Great Western Coffee Shop

I havent posted for a while, I havent been pissed at FGW  and what I 've been pleased about I dont want to publicise

BUT today, left work for the 1623 as had been in the office since just gone 0730 and found:

1. a 2+7 - ok, we're getting used to it on the 1623 but it should still appear as a revision on the website

2. Of the two 1st carriages, only one was available for use ad there were no seats available in the one and only carriage that had tables in it (remember some of us pay for table space).  So we all piled into G only to be told we couldnt sit there as the entire carriage was reerved - some got off peeved, some went meekly to standard, others like me sad "FFS where do you want me to sit - the bloody roof" - which didnt go down well but hey ho I didnt care as I'd decided I wasnt getting on it anyway

As it went past as I got off and went for cross country via brum - yes it got me home later (stlll enroute) but I've been productive for the last 2 hours not waiting for the 1750 and I'll be home before that - I saw carriage H with what looked like Eddie boy (HRH Eddie) - if it wasnt it was another of the chinless wonders

so my question is (now remember I wont shed a tear if the royal family are removed from existence tomorrow and replaced by useful people)

1. Why do FGW, knowing one carriage is fully out of action, still run a 2+7

2. Not put up a service alteration announcing that there is only one usable first carriage, no catering and bugger all seating else where

3. Not explain why you cant sit in said virtually empty carriage and just say this is reserve - yeah, half the seats are reserved most of the time - doesnt mean someone is sittin gin them!

Because FGW control doesn't really regard it as a revision. As far as I can gather, the diagram covering this duty is slated for a 2+7 anyway. Someone may bother to put up a website note about the catering trolley being stuck in coach A but that's as far as it goes usually.

You might have thought on this occasion that someone might have twigged a 2+8 might be a good idea, as Eddie could have been given the seating area next to the kitchen, but as we all know, common sense can go missing at FGW, so I expect whoever made the arrangements with Buck House didn't think of letting the depot know last night.

Could have been worse. The 17.51 from London and 20.58 back from Worcester was a Turbo again tonight. Glad to see they've not got on top of that particular problem and already looking forward to going back to work on Monday.

Why not?

It gets worse

I asked the TM - are this lot all the way to worcester or getting off at oxford - if the latter I would have happily sat in the toilet for 30 minutes - was before I KNEW it was royalty but was beginning to suspect

All I got was "I cant comment"

So I assumed WOS - and I was not sitting in the loo for 2 hours - WOS staff confirmed no VIP group got off there (if they did they are lying but I dont think would after the fact)

So FGW fail on two counts - 1. not using common sense and 2. not giving decent info



Got to WOS via Brum - no Royal entourage - have to assume they got off at OXF

So the royals book out a carriage yet it is still FGW's fault.

With anything regarding the royals it is usually secretive of exact movements due to security.

Remember that FGW still have to work to a diagram, and spare sets are limited / non existent. Also today didn't help having some disruption in south Wales due to some industrial action which delayed some services via Cardiff.

Doesn't mean to say that someone couldn't have issued an order for a set swap to be made specially just for one day. And I'll bet the carriage cleaners at Paddington were told to give special attention to coach G before departure and the toilet tanks were surely filled most carefully...

It is obvious on a working that is usually full (and sometimes standing in standard) to stations beyond Oxford that when you provide a set lacking the first class seats in the buffet to start with, then take out another 48 first class seats for a Royal party occupying a fraction of them, that you are likely to have a problem accommodating people who have paid a pretty penny for their first class tickets. As I said last night, it's common sense. However tight the diagramming of the fleet is, there is surely still room for using common sense?

This event just proves why the 2+7 config should be axed!

Make all trains the same (except HD and LD obviously) and you won't get this problem.

And as for spare stock, what about the two "spare" 180s that would not be doing anything at this time (the third 180 I think is busy at this time)?

Is this the 1649 from OXF? This might explain why some of the platform staff were so uptight, so much so that one started hurling abuse, effing and blinding at a disabled passenger who was rushing as best he was able to get on the train. No offer of help just abuse. Several passengers obtained complaint forms from Guard (who seemed to be rather ashamed of the incident) and were fully intending to send them in.

And yes still standing room only in Standard after Oxf, didnt see coach G as waiting up the platform amonst the mere mortals (and for once the train was the correct way around!).

Yep

Was the exact same service

I do wonder where they got off then - not WOS and not OXF

so what exactly do the royals do for us? remember while they may have ''paid'' for the seats in that carrage...where do the royal family get most of there money from?

This is my opinion on the Royals:

The Royals are an image of this country.

They provide an attraction for tourists (along with pints, miles, driving on the left and their guards) thus bringing in a lot of money.

The Queen has to sign every law, so she could, in theory, stop a dictator taking over the country.

Yes, very unlikely, but I feel safer in the knowledge that she has overall control over the armed forces, not the PM.

They HAVE modernised and scaled back - e.g. the Royal Yacht was stopped, and is now an excellent attraction in Edinburgh.

It has been proved and shown that Republics cost as much as constitutional monarchies.

And at least they travel by train where they can, and not drive/fly (it is a shame the Royal Train can no longer take the Royals to Scotland - thanks Doc!).

So I think that it would be a dreadful loss to axe them. It would also be a huge lot if paperwork, as she reigns over many countries.

That was my opinion.

Where did you get this ridiculous idea from - do they teach this rubbish in schools, or something?

Royal Assent is announced in each house, and the Clerk of the Parliaments is the one who signs the act.


So RAF Fighter Command needn't have bothered in 1940, then?  ::)

It is true. After passing through the house of Commons and Lords, she has the final say - the "Royal Assent."

Hmmm.  :D

Yes, the Queen does have to give Royal assent - but these days it's really just a formality: see http://britishaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_royal_assent

However, I'm rather fond of the alternative suggestion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNVVoH9-QH0

Chris  ;D

Yes, it is a formality.

But "in theory."

etc.

But that's not what you originally said; you said:

...which isn't true, and hasn't been since at least the middle of the nineteenth century (when the Clerk to the Parliaments started to add his signature to authenticate them), and probably not since 1497.

And we* shouldn't forget that Royal Assent is normally granted by the Lords Commissioners acting on behalf of (and therefore not bothering) HRH, and that - thanks to the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 - some Bills can be presented for Assent by the Commons without being passed by the Lords.

It's also the case that Statutory Instruments - which are just as much law as Acts of Parliament - require no Royal Assent at all.

---

Anyway, to try to get this back on-topic, by a strange coincidence the last three times any significant questions were raised about the constitutional status of Acts passed be Parliament were: British Railways Board v Pickin in 1974, Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope in 1842, and Lee v Bude and Torrington Railway Co. in 1871. I'll leave the fun of looking up the case details to you!

---

* - not the Pluralis Majestatis

Yes, but I assumed that the Royal Assent meant she signed it.

Poor old Betty Windsor, what has she done to deserve.......? ;D

From the UK Parliament website:


For full details, see http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/stages/royal.cfm

C.  ;) :D ;D