. To be delayed by several hours, and have to stand for much of that time, and then be surcharged is not acceptable. The other reason, IME that a through train is prefered, even if delayed/diverted, is that if one obtains a seat on the train then this seat may normally be utilised for the entire journey. If changing to a bus and then another train, there is more risk of standing on the connecting service. Buses are generaly considered to be slower and inferior, but cheap. In the case of local or suburban rail trips, a rail replacement bus can take a lot longer than existing buses. Plus there's not much chance of getting a Pullman meal on a replacement bus. Most of them haven't even got a Travelling Chef. ;) Title: Re: Rail passengers^ experiences and priorities during engineering works Post by: broadgage on October 08, 2012, 19:45:56 I have never even found a travelling chef service on a rail replacement bus, perhaps I should complain!
No seat reservations or first class either. This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. 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 content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |