Great Western Coffee Shop

Not quite train travel but sort of related..

I got a penalty ticket today for parking at Maidenhead station (where I park most days).. I just wondered if anyone else who paid by Ring-Go got a ticket too or was I just the lucky one??

I did just call the Ring-go payment number and was asked (by the automated person) if I'd like to extend my parking which means I definitely paid this morning.. ;D

Stupid system.. >:(  ::)

Although I'm no lawyer, I'm fairly sure these tickets are nothing more than an invoice, covered only by the laws of contract and/or tort, not criminal law. So my first bit of advice is don't pay up. Far easier to argue your case now, rather than try and get your money back later.

You may find this interesting:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46975

Thanks bignosemac..

I have just been into the RingGo website and there was an option to enter details for having received a parking ticket even though payment was made.. So I did just that..

As a result they e-mailed me a letter template to send off to Apcoa about this mistake and (more importantly) the VAT receipt for my parking today...

I wonder how it all happened though.. It's the first time it's happened to me...New parking attendant maybe? access to RingGos list broken? (although I assume the car park guy has a phone number to ring in such circumstances)..

I think I might walk in future..

Too many PPCs appear to issue these invoices (they are not charges, penalties or fines) for the most petty of reasons. No doubt many are issued in error also.

Jo, was your invoice issued for having no valid ticket or some other alleged contravention of the car park's rules? Makes no real difference, the advice is the same: don't pay. Just curious.....

It was issued for the following infringement (their words not mine):

01.. (I turn over the ticket to find out that that is...)  No valid payment/payment not correctly displayed..

So.. Since I paid (and now have proof) via Ring Go.. That is obviously a mistake on their part..

But still. It shouldn't happen..

Apparently if I don't pay they'll go to the DVLA to get my address to help them collect their debt.. Hhmm they could just follow me home any evening from the car park  ::) ;D

I'd say let them go to DVLA. They have to pay for each query. Even then all that gives them is details of the registered keeper, which may not necessarily be the person who contravened the rules, or who they, in your case, mistakenly believe has done so.

In your case, it's an error on their part because of a system failure. But it's still wrong IMO to use these invoices (often made to look like Penalty Charge Notices issued by Councils or the Police - which are backed up by criminal law) in an attempt to extort a large sum from the unwary.

Even if you hadn't paid the required fee to park, or overstayed, or contravened some other notified rule, my advice would be the same; don't pay the the invoice stuck to your windscreen. The only real loss to the parking company is the fee relevant to the amount of time you were parked there. So if you ever get a similar 'ticket' in a free car park (say at a shopping centre) then that loss would be.... err.... ^0.00.

So there was a glitch in the system, which is being rectified admittedly with a little bit of annoyance but  with some phone calls, postage etc its resolved.  To take it to the extent of letting the parking company make the inquiry at the DVLA starts a whole chain of events of letters, county court, even as far as bailiffs.  Yes it is a civil offense but these car parking companies see non payment in the same light as shoplifting and will pursue it to the end.

If this keeps happening then it would be time to send a letter to the car parking company CEO asking for reimbursement of personal costs

Yeah I half was considering to ask them to re-imburse the price of the stamp to see if they actually will  ;D

Did APCOA issue the "ticket" under the Railway Byelaws or was it simply an "invoice" for infringement of their made-up rules?  I'm quite interested in knowing as this would have occurred on railway property.

It's a "Civil parking notice" for non payment of car park charges.. even tho i did..No railway bylaws mentioned as far as I can see

Don't pay it. Don't make any contact with RingGo or APCOA, don't respond to any letters from "Roxburghe Debt Collectors" or "Graham White Solicitors". This is a known scam.

Do a search on the Moneysavingexpert or Pepipoo websites.


They can't. It's illegal to do so, and they know it. The only people who can issue byelaw tickets are the police, and payment has to be made through a magistrates court, not a private company.



BTW Stafferton Way Multi-Storey in Maidenhead (council run) is cheaper!! ^4.10 a day, only a 3 minute walk from the station.

I wouldn't call it a civil offence. The word 'offence' implies some from of criminality. It is far from similar to shoplifting. Breaking rules in a car-park (excluding council run ones) is at worst a breach of contract. For which the onus is on the party at loss to prove their case. First off, they have to prove you were the driver. If you were the driver then ask them for proof, don't volunteer the information yourself. No need to incriminate yourself!

Damages for breach of contract should reflect the actual loss, so an arbitrary penalty of say ^50, which often rises exponentially with each subsequent demand for payment, for what is actually a minimal loss is unfair. This is covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:


There is plenty of case-law out there where private parking companies have attempted to sue for breach of contract for amounts grossly in excess of the actual loss, but I've yet to see a single case where they have been successful.

If you've broken a rule in a private car park, then pay a sum relevant to the actual loss suffered by the parking company/landowner. Overstayed by an hour? Pay one hours parking fee. Occupied two bays? Pay twice the fee for your stay. Even then, only pay up if the parking company can prove their loss. DO NOT pay the extortionate amounts on the invoice stuck on your window, or demanded in subsequent letters.

Remember though, IANAL  ;)


EDIT: Legal proceedings CAN be initiated under Railway Byelaw 14 by an agent acting on behalf of a Railway Operator, but the car parking companies at railway stations rarely go down this route, because the fines issued by a magistrates court do not go to them. They prefer the invoice approach coupled with threats of county court action, because,  if you are mug enough to pay up, they get money.

No it isn't. It's a contractual dispute. They will not persue it to the end, as APCOA don't "do" court. They do not want their practices to be investigated in the process.

If you receive a letter alleging that you were the driver, ignore it. If you DO want to write back to them, PM me- I've got some good solicitor written templates.


It would be very clever if the DVLA had records of who was driving any vehicle at any time!!! APCOA tried to tell me that I was under obligation to inform them who was driving. I advised the person on the other end of the phone that only the police could do that, and that it was a criminal offence to impersonate a police officer  ;D  ;D

So in theory I could go and park at my local APCOA station, not bother buying a ticket at all and then I have absolutely no onligation to pay when they demand relevant fees?

As the law currently stands, then yes. That's why many private parking companies have resorted to using wheel clampers.

I don't condone such action as not paying- It's FGW's right to charge for parking, and our right to park elsewhere if we think it's too expensive. What I object to is the action of the private parking companies making extortionate "penalties" for minor infractions like parking with one wheel over the line, and then using intimidation techniques to try and bully you in to paying.

I think if anyone tried it every day, it may get noticed- I'm no legal expert but I guess FGW as landowner could have an injunction served against anyone doing this or have them prosecuted for trespass?

FGW are put tenants in most cases, Network Rail are the Landlords

Just out of interest, what's a "put tenant" - someone who's forcibly placed somewhere, perhaps? It's not a term I've previously come across, hence why it jumped out at me.

Wrong in part. Any 'railway servant' that has been trained in the relevant area (PACE, RRA, RPFR, RA) can issue tickets for byelaw offences. What do you think RPI's are doing when they do a Byelaw 18 on you for no ticket? However it starts to get tricky which is why it rarely happens.
Yes payment for any offences charged (and prosecuted) under the railway byelaws has to be made via a magistrates court. Anything else is an "out of court settlement".


I would personally just ignore the 'invoice', and ignore any correspondence with them. The letters will get more and more threatening and they will 'threaten your credit rating blah blah'. They will just go away.

Another matter, am I right in thinking the 'breach of contract' offence has to be laid before a magistrate within 6 months?

Limitation is, I believe, 6 years for breach of contract.

Ah cheers for the clarification. :-)

typo should have been 'but'

Hi, I've been 'invoiced' by APCOA for failing to buy a ticket at Silco Drive on Friday. I'm in the wrong, I forgot to phone in - it's age related!
I've read another post, but the replies were for an unfair invoice where the enquirer had paid.  My question is, what's the situation re payment of the fine?  It seems an excessive amount for a genuine error.  I'm a repeat customer and registered on their phone-in system.  Can I make a reasonable offer?  Or question the work permit of the parking attendant? Does anybody have any experience to share?  Or do I need to accept it was an 'out of luck' Friday?
Thanks for your help.

Hello and welcome to the forum.. It happened to me a while back and I just had no choice but to pay it.. I don't agree with the "fine" system though.. especially for those registered on the system and pay most days.. but we have to go with the rules I guess. unfair as they are

If you think the invoice (most definitely not a fine) you have been sent is excessive then write to APCOA making an offer to pay the parking fee owed for the time you were parked and a reasonable amount to cover administration. Enclose a cheque if you like. If they refuse that offer and continue to hound you with demands and threats then it is best to stick to your original offer or ignore.

Private Parking Companies have very little legal basis for making excessive demands when car park rules are breached. Contract Law is their only real basis, and contracts must not contain penalty clauses that are too onerous on one party. If the contract is breached by either party, only actual losses should be claimed.

Your case is a little different from those who get clobbered for, for example, overstaying by a few minutes or parking over a white line. That is why I suggest making an offer, as you do actually owe them the parking fee at least. ^80+ on top (which will rise with each subsequent demand) is excessive. Offer a reasonable (your definition of 'reasonable' is fine!) amount to cover APCOA's administration also.

Finally, as I always say in these cases, I Am Not A Lawyer! If you are unsure then seek advice. Two good places to start are:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

Many thanks to you both for your responses.  The links are very useful and I have reviewed the information.  With Christmas in the way I've left it too late to write a considered response, so have decided to pay up, but I will have the upper hand by never using their car park again. So they lose longer term.
Thanks and best wishes

Hopefully this is the right place for this post...

The entrance to Maidenhead station Silco Drice car park goes under the Marlow/Bourne End branch line.. so dips down... It has been, and still is, flooded to the point that a lot of (normal size) cars couldn't get to the car park (and indeed today after the overnight rain even the footpath is underwater if anyone did manage to park there they would have to paddle back to the station)...

I just wondered if anyone knows, before I start trying to get someone to sort it out, who is responsible for this bit of road?

The other two car parks are full by 7.30am so would be useful to sort this out..I am happy to do so but need to know where to start.. Thanks..

It would appear from online maps that it is a public highway and not a private road so I would assume (dangerous, I know  ;)) that responsibility for maintenance lies with the highways dept. of your local authority.

Yeah I think so.. I was thinking I would ask the local government about it.. But something in the back of my mind tells me I've heard before it's not them.. Something to do with the traffic lights controlling traffic going under that bridge not working for the last 6 years or so after it flooded very badly..but I might be wrong..

Looking on the bright side.. either someone will sort the flooding out or if not I can park on the double yellow lines on that road ;-)

Silco Drive is designated as a Private Road.  Not sure who owns it Network Rail which I doubt, BRB Residuary which if they did it is likely to have been handed to Crossrail ownership.

So if it is a private road.. does anyone know who controls the double yellow lines? And more importantly, making sure it's passable?

If it is a private road then I'd still suggest the local authority as the first port of call. They should be able to tell you who is responsible for the road.

Although if ownership is somewhat convoluted then by the time you find out the water may have receded anyway!  :P

I've now emailed RBWM and also Apcoa as to be honest it must be affecting their revenue.. Once it floods it is like it for days/weeks currently... I will see who replies...

The water did used to recede quite quickly when there was a lot of business traffic going in and out at all times of the day but now that crossrail have moved them all out, there is little other than car park traffic which is a lot less and so the water just sits there and no one seems bothered...

My daughter however needs to park at the station late morning tomorrow so she can get the train to work and she won't be able to because of this...  :-\

Without wishing to make too much light of the situation, perhaps your daughter should consider investing in some of these:

http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/svendsen-rt-nylon-wader-p145751?utm_source=google&utm_medium=SEO+product+search

That of course is only if the vehicle used is of a suitable ride height to get through to the car park in the first place.


Edit: And I've resisted the temptation to add RBWM to the forum's Acronyms/Abbreviations page. (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead)

 :P ;) ;D

meh, I think the only response you'll get from APCOA is 'we're sorry your appeal has not been successful'. I think that's their standard reply. Seriously I once emailed them to tell them they had a missing bulb in a street light, and that's what I got

What does that actually mean (please)?

Paul

http://www.internetslang.com/MEH-meaning-definition.asp

I see.  So if it really means 'indifference' why add it to the front of a detailed answer?

It seems perhaps those who've defined it expect stand alone use of the word...   ;D

Paul

It was intended to be a "tbh", but the predicitve text on my phone must have had other ideas.  I guess I use "meh" quite a lot when texting, so it's quite high up in the phone's dictionary.

No reply from Apcoa so far but the council have told me that Network Rail maintain that road.. So, since the water isn't going away, I shall contact them next.. The only change today was that someone has put a cone in the middle of the water... And thanks bignosemac  ;D but I've only got a small car and won't risk taking it through the deep water..

I am still interested to know if there is any policing of the yellow lines on that road now we know it's owned by Network rail though..

And yeah sorry about the RBWM.. It was late and it seemed like hard work typing the whole name in  ::)

Network Rail do have powers to issue tickets they would get BTP to do it or may have an agreement with the Local Authority to issue them on NR behalf.

Aah cool thank you.. I wasn't going to try parking on the yellow lines (once we can get through the flood that is).. I was just interested...

Still flooded.. No reply from Network Rail or Apcoa....

Ditto today re flood, lack of response.. if my pc hadn't decided to delete everything on there (including those e-mails I'd sent) then I could chase them up.. ho hum.. The water seemed higher today even though it's not rained too much the last few days..

Any ideas of what to do next from anyone?

Replace your car with one of these? http://www.flickr.com/photos/alancookson/4636309241/

Phone call to Passenger Focus?

Thanks Grahame.. I am thinking that the local newspaper might be happy to take this challenge on.. I will try and find time to contact them tomorrow and see what they say..

And yep..maybe someone should run a shuttle service into the car park on one of those duck buses ..mind you then I'd have to park on the yellow lines on the entrance road.. sigh... ::) ;D

Just a quick update on this.. Apcoa did finally reply to say that they won't accept complaints via e-mail (!).. They obviously aren't bothered about getting any money from that car park then (which is backed up by a friend I saw on the train today that also parks there and says she hasn't paid for a month or so as they are not checking tickets there currently!).. Network Rail as you might imagine.. appear not to be bothered.. The puddle/lake is still there...

Well.. Having complained to Network rail for a second time on Monday... And having driven/walked through the vast amounts of water this morning.. I was totally flabbergasted to find it all gone this evening..!! I just can't believe it has taken them this many months since my last contact with them to sort it out....

One of the reasons it was also important to get rid of the water (other than any damage to cars) is that when it's cold (like it was today), as cars drove through the water and spread it up the hill to the main road, and that then froze, it was becoming quite dangerous for pedestrians too.

So.. all good...and fingers crossed it is sorted properly which we will find out next time it rains  ;D

There was a letter in the Maidenhead Advertiser on Thursday saying that last time it snowed the car parks at Maidenhead weren't gritted and wondering if they would be this time.. Having been for a walk this afternoon which included passing the station it looks as if no one has bothered again. The letter isn't online yet so I can't post a link to it for now.. I don't know if the letter is factually correct or not but it says that FGW have a contract with a company called MITIE to grit the car parks..there is a grit box in the car park but no one has used it (not FGW, APCOA or MITIE) despite having all weekend with a nearly empty car park to do this

The Shoppenhangers road car park in particular becomes unusable in large parts due to an incline in the car park...

At least I know to leave my car at home tomorrow and walk to the station..

FGW car parks have NEVER been gritted. I did a 360 degree spin in Twyford car park a couple of years ago  ;D

Walk instead.

If FGW do nothing, they are not liable to anyone who meets with disaster in the car park. If they attempt clearance, they will owe a duty of care to their "neighbours", ie those who may be reasonably expected to be affected by their actions. Doing nothing limits the liability

You would think Apcoa would lose money if big chunks of car parks are inaccessible but they really don't seem to be bothered..

APCOA won't lose much money because (a) many people hold season tickets already and (b) if someone has driven to the car park in order to go somewhere by train it's unlikely that they'll then turn around and go elsewhere.

As some one who has shovelled snow in station car parks, gritted them, arranged snow clearance and also gritting by Mitie, I can assure you that it is completely untrue to say that FGW does nothing about car parks in winter weather. And having participated in twice daily conference calls to review the status of winter weather precautions, I know for a fact that senior management is acutely aware of its responsibilities.

Every station has a winter weather plan. But it starts with priority areas - platforms, bridges and walkways, and then goes on to car parks and other areas.

Some might think it unreasonable that FGW in its duty of care does not succeed in clearing and gritting every part of its property that is open to the public, at times when others fail to get out of their drives. Others might recognise that this is a tall order - when did your local authority last clear the pavements in front of your house?

I'm retired now, but I still keep in touch. And fatuous statements about FGW's winter weather precautions from people who pretend to know everything but really no very little are deeply offensive to the hundreds of managers and staff who are working hard to keep the railway open and safe.

Just because something is difficult/time consuming/expensive does not mean that it should not be done.

Shoppenhangers carpark is appallingly dangerous and, when weather like this has been predicted days in advance, it should be possible to grit the carpark in advance.  Especially for ^1000 per car per year.  Thats 1/3rd of a million quid per annum for Shoppenhangers alone.

I'll be taking the bus for the foreseeable, but its a shame it'll take some expensive insurance claims to get the car park prepared for use.

If the car park owner / operator grits and salts the ice in the car park they may have a concern that if someone then has an accident they would be liable, if on the other hand they leave it as snow and ice then it is obliviously hazardous therefore use at your own risk.


or

They have you money in the form of a season ticket therefore why waste money on salt n grit and the staff to apply it when they can use it for the bubbly at the share holders meeting

Might as well remove the Salt container then.. It appears to serve no purpose other than taking up space..

So why are insurers advising churches that they need to clear snow and grit paths or they might be liable?
(Quote from the Church Times Friday 18th January)

IF they can't physically park their car.. due to the incline and ice/snow between them and free parking spaces.. they have no choice but to go elsewhere in my opinion?

Bullsh*t.

Something the HSE sent in 2010 and also features on several county council websites...

What EBrown posted is quite right: I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that it's gospel, but he's quite right.  ;)

It's 20 years since I studied law. I remember one of the leading cases was a town hall whose steps were cleared of snow, but not properly. Ebrown is right to point out that whatever is done must be done properly.

I'm sure FGW will make sure the car park is as safe as it can be. As Oxman pointed out, there is a lot of clearing to be done by a finite number of people. Platforms will be priority number one, the car park will get done in due course. Clearing a car park of snow is hard work. To whoever does it - a big thank you.

Maidenhead platforms were clear by Friday night (And a bit thank you to who did that).. It is now Monday evening.. I'm pretty sure they are waiting for the car park snow to melt.. As you will see if you read my initial post.. It looks as if maybe FGW/APCOA contract out the clearing/gritting of car parks? Though I don't know if that is true or not.. The on-line advertiser still doesn't have the letter on btw or I'd post a link..

Maidenhead platforms this morning hadn't been cleared (well platform 2 anyway - too early in the morning to look at the others!).  One of the staff was making the effort around 7am to clear the snow from the yellow line - presumably so that when the announcer said "please stand behind the yellow line" you'd have an idea where it was.

Shoppenhangars car park was a scene from winter wonderland with no evidence of gritting, etc.

It had to happen to me didn't it ?!?!    ::)

Parked up at Shoppenhangers this morning, gingerly walked to the station and slipped straight over.
Blood pouring out of a 3" gash to my hand and others on my leg.

Notified the station staff who pulled the 'nothing to do with us gov' approach.
Called APCOA who sent me to FGW, who confirmed it is their responsibility.  Waiting for a call back from head office.

I love commuting.  Its so much fun.

The attitude of the station staff is completely unacceptable and entirely contrary to the rules, which state that every accident must be recorded on a form RAF01 and noted in the station accident log. Form RAF01 includes sections to be completed by the station manager re inspection of the site and rectification of hazards found. All staff are briefed on this procedure at least annually.

The RAF01 is sent to the Safety department and checked there. Actions are recorded on a database and the Station Manager must then report on progress. The database will flag up open actions, so there is no escape.

Follow it through and find out why this procedure was not followed. Also ask what action is being taken to make the area safe.

By the way, if you had gone to hospital, the accident would have been Riddor reportable and the Station Manager would have had to produce a report within 72 hours.

And all someone had to do in the last five days or so.. Was grit the car park... assuming it was the car park you fell over in?

I am very interested to know what FGW say about that (whether the car park is their responsibility or if not someone elses, but it is still in FGWs interest).. Hope you're ok NickB?

Not sure if you know or not Oxman but the car park this post was about is a little way from the station, and includes a public footpath/road to get there. I don't know but is the station Manager responsible for remote from the station locations as this?

I don't know the geography of the area, but was going on the admission from FGW (as reported by NickB) that it is responsible for the car park. If this is the case, then the Station Manager will be the local manager responsible for the site.

APCOA was, until a few years ago, contracted to treat car parks, although the contract was unsatisfactory in its scope. APCOA was relieved of its responsibilities when Mitie was contracted to provide gritting and snow clearance.

Morning,

Thanks for your concern johoare - my cuts and scrapes will mend, although I've got rather a stiff neck still.

To clarify where/what happened it was indeed in the carpark, on the slope down towards the (unmanned) ticket booth.  I went down with a bang!  ;D
After my unsuccessful attempt to report it at the station I called the FGW CarParks line, they then passed me to the main Customer Helpline.  Both operators confirmed that FGW own and are responsible for the Maidnehead carparks and that APCOA only collect revenue.  As an aside, to cover myself I also emailed APCOA but they have been silent so far.
FGW asked me to supply the details in writing or email, marking for attention of a particular person.  I did this yesterday morning, but no response yet.

What was quite interesting was that the Customer Services person was in some ways more concerned about the dismissal I received at the station rather than the incident itself.  I guess Oxman's comments demonstrate where the station staff were amiss.

If anything interesting happens I'll keep you updated.

I  may be wrong but I think your reply from Apcoa (if you get one at all) is  that they don't deal with complaints by email..

I had a slightly strange answering phone message from Network rail today to say that "the works" that I had enquired about would be scheduled either for 2013 or 2014 depending on funding...Having said that it looks like they might have started sorting the drains out today (or they are doing something else.. it's hard to tell)

Tonight at 8.15 I got back to Silco drive car park to find it without lights.. I can only imagine that isn't safe for anyone? I imagine Network Rail are most likely responsible for that and so I won't get response should I complain.. I also imagine/can tell from previous posts of mine that  no one here is that bothered unless they use that car park... but... it is quite important that people can get to their cars relatively safely surely?  I for one won't want to use it until it is sorted which might not be anytime soon...

Hmm. It really isn't very good, is it, Jo?

I can't find anything useful in the way of possible contacts at Network Rail, other than to suggest that you telephone their helpline (open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, apparently!) on 08457 11 41 41 - and keep on at them until the matter is escalated to someone who will do something about it.  ::)

Thanks Chris.. I will do that (though I can't do that from work which probably restricts it a bit).. but since the "puddle/lake" "won't" potentially be sorted out until 2014.. I do wonder how long it would take me to get a reply ... Hhhm.. that worries me a lot about what their main job/aim is... ::) ::)

Lighting issues would get a much higher priority than puddles/lakes, and are likely to be much easier to fix.

Well.. Network rail did respond quite quickly on this one.. to say that FGW look after the car park (so they have forwarded the information re no street lights on to them)

It's not hard to be confused tho..Since...from the main road (which RBWM look after) the roadway and traffic lights (which haven't worked for several years) are maintained by Network Rail but the car park itself is the responsibility of FGW..(which Apcoa manage!!)

Some lights are working now (though mainly in the middle) which is better than total darkness. particularly as quite often someone going to their car after about 7pm might be totally on their own...and it is quite a way from the main road and civilisation :)

There is a sign up at the front station car park at Maidenhead saying that it will be closed from March 22nd until April (can't quite remember the date in April)... It's still open though.. I guess it will be used as a bus terminus again when the lines are closed over Easter but does anyone know when it will actually close?

Ah, a sign of the chaos to come for Maidenhead.  Its not long now until both Silco and the forecourt car parks close forever, and Shoppenhangers reduces capacity by 25%.  No drop-off lay-bys either.

Purely in the interests of continuity and ease of future reference, I've now merged five previously separate topics into this one here.

Hope this helps!  ;)

NickB.. Silco drive car park is closing? They have kept that quiet

Back to my question  from yesterday...  The signs are still up.. the car park at the front of the station is getting smaller (but still had cars parking in it this morning)... Anyone in the know can help here?

I saw that poster of car park closing as well, walking by the other day.
My reckoning is that Crossrail may be beginning but very slowly indeed to upgrade the station area. If thats not happening it might be for the bus replacement services at the front of station as happened a few years back due to Reading Station Redevelopment.
However i dont remember if you could still drop off/pick up at the bottom bit of that front car park. A side from that it should be a proper bus interchange point on station approach all the time and stop taxis from occupying the whole dam station area which includes shoppenhangers road and not to mention (not by but near the station) the delight long queue of eager to go into action mode taxis when I pass by ludlow road! Anyway hopefully that gives you some info jo :)

It is finally closed today.. Although there are a few cars parked.. but could be staff I guess, or cars left overnight..

The small print on the sign says to check the First Great Western web-site for further details.. so I did just that... I couldn't find anything on there about the car park closure though..  ::)

Indeed, there is some very interesting (scary?) reading about the whole issue if you know where to look.  

This is good for starters - Select Committee Minutes for Crossrail
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcross/235/6062716.htm

"To summarise, the Royal Borough contends that Crossrail's forecasting is too simplistic and does not really take account of current commuter levels and behaviours or long-term changes in demographics which a new rail service could bring; that the modal split of London-bound commuters is significantly more car-orientated and that Crossrail will inevitably increase this, as that is more attractive to them; and that the revised car-parking proposals by the Promoter are not acceptable as it is located even further from the station than the current car parks."

"The Royal Borough believes that the car parking provision should be significantly increased, with the need for a multi-storey car park on Shoppenhangers Road, catering for around 600 to 700 spaces, for current and future rail commuters;"

But the juicy stuff is here:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/crossrail-bill-supporting-documents/environmental-statement?folder=/l0/120/asset/618

"In total Maidenhead station will lose 200 out of 352 car parking spaces (57%) (for the duration of construction works, estimated at 3 years)"

"There is one significant operational impact to note at Maidenhead station relating to parking and loading.  Maidenhead station will lose 66 spaces from the (forecourt) northern carpark and 48 from Silco Drive carpark.  The total loss of 114 out of 352 car parking spaces (32%) will constiture a permanent significant impact as it cannot be easily mitigated"

and all of this is built around a stated assumption that "No major changes in passenger flows are expected at Maidenhead station as a result of Crossrail".  Hahahahaha!  That kind of conflicts with the "1m extra movements" now predicted.

A reminder of what happens to people that ignore car park closure notices: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-21292873

 ;D

The taxi situation was bedlam earlier..No obvious pointers as to where to queue for taxis..Very few taxis can appear at any one time as the area they have been given is so small compared to the amount of people that get taxis at Maidenhead particularly off of peak time fast trains..etc...

Chatting to my taxi driver they are not happy also.. The car park at the front of the station is still fairly empty.. And whilst he understands that when buses are running the taxis will have to be banished.. Right now that isn't the case..

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Shoppers-frustrated-by-commuters-hogging-parking-spaces-at-retail-park-27032013.htm (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Shoppers-frustrated-by-commuters-hogging-parking-spaces-at-retail-park-27032013.htm)

When the retail complex first opened there was a two hour parking limit which was policed in an almost too strong a fashion (Eg you could buy things in one or more of the retail shops there, then, eg, pop to the station to renew your season ticket as there is no short term parking at the station, and potentially come back to a car park ticket (As they used to pounce immediately))..

I have no idea what has happened since.. and it seems to have gone the other way entirely,..but someone somewhere must have made the decision to let this happen...

And whatever they decide in the future, thanks to recent legislation they can't clamp or tow you in/from a private car park and can only attempt  to charge you using legally dubious civil Penalty Charge Notices, that are contractual in nature and rarely, if ever, stand up to scrutiny in the County Court.

It may not be the case with this particular retail complex, but many such out of town complexes were granted planning permission which explicitly included free parking. Any charges for parking, be they up front or by way of a penalty could mean that the freeholder and/or its tenants/agents are in breach of the original planning consent.

But I guess if they are removing a fair chunk of Maidenhead parking spaces for crossrail preparations.. where will everyone park if not there? Not that it makes it right... just a question..

Well thats the issue for Maidenhead, lack of car park spaces. What is true is that theres limited space for cars at the station, thats until Crossrail build the multi storey car park, whenever that may be. To be honest the whole thing is a complete mess. Maybe better to use a taxi or bus to get to the station, although for people it may be too much to ask!

Indeed.. I chose to walk generally.. Only as the bus service is far from regular also...

I strongly suspect that the majority of those parking at Maidenhead station live well beyond walking distance and off of the bus routes.  Lets face it, no one pays ^5.20 per day (so thats >^1000 per year) for fun.

It has to be remembered that Maidenhead is a commuter hub for a huge area.  Anyone west of Taplow, south of High Wycombe and east of Reading will see Maidenhead as their fastest route to London. 
You won't convince these people to carshare, or get the bus.   The carparking debacle will get worse.

Personally I'd get the bus if the bus cost a reasonable amount of money, ran more often than once every 30mins, was coordinated with the train timetable, and ran past 8pm....

Wow. every 30 minutes.. We only have an hourly service from my part of Maidenhead (apart from on Sundays that is when we have nothing at all)... ::)

Just had a look into a old thread, and i agree with jo and NickB that the bus service around Maidenhead is shocking.
I did email Courtney Buses, to find out if a later bus could run between Maidenhead and Woodlands Park after 830pm, which is when the last bus is...
However they say that due to lack of demand (not surprising since they like to speed everywhere) they cannot afford to run a later service as it would damage the commercial operation of route 7. Come On i remember in 2003 when First Beeline (yes another First Group operator...) operated the routes 56 and 57 and ran until 1100 pm at night. So what's so different now?
Well maybe theres one thing, the decline of Maidenhead Town Centre in general.... but still there's people who do want a bus service at the time. I for one, if i ever did go to london would never take a taxi back home due to the high cost. Might as well walk  ;D

Something more relevant to this thread.
Apparently Crossrail will be constructing a bigger Car Park on the Shoppenhangers Road side of the Station, however i don't know how they will build two or three levels in such a small area.

Also with Maidenhead Station (Shoppenhangers Road entrance) the entrance will come out a bit further with the bus stop being removed to a different location (maybe as far as the Desborough School Bus Stop).

At the front a bigger two level Maidenhead Station on Station Approach will be built, however the crossing to get to the Maidenhead Town Centre from the Station will be interesting. The A308 can be a dangerous road at times....
Although due to limited space there's only so much you can do, and the council have a habit of preventing positive things such as constructing better footway facilities, and would rather redo the pavement at a cost of ^400,000...

Just passed an HST at a standstill on the UM on the Thames Bridge east of Maidemhead. Realtime Trains suggests it's the 0447 BRI-PAD. A couple of people were examining the lower front of the leading power car. Obviously all Up trains are currently having to use the UR in the area so some disruption this morning.

It was indeed the 0447 off BRI.

Unsolicited brake application brought the set to a stand. Parking brake has had to be manually wound off.

Which can be a right b**ch of a thing to do on a HST.  Two little toggles by the wheels that have to be turned for an eternity.

I was on the 7.08 from Maidenhead this morning and it only ended up being delayed by about 10 minutes due to this broken down train so I was quite lucky..  I imagine the passengers on the broken train were not best pleased at the delay especially with the tube strike to contend with when they finally made it to Paddington..

It finally arrived in Paddington at 08:09 - 1 hour and 45 minutes late.

There is a sign up at Maidenhead station (in the front car park) to say that there will be 50 (I think) less spaces available there from July 5th but there will be some additional ones made available in Silco Drive.. I failed to note how long this would be for but I can try and find out later  :)

Oh joy. Due to planned engineering works (I assume), Maidenhead (as I am sure other stations have too) has lost half it's Saturday service tomorrow which is already busy when it's running as planned (four trains an hour usually).. I can hardly wait.. ???

 

Does anyone know how long these trains are today? I am hoping 5 or 6 carriages.. Otherwise I am very tempted to drive..

12:44 and 14:20 departures to London are 3-car, but practically everything else is either 5 or 6 cars.

The 0944 TWY-PAD this morning had 6 cars but I'm currently on the 1521 stopper from PAD which has only 3. Incidentally I've noticed that the 1546 fast PAD to OXF was cancelled due to a train failure.

Yes, the 15:21 would be the return working of the 14:20 I mentioned in the previous post.  How busy is it?

It didn't seem too bad, maybe 75-80% full, certainly not overcrowded.

I didn't risk it.. I went for Plan B which was drive to Osterley, park all day for ^2 and get the tube in (as I have a monthly travelcard).. Admittedly it was busy at times but not on a FGW cattle truck scale... ;D

Yesterday, as well as a half hourly stopping service there was also a half hourly faster train stopping at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough only which was a bonus and the (fast) train I got was 6 carriages..

However it wasn't terribly well thought through as a stopping train left Maidenhead 12 minutes ahead of the fast train but it was only 3 carriages.. As you can imagine that train got later and later (13 late by Ealing Broadway) as people would have tried to get on to an already full train at each station which delayed us a bit but not a problem for me since my train wasn't full.. I did feel sorry for people on the stopping service though

Network Rail have got to lower the trackbed under some bridges in order for electrification equipment to fit underneath, or that's what they have been doing the past few weekends in the Slough area unfortunately that results in a loss of capacity on the route. 

What is it with passengers at Maidenhead station? I sometimes take the 8:19 from Reading for Maidenhead. Getting off that train always feels like such a fight: I have never seen passengers stuck on mass in front of the carriage doors not letting people off the train anywhere else in the country.
Has there been a common-sense bypass for all people getting on trains in Maidenhead? Surely making sure you leave a clear passage for people to get off would ensure a much quicker run of trains. Seems really odd to me. Any explanation welcome.
I read once in a survey that Maidenhead was the second worst station in the UK. I am sure this is one of the contributing factors for this classification.

Your first post, Froggycat?     Welcome to the forum!

I suspect the answer might be lie in a dive for seats ... with only some joiners being "lucky".   Thinking about it, I'm far more fussed to get on as soon as I can (London - Bristol services) at Paddington than I am at Bristol.   I know I'll get a seat from Bristol, I know I'll be lucky (or have to be fast) to get a seat at Paddington.

Yes, as a Maidenhead commuter (not that train though!, although I did take it once last week) its all about the lack of fast services to London and about the trains that are scheduled being short.

The 08.35 Maid->Padd (which I believe is the train you refer to?) is 3 carriages and yet is the first fast train since 8am and the last until 09.08.  Essentialy, if you do a school drop of need to be at work anything near 9/9.30 then this is the train for you.

 

Hi Froggycat,

If you think that's bad you should try getting on a train home from Ealing Broadway in the evenings! :)

The announcer constantly shouts "Please allow passengers OFF the train before attempting to board! Once you are on board, please move right down inside the carriages, do NOT stand near the doors blocking the doors!" but there are always certain passengers that take not a blind bit of notice, barging their way on to the train while people are still getting off, and then proceeding to stand in the lobby blocking the way for the rest of us who do want to move down inside because unlike them, we are not getting off at the next couple of stops!

The best bet at that time at Maidenhead is to wait for the 8:41 (which usually leaves from Platform 5) - yes it is only a semi-fast, stopping at Slough & Southall, but you will at least get a seat.

No idea why they only have 3 cars on the fast trains from Maidenhead in the mornings, IMO it is completely ridiculous.

Too many people wanting to travel at the same time and a National shortage of rolling stock especially DMUs.

......and too many regularly breaking down!

I don't think you can really blame "too many" people wanting to travel, there tends to be a correlation with when their employers expect them to turn up at work! Blame the people who got the estimates for demand hugely wrong in the first place!

Agree re both Maidenhead and Ealing B when it comes to people getting on/off though, I've commuted to/from both over the years and 'twas ever thus, seems to be worse than anywhere else.

People getting on before allowing people off are breaking the byelaws
Railway Byelaws:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf


and


So you could get the railway staff to throw the early borders off the train and out of the station!  In theory, of course!

Further questions come to mind:

1) was there not a time when they all did fit into a 3 car dmu?
2) why so many more people want to travel that journey to work than previously? 
3) I am sure several different bodies made estimates.
     a) Were they wrong?
     b) Could any of them have actually done something about making more capacity?
     c) If so who?

Estimates for the 2005 - 2012 franchise period were based on 0.8% growth compound, whereas 8% growth compound was what happened (ball park figures across the South West).  Follow on shorter term franchises have been based on "carry on with the same".

To give you an idea, 100 passenger at 0.8% over 8 years will take you up to 108 passengers, but at 8% growth takes you up to 215 passengers - in other words trains are carrying twice what was planned for.   For sure, the Adelantes have come back and 2+7 have become 2+8;  Cardiff - Portsmouth has been re-increased from 2 to 3 cars and more stock brought into the area, but certainly there's not been a doubling.   Something IS being done - Crossrail, electrification - but that's not yet on stream.

That's very interesting Grahame - so really all the "additional" capacity coming via Crossrail, IEP etc is only really going to be having the effect of running to stand still......does anyone really think that everyone will get a seat once these new trains arrive? And how long (if the 8% growth continues, more likely to increase I would have thought?) will it be before we are once again as chronically overcrowded as we are now?

Take a look at these growth graphs ... various south west / FGW territory areas:

http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=BS

http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=SL

http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=OX

http://www.wellho.net/demo/railuse.php?place=TR

The 8% compound growth at the London end is related partly to the growth in the economy of London and the lack of or unaffordability of housing in London. As a result of this politicians were encouraged to put more investment into London's infrastructure.  However unless the housing issue is resolved the problem just moves further and further out.  

In other areas changing work patterns, particularly with two earners per household, when people change jobs they do not move, they simply commute further and further.  This travelling reduces their quality of life and ultimately, I suspect, their productivity.

We cannot and should not stop people who want to commute long distances. We could keep adding more and more capacity but at some point we are going to have to start to address the root causes that lead to so many people travelling ever further each day to work.

 

The top one of my graphs is the one I'm most familiar with - the Bristol area.   The others may not be quite as high - still 4% to 6% compound growth, though!

Over the period of the last Franchise only ONE station with a BS postcode failed to grow at above the predicated rate, and that was Pilning; the failure to grow traffic there isn't (in my view) particularly significant in the overall picture, but perhaps it does provide a control / reminder of the results you gat from a station with an ineffective service / no nurtured traffic flows.

It's been suggested that "growth like this won't go on for ever" and indeed there are *some* signs of the increase rate coming down.   The recession, perversely, may have increased the gain as people had to travel further to work and could afford fewer private cars per family ... I'm not an economist, so I may be talking / repeating a load of cobblers.

If my memory serves me correctly the anticipated growth at Maidenhead between 'now' and crossrail is 1m journeys.

That's approx an extra 2000 passengers every work day.

It used to be 5 carriages for quite a while.. They "borrowed" the extra carriages at least a couple of years ago (if not before that) to give to another train.. No sign of them coming back yet

I don't think anyone who understands how a metro style railway works would expect that, no.  The large standing capacity being built into the Crossrail trains hints at that.

What I would expect is for the extra trains and longer trains to make a significant impact on commuting from Maidenhead as you should be getting 8/9 carriage trains for every service in the peak (and most outside of the peak).  Within central London and out as far as West Drayton I would expect standing passengers within the peaks still - but not at the silly crush levels they are at now.

Is there still a 20 minute limit on "acceptable" standing for Crossrail? And if so, where is it to be measured to? Obviously not Paddington, but at least Liverpool Street. And that's 31 minutes from West Drayton (allegedly).

I'm thinking that people who aren't quite sure will still be convinced to expect a seat by the regular witterings in the (Evening) Standard's leaders...

Paul

The rule is that where stations are less than 20 mins apart then there is an allowance for standing.  If stations are more than 20 mins apart then there is no allowance.  It isn't written as a '20 minute limit' on standing, AFAICS.

However the DfT's regular overcrowding report mentions in the small print that the rule only applies to franchises that they let - so it may not apply to Crossrail at all...

Paul

That 20-minute indicator doesn't apply to TfL Rail

The 20 minute rule has some interesting side effects - I've quoted from above on the Cardiff -> Portsmouth board where there is one 21 minute section in the middle of the run and it causes (technically) a capacity bottleneck just in that section.

See:  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=15772.0

.........an expectation that the constant crowing about ^7.5 billion of investment, new trains, "Building a Greater West" etc will do much to encourage and little to manage.

I guess we'll have to see, won't we.  There will be no excuses, in terms of physical capacity, for not running all peak London suburban trains of between 8-9 carriages, and the outer suburban and longer distance ones at 9-12 carriages.

For everyone suggesting that capacity might be quickly used up, there is someone else predicting that the cost of running the new trains will be so much that fares will rise to an extent few people will be able to afford.  I don't subscribe to either of those views, but also think I'm realistic enough to realise that there may be certain trains and certain times of the day when people still won't be able to find a seat.

When the upgrade in its current specification is complete, there's no reason why that has to be the end of improvements to capacity.  For example, Crossrail's underground stations themselves are designed with passive provision for extension of the trains to 240m from the current 200m, and Reading station has been designed to handle large increases in passengers for decades to come.  I hope a similar future-proofing will be made at locations such as Maidenhead and West Drayton during the major track alterations that have started to be constructed to allow for longer trains.  Bringing in those enhancements won't be cheap, but at least will be possible.

Back to the alighting and boarding issue, I have often experienced a situation in other parts of the country where people usually do stand back, but after waiting for the flow to disembark, I have found when passing from the vestibule to the carriage itself, somebody who's suddenly woken up trying to force their way through you in their bid to alight.  Rather awkward if more than one and a number of people boarding behind you.

And did you realise that by getting on before they got off, you're the one at fault under the railway's bylaws  ;D (10.1):


from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

The main timetable changes section of the FGW site says that the 08:19 from Reading, 08:35 from Maidenhead, will be 5 carriages from September 7th. It also says that the 17:35 from Paddington will be a HST from the same day. Wonder where they got the stock from?

With regards to the question, and I get the 08:19 from Reading at least twice a week so I have experience, I find the passengers at Maidenhead always create a gap to allow people like myself to alight. On the few occasions that someone stray's, they get a bump from me!

An interesting question .. an amusing observation ... and a warm welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, SirBroccoli.  :D

And a firm "Excuse me!" should do it!

Interesting about the 8.35 getting more carriages. I complained to FGW about it: always being on time at Maidenhead then up to 10 min's late at PAD; crossing from relief to main and then back to relief; plus the coupling up with another unit on P13. That might sort this lot out  :D

You are forgetting that many passengers can't understand English. It always amuses me in London on over-crowded buses when the auto-pa asks that pax do not stand on the upper deck or stairs, or could pax. move to the back of the bus to stop blocking the doorway. Most simply ignore the announcement like they can't understand what has been said.

BTW when I'm trying to get off a crowded train (or bus) in which folks stand in my way blocking the door, then the old Continental 'push and shove' works wonders.

Third item from Maidenhead Advertiser 29 Oct.

There has been quite a lot of correspondance about parking in Maidenhead in general recently. This week there's a letter headed "Where will all the Extra Commuters Park?".

Asking that very question about the projected growth in users of Maidenhead Station with Crossrail.

Seems a very sensible question and probably applies to all Crossrail served Stations even Taplow!

Thought for Moderators should we have a Dedicated Crossrail thread for issues like this?

My view, and it has been for a long time, is that Crossrail does NOT work West of Paddington, even going to Reading has not changed my view :(

I don't see Crossrail lifting current numbers by very much west of Zone 6 - time will tell.

Are they saying there are many now driving the M25 that will transgfer to Crossrail? If not, why the projected increase & where is it now?

Thanks for your comments, eightf48544.  ;)

Dealing with your first point first, so to speak, I've just merged a couple of topics here now, in the interests of continuity and ease of reference.

As to creating a new and separate 'Crossrail' board, I'll discuss that with the other members of our Coffee Shop admin team, before taking any action.  :-X

This train is a fairly new addition to the timetable and is non-stop from Maidenhead to Paddington.

When it first appeared there were signs on the ticket machines at Maidenhead to say you needed a peak/anytime ticket for this train (even though the stopping train before it is an off-peak one - the 9.19 departure).

Those signs have now gone. However on the nationalrail site it is still saying you need an anytime ticket to get this train yet the station announcer at Maidenhead yesterday was telling everyone it's a off-peak service.. Does anyone know which is correct please?

I can answer your question with another question.

Basically the restriction code P7 is relevant here. The off-peak ticket is not valid on trains timed to arrive in London Terminals before 10.00 (Mondays to Fridays). If this new train arrives after 10.00 then the off-peak ticket is valid IMO.

I'm wondering whether an easement has (or should) be made, given that it's a HST which has only called at Reading and will have plenty of seats, unlike the first off-peak stopping trains which are often full to bursting by West Drayton.  Perhaps Ollie can help?

The 09.19 arrives at 10.04 and the 09.27 arrives at 09.52.

So an off-peak ticket is fine for the 09.27, but an anytime is required for the 09.19 (in the absence of further info as IndustryInsider has suggested that Ollie may be able to check).

(I am just considering singles here - further considerations would be required for a return).

Wrong way round surely Fourbee. Arrival time before 1000 determines Peak validity for Maidenhead-Paddington.

0919 is Off Peak as it arrives 1004
0927 is Peak as it arrives 0952

Locally advertised easements notwithstanding. No easements listed against the restriction code P7 (http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/P7).

Yes BNM's post is correct. I got them the wrong way round. I could find no easements/caveats either.

No easements for this train that I'm aware of sorry, so it would be counted as peak.

Next question is why was Maidenhead station announcer saying the 0927 was Off Peak?

I've let the fares team know that aspect so they can look into it further and take any action they feel is appropriate.

Possibly an exception on the day to a short formed, delayed or cancelled local service?


If you ask me, if it's not going to just be a short-term addition to the timetable it would be eminently sensible to put an easement at both Reading and Maidenhead to relieve other longer distance already full trains.

Thanks, as ever, for your very useful input here on the Coffee Shop forum, Ollie!  ;)

This example just demonstrates how fiendishly complex the fares system is. The aim of different ticket flavours is clear, to use price as a tool to spread demand to where the capacity is; the implementation and training (of staff and customers) has been demonstrated to have several holes.

I generally think passengers understand advance fares now. The focus needs to be on:

- Training staff to a higher level - they should be the authority; no more situations like BNM had on Paddington gateline.
- Finding a mechanism to explain the anytime/off-peak/super off-peak cut-overs more clearly to customers, especially with restrictions focussing on the trains' final arrival times.
- A reasonable way to deal with disputes, including defined timescales for resolution, which is independent of the TOCs; a passenger should not miss a train on a technical point, it should be followed up later.

Despite being 3 years' old, this makes interesting (horrifying?) reading and hopefully emphasises why the third point is important:
http://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research/publications/ticket-to-ride-full-report-may-2012

Bit of an update on this one...

Off peak IS valid on this train (not from Reading though).

An easement was put in place in September. For some reason it's not in systems but was briefed locally, the fares team are working to try and get it so that the info is consistent at a stations and online journey planning level, but I don't have a date for when that will be corrected.

The positive of course is that you're most welcome to use an off peak ticket on that train :)

Left hand. Meet the right hand.  ::)

Yes indeed, though credit to GWR for allowing that easement which is a most sensible decision which will not just affect Maidenhead passengers.

Yes it's unfortunate not all staff knew, I include myself in this. The easement wasn't part of a fares round, so not always simple to get an easement added into systems from what I gather, but I don't claim to be an expert on the implementation side of things.

I agree with II that it's positive that it's been allowed, as it takes a lot of pressure off of the first off peak stopper which is shortly before this 09:27.

Slight edit in attempt to avoid my initial comment being taken in a way that was not intended.

So I paid too much to travel on that train earlier in the week.. shame... On the plus side I've been on that train a few times since it appeared on the timetable and no ticket check on the train as yet.. So all a bit of a hypothetical question really anyway  ::) ::) ???

How busy would you say it's been on average, Jo?

A rather flippant remark in light of the subsequent post. I doubt johoare is this only one who has been paying too much because GWR can't get the implementation of a fare change right.

A station announcement isn't much use if you've already bought an Anytime ticket online or from a TVM.

I'd be asking GWR for a refund of the difference.

I was referring to some staff not knowing, such as myself, but I suspect you probably knew that.

Happy for you to send me photo of ticket or a receipt and I'll sort the difference for you.

Did you intentionally post about the 9:27 at 9:27  ;D

Come on the railway uses the 24 hour clock so he was posting about the 09:27 at 21:27 not 09:27!

Total coincidence. Well spotted!  ;D

Thanks Ollie but the ticket machine ate it on my return to Maidenhead.. I may still have the receipt but will check.. I think it's worth me buying a ticket at the ticket office for that train going forward rather than the ticket machine/online

Silco drive car park has now been relocated. I was amused to see they've even relocated the broken ticket machine (the only one) into the new car park complete with cover and original sign telling people they have to buy tickets another way because the machine is broken  ??? ::) ::)

Great news - so that is 100 spaces at Maidenhead that we didn't have last week(??). That will help alleviate the pressure on shoppenhangers, particularly since a lot of heavy plant units are being stored there overnight at the moment.

I think it was there last week too but I've been ill so may have missed when the new Silco drive opened. It's bigger than it's predecessor but not sure it will take the extra cars that won't fit in Shoppenhangers anymore.. It was full up when I picked my car up before the rush hour had started today anyway.

Hope you're feeling better Jo.
Well shoppenhangers is full by 7.15 everyday so any extra capacity will be much appreciated. Even a small increase would enable me to get a slightly later, less overcrowded, train. At present train choices are controlled by the car park which is an odd state of affairs.

Thanks NickB.. I think Silco drive won't be full before 8 or later (depending on the day of the week). When I parked about 7am yesterday there was only a handful of cars in there.. Depending on what time you travel I've discovered the 7.13 (as long as it's it's usual 5 car length) has lots of seat choices at Maidenhead, fills up at Slough but generally everyone has a seat from there too, and gets into Paddington (platform 1) very shortly after the non-stop 7.17 departure.

I got back to my car tonight to a note on the windscreen saying that Silco drive car park is "temporarily" closing from the 6th January (it doesn't say if that's the start or the end of the 6th) for up to a year.. They're restoring the spaces they took away in Shoppenhangers and setting up a new temporary car park in Braywick park which is apparently a 12 minute walk from the station (so not really a station car park!) and also the wrong side of Maidenhead to get to for anyone currently using Silco drive...

Braywick Park is a fair trek - won't be much fun when it starts raining.

I'm at Maidenhead tomorrow morning so will try to find out more.

I'm assuming it's not something that has been planned for a long time since they installed a ticket machine and signs in the "new" Silco drive car park that hasn't really been in use that long since we moved from the old one..

Sorry, Jo, but you're assuming there's been some 'planning' involved ... ?   :o ::) ;D

Aah yes Chris - my first mistake  ;D

I wouldn't worry about how long it takes on foot, just remember to add the extra 30+ minutes each way while you sit in solid traffic along Windsor Road/Braywick Road at rush hour!

PS. if you are walking and its raining, beware of the flooded roads as you will get soaked when people speed through them. And keep your wits about you for the moron that drives along the pavement to avoid having to go up to the roundabout in the morning ....  ::)

I agree.. in the rush hour it's not the easiest place to get to. They have also provided a map to help us get from the new car park in Braywick park to the station which first involves crossing over 4 lanes of traffic.. Need to factor in the time for that too!

And not to mention the cyclists on the pavement.... :(

Keep it quite but there are a couple of extra fast trains from Taplow in the morning. Plus one of the evening down Henleyhas an extra stop at Taplow. Temporary whilst Silco Drive carpark closed.

ok thanks.. looking online they are the 7.41 and 8.41 departures from Maidenhead which also stop at Slough and follow stopping trains down the slow line... Unless you know of any extra really fast ones too?

The two Maidenhead station car parks are now full up shortly after 7am each morning. Anyone arriving after that cannot park anywhere near the station.. This morning several spaces were taken up by network rail vehicles too reducing the car parking spaces even further

Does anyone know when Silco Drive is going to reopen? 
It was scheduled to be closed 'until Autumn 2017' and construction activity has massively decreased but Silco Drive remains closed and Shoppenhangers remains overcrowded (full by 6.55 everyday).

I asked GWRHelp via Twitter and they are pretty sure that if it was promised to be open by the end of last year then that means it is open.. How simple life would be if everything we were promised turns out to be true as they believe to be the case  ::) ;D

I suspect they are never going to re-open it and that unless you turn up before 7am then there will be no station parking available..

Thanks for following up Jo.
Since posing my question I’ve asked my contact in Mr Hopwood’s team who told me that the closure remains ‘temporary’, and that a funding bid to expand Shoppenhangers was declined as it was considered too expensive.
I also asked the same question to APCOA who told me that the contractors have not told them when they will be leaving...

It’s a bloody nightmare Mon-Thurs.
From a GWR perspective what is the incentive to expand the carpark? They receive £X everyday for doing nothing. Why go to the trouble of spending £ millions on a multi-storey which will take years to recoup the expenses on?  The frailties of a purely ‘market-led’ economy.

I just asked on twitter again and was told "The Silco Car Park is Open"
So I've asked them when it re-opened as it wasn't open a couple of days ago... ::) ::)

Their response "I spoke to @APCOAUK a while ago and they confirmed it is now open, if you speak with them they can confirm the specific date it was reopened.".. So maybe it is..or maybe I believe everything I am told... I shall take a trip down there later to confirm if this is true or not.

That turned out (as I expected) to be a totally made up fact...  ::) ::)

Thanks for checking.
My expectations for GWR/Apcoa to tell the truth weren’t high. They met my expectations well.

I'm not sure what's going on but Shoppenhangers car park has been more busy than ever for the last 2 weeks - cars queuing to park at the far end by 06.55am, full by 7.  Is there more traffic, is another car park closed or is it a change in the timetable?

I agree - the last two weeks have been hellish. 
Silco Drive being closed is the main factor (hence enquiries to find out when this will reopen).  I think that some passengers from the Marlow branch line (and Henley?) are possibly driving to Maidenhead since the cessation of direct services to Paddington.  And finally it is peak 'got to go to work'/'haven't got any holiday booked' time of year.

I pointed out their incorrect information and that there isn't enough parking and questioned who is responsible for providing enough parking at stations and got the following reply "Hi there. We work alongside APCOA to assess parking. I will make sure your feedback is recorded Maidenhead. I will give the station a call to get an update on Silco Drive. When I hear back I will be in touch".. That was on Tuesday.. I'll chase for a response next week if I don't get one.

An update from my helpful source at GWR.

Works at Silco Drive are delayed due to Network Rail needing to retender.  There is no eta for the release of the car park.

👎

That's not ideal in the slightest.. The car park itself looks to be pretty much empty and unused each day from what I can see from the other side of the railway line which is a big waste or valuable parking space

Indeed.  FYI shoppenhangars road car park is 50% closed for Network Rail activity over the next few days.

I see the top half of Shoppenhangers car park has been tarmaced - which presumably means no expansion (upwards?) of the car park.  Lets hope Crossrail doesn't grow the number of passengers....

I wonder by how much APCOA feel they can increase the daily rate for a non-pothole rubble-covered surface.

I hadn’t seen this elsewhere so I hope I’m not duplicating the story. Credit to Maidenhead Advertiser of course.  The lift to the platform is a good 3-4m from the platform edge so this will be an interesting story to watch unfold.

https://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/gallery/maidenhead/129978/rail-inspectors-investigating-after-empty-pram-is-dragged-into-train-path.html

The pram sand child was reportedly sucked into the path of a passing freight train.

Re: passing freight trains. This could also be an issue at Hayes & Harlington on platform 3 where the stairs come down from the upper foyer. The platform there is very narrow and uneven right along past the waiting room to the 'new' bridge. This is due to works by Crossrail and Network Rail on platform 2 impinging upon the access to platform 3. Seems like its par for the course. I have informed the Health & Safety Executive.

To be clear ... that's pram sans (without) child not pram and (with) child, thank goodness.

'sans' it is!!

I travelled from Wycombe to Birmingham last weekend (and back) and couldn't help notice that GWR could take some advice from Chiltern about providing adequate car parking at their stations..
 
Take High Wycombe for example.. Their car park is about the same size in my opinion as Shoppenhangers at Maidenhead.. But then they've put a big multi storey on part of it so that when I got there about 1pm Friday I had a couple of floors of spaces to chose from. I saw many other similar car parks at Chiltern operated stations from the train..

You mean like the one at Bristol Parkway and the one being built at Didcot Parkway?

Hi all,

Does anyone know why 1D93 (1810 at Maidenhead), has suddenly switched from Platform 3, to Platform 4? It happened about 2 weeks ago I think - confused the hell out of me when I came back from a week off  ??? ;D

It seems that there are services to Reading almost every 5 minutes now, so the times are quite tight (is the 1813 a new one?), which is why I assume it has moved, but it switches back and forth depending on what other services are delayed, and happens right at the last minute, leading to everyone running up and down the stairs. Last night they made the announcement but the boards still showed it on platform 4 for a good few minutes, leading to those that arrived after the announcement being on the wrong platform.

Along those lines, does anyone know why the OpenTrainTimes maps still show it coming in on platform 3, even when its on platform 4? I usually use that to preempt a platform change (it comes in on the mainline and then routes into 3 or 4) - but the last couple of days its shown it coming into 3 both times, when it actually came into 4 on Wednesday.

I can only assume it is to help passengers get to the 18:13 Bourne End service quicker. Perhaps this keeps being delayed when there is a minor delay to 1D93. Problem is though, if 1D93 is a little behind schedule then that delays the 18:15 to Paddington which is waiting to arrive from the middle siding.

I've had a look back through and see no reason as to why it suddenly jumps to platform 3 every now and again. It is scheduled to use Platform 4 until the end of the month though.

(The 18:13 to Reading has been in operation since at least May)

What is going on with this service?  Usually 6 cars, but only 3 today, the number of cars has been up and down all summer, varying between 6, 4 and 3 as i recall with no apparent pattern.  The initial explanation was 'due to engineering works at Didcot'  I can kind of understand how engineering works might prevent a full service, but why the daily variation?

Is it really due to staff shortages/stock unexpectedly out of service/lack of maintenance that I have read about elsewhere for other trains?  The cynic in me also assumes that because the service is running to time it gets a tick in the box even though capacity has been cut by half?

It's going to be carnage putting 6 cars worth of passengers into 3 when everyone returns from their summer hols.  Indeed, the other day, it was noticeably dangerous and the driver had to sound his horn as passengers moved along the platform on the wrong side of the yellow line as they realised the train was short-formed just as it was approaching.

At least he sounded a warning horn. Such over-crowding is a recipe for someone trying to board at doors where pax are jammed, the doors then closing, and the train moving off dragging the poor s%d along the platform. But this would never happen on our modern and professionally operated railways would it? Hmm - thinks back to Hounslow, Hayes & Harlington, and other stations.

I catch the same train at Twyford so agree with you that 3 cars is nowhere near enough. I'm guessing the variance in size is due to 3 cars being needed elsewhere while the new trains  bed in/drivers are trained etc.

As GWR have redeployed a lot of their DMUs there's probably a very small pool of DMU rolling stock to call on now.

Wow, finally some customer service, we thought this am when the 7.01 was reported to be full & standing; customers advised to change platform for a later train for a more comfortable journey.  How we laughed as we watched from a different platform as the 7.01 pulled in with empty seats and no sign of anyone standing.

The slightly earlier non stop Twyford to London train was cancelled this morning so I'm guessing they thought it would be crowded. It was pretty packed on the platform at Twyford but there were more seats available than I expected.

I've noticed the following on journey check the last few days? Anyone know what the problem under investigation is?

19:48 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 22:22
19:48 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 22:22 will no longer call at Maidenhead.
This is due to a problem currently under investigation.

Is that the one where they're investigating how a 9 car train that's not had its software updated for selective door opening at Maidenhead has come to be rostered on that diagram?

You couldn't make it up  ::) :-\

GWR have decided to carry on calling the Oxford there instead until the 2nd December when SDO will be updated for Maidenhead.

…...more investigations!

23:01 Oxford to London Paddington due 00:22


23:01 Oxford to London Paddington due 00:22 will no longer call at Maidenhead.
This is due to a problem currently under investigation.

I'll be interested to see if the 19:48 cancellations continue this week. 
I flagged elsewhere about how the 7.06 Maidenhead-->Paddington (which starts from Worcester) was running as a 5 car IET last week rather than an HST.  That switch was attributed to the software problem mentioned above.
The HST resumed service this morning (thankfully!!) and so I can only assume that last week's change was due to the Hereford-Worcester engineering work rather than the software problem.
I mention this because I thought that the cars for the 19.48 service to Worcester became the morning service that reaches Maidenhead at 7.06 (??)

Update: looks like the 19:48 is back on the menu for this evening.

After a couple of good weeks with the regular HST we are back to the 'not calling at Maidenhead' problem again.

The SDO database on IET’s has now been updated, so 9-car one’s should now be able to stop there.

I was on the 19.48 Tuesday (18th) and it stopped at Maidenhead then. There was some announcement about moving forward for people at the back of the train to alight at Maidenhead though.

Looks like tonight its calling at maidenhead, it is sitting comfortably in plat 2 at Paddington waiting to go.

Interestingly, tonight it's an HST with 9 coaches.

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/rps20181220_200151_zpsehdilpxg.jpg)

Not an IET?

Funny thing I,ve just noticed that as you were posting.

Also just noticed its going towards Swindon and not through Oxford like they usually do, If 9 coaches it wont fit in Gloucester station. Now finding out it was an IET Will fit just about in plat 2.

Complete brain fade. Of course 9 coaches is an IET.

And going via Kemble is its usual journey.

Wot I thought. I've also got used to seeing them as 10 cars with first class in 1,2 6 and 7, or A,B,I and J, or one from the top two from the middle please Carol.

ODD: I looked on opentraintimes, was listed as a HST.

And stopped at Maidenhead, must of been a converted one.

That would be the timing. All high speed services are currently timed as HSTs.

There was a 9 coach HST going around at some point, though.

Adding to that picture ... many current timings for


turn out to be class 165 or 166

and timings for


Are oft run by 158, 165 or 166 units.

I can't recall when a 155 or 156 last appeared at Westbury - from which I have taken those latest quotes

It's been a good run but only 3 coaches today which made it all a bit unpleasant. It's also been 5 coaches a lot more frequently. Hopefully this isn't related to the Turbos cascade and challenges around maintenance or spares.

It did manage to be its regular 4-5 mins late though.

I wondered why the 7.06 was a little busier today.
I’m surprised that the 7.01 is still a turbo. Any idea when it is due to be upgraded?

As it starts from Oxford and calls at all stations to Maidenhead (yes even all three between Oxford and Didcot, being their only through morning service to London) it isn't clear what could be a suitable direct replacement.

It could possibly be a candidate for an 8-car Class 769 when they arrive, along with the 17:18 equivalent Turbo return working from Paddington.

I followed today's diagram and it headed out for Great Malvern once arrived in Paddington.  I had wondered if it headed for Bedwyn, but apparently not!   I would expect diagrams to change in December ... but will the 769s be as wide ranging as Paddington and Great Malvern, or is this slated as one of the diagrams for 80x units once they're all in service?

They won’t go beyond Oxford, and might not even go beyond Didcot or even Reading regularly.  As you say, the diagrams, and times of trains, will alter significantly come the end of the year.

I don’t believe there will be any Cotswold Line services formed by Turbos from then, except the morning ‘Halts’ train.  That was the original plan anyway.

Does the 'halt' service include the 06.53/07.01 we're discussing? I think its going to struggle in its current format. Based on the totally unscientific basis of a couple of people I work with more people on the Oxford to Reading part of the journey are using it rather than change at Reading. For them its a much more comfortable journey and they get a seat. It also seems to be getting much busier at Twyford since I've been using it.

You could move the Henley connection back a few minutes so they get the next fast train although I can see that being unpopular as its slightly slower and 10 minutes later.

The "halts" train is later ... (e.g.) 07:53 at Finstock, 08:10 Oxford, 08:28 Didcot from where you can catch the stopper at 08:35 to London at 10:02, or the express at 08:55 into London at 09:36

On return, it's the 16:22 from London, 17:25 at Oxford, 17:46 into Finstock.

Now an IET, and definitely not an upgrade!

Assuming 5 carriages is the normal length for this service, seating capacity is down significantly from the previous old-fashioned diesel, when most people getting on at Maidenhead could get a seat, now most of them can't.

In addition the single door entry makes it much slower to get on and off.

On Monday it passed Radley, Culham and Appleford because of a SDO issue - up to a 50 minute wait for the next one. On capacity it needs to be a 9 car ... although more door issues then :D

Is this the same train that runs in the evening to Oxford, arriving at Maidenhead at 1740?

I happened to be at Maidenhead earlier last night, and the 1740 was delayed and I noticed it was an IET instead of the old turbo. I did check RTT but it still had it down as a 165/166, so I wasn't sure - but seeing this today made me wonder if the turbo had been swapped for the IET permanently (or at least for this time table change).

That Oxford bound one is now booked for a 9-car IET.  It ran about 8 minutes late from Maidenhead onwards yesterday evening, because of problems not related to the train.

Thank you II (as always!) - might try it out tonight  :)

Did you?  It arrived Maidenhead 4 minutes early tonight, start to stop in 18 minutes.

I did indeed - my first time on an IET - and I see what everyone says about the seats - I thought the 387's were bad! Was not to badly loaded when it left Maidenhead (which surprised me given the earlier delays and cancellations), I was in coach H, but it was rammed solid at Reading. Might try further along the train next time I catch it. Given me a nice option for summers though - I couldn't stand the Turbo heat anymore!

Been away so a bit of a surprise to see a 5 car IET pull in at Twyford.

I use to take the view that billions of pounds of investment had made no difference to my commute. Now I think its safe to say billions of pounds later it is far, far worse.

Absolutely packed and from some of the shouting I could hear not even sure everyone got on a Maidenhead. Talking to some of my fellow travellers many had already written to GWR to complain and been told it represented an increase in seats compared to the Turbo. And the train companies wonder why nobody likes them.

Seriously how can they think this is a sensible idea? As sanfrandragon says the layout makes it far worse with long delays on boarding/disembarking. I also noticed that many of the people standing had nothing to hold onto other than the tops of seats as presumably the IET weren't designed with the aim of everyone standing.

And this is only the Tuesday after a bank holiday with some schools away...

Quite a few cancellations between Reading - Paddington this morning due to overhead wire problems, perhaps that made the 0701 busier than usual?

I think it’ll be a more consistent 12-car 387 service for fasts from Twyford/Maidenhead from December, (along with the TfL Rail stoppers) but until then a 5-car IET seems to be the best they can provide.  Some 387s are in for Heathrow mods and less Turbos are about.

Most of the fast trains still seemed to be running but could be a factor although I'd probably see that off set by more people than usual being away.

Talking to a few people though they said it had been the same all last week.

If you lost or declassified the 1 and half carriages of first class then the IET would probably be fine.

That’s only another 30 something seats, even if none of them are occupied by first class passengers.

Is that all? I assumed it would be more but I think then there's going to be a lot of unhappy passengers at Maidenhead/Twyford.

Be interesting to see if people start reserving seats (which I'm guessing you can do now as its an IET?) as I think that will only make things worse.

The '1' coach of first class you are referring to also contains the kitchen, Train Manager's office, space for 2 wheelchairs and a accessible toilet so there actually only a few First class seats in this coach.

The new 7.01 formation has pushed even more passengers on to the 7.08 which was spacious for a while following its conversion from HST to 9 car IET.

I am in full agreement that the 7.01 is grossly overcrowded and that the situation has worsened since the retirement of the Turbo.  It needs to be a 9 car urgently.

A warning that the 07:08 is also a 5-car this morning.

Update:  it’s terminated at Oxford anyway due to problems at Hayes.

I took this service from TWY this morning for the first time since it was converted to IET and it was a 9-car set so hopefully this is regular now. FC was at the front so I went towards the rear. Cars A & B and the rear door of C were off the end of platform 4 so I boarded through the front of C and walked down to A where there was plenty of empty seats, even after calling at MAI.

That's good news. I was at Ealing Broadway for the 1707 last night (cancelled, train fault)) and the 1720 was shortformed as a 3 car Turbo (another train fault). Managed to wedge myself on but it was packed beyond description and left many behind on the platform.

Interestingly it’s booked a 9-car for today only this week.  Rest of the week it’s a 5-car.  Perhaps a special event, or VIP, is being catered for later in the diagram?  Either way, don’t expect a 9-car next time sadly!

Ah well that answers my question about where to stand next week...

On the roof?

Beginning to feel like that isn't it?

Out of interest what is the relative seated capacity for Standard Class only of a 6 car turbo vs a 5 car IET ?

According to Wikipedia a 5 Car Set IET had 45 First Class, 270 Standard.

The Turbos don't appear to have seating capacity listed but according to Angel Trains (so there may be regional variations) a 165 has 264 std, 24 1st class seats per 3-car unit and 170 Std, 16 1st class seats per 2-car unit.

So quite a big reduction although chatting to some  passengers at Maidenhead who complained to GWR they were told the IET was an improvement.

Twyford is starting to resemble Maidenhead now with a lot more jockeying for position and bad behaviour.

I think that the figure for first class IET seating is out of date.
45 First class seats was the original plan, but the GWR units were downgraded to 36 first class seats.

I'm not sure how that's a "downgrade". Squeezing three more first-class eats into the DPTF1 might be, though. If your unmet need is for a seat, especially a standard class one, both would be upgrades.

The current seating diagrams show 290+36.

Broadgage always tries to shoehorn the words 'downgrade', 'DMU' and 'half-length' into every post.   Much like ASLEF usually manage to include 'bulldoze' at least once in their press releases.  ;)

Totals I believe are:

5-Car IET 290+36, total 324
9-Car IET 576+71, total 647

6-Car Turbo has a total of 477-528 depending on which layout it is formed of.

4-car 387 is 224
8-car 387 is 448
12-car 387 is 672

In the case of IETs and 387s all seats are spacious whereas the three abreast Turbo ones aren't, even if you're slim.

There certainly are 'less than the best' classes of train covering some specific services in the Thames Valley at the moment: 5-carriage IETs on commuter stopping services from Oxford as here; 3-carriage turbos on Oxford fasts and the same running entirely under the wires to Reading etc. I don't doubt this is the best fit to the diagrams and what is available and capable of running, but is no consolation to those who have to bear the consequences. Maybe the jam will come tomorrow.

Broadgage bingo, a game everyone can play. Who can be first to shout "IET" after getting all the above, plus short-form and buffet.  A bottle of port is first prize, and runner up gets a £5 voucher to spend on the IET trolley, assuming it ever gets to you of course.  Playing at least once daily, for the next 37 years.

Except the ones with a door recess instead of a window. The wall seat on those seems very rarely to get taken, and for good reason.

A little light relief,or main line fun from GWR .
That nice young man with his beard,Mr Tim Dunn has been looking at the Maidenhead Bridge and its history On behalf Of GWR, do watch it to the end .

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=338647363723880&id=345127331805&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FMllir4GATV&_rdr.

Absolutely rammed again although kudos to the driver (or train manager?) who declassified first class. I think this one of the first times I've seen this done outside of an incident or delays on a regular service. I think they did it yesterday as well but I had my headphones on by then.

If it becomes a regular thing I might go stand further up the platform but I'm guessing its dependent on the crew.

There’s a train manager on it as it makes calls at unstaffed stations en-route so they would make that decision.  It regularly loads to around 450 people, with 150-200 of those joining at Maidenhead, so one of the busiest GWR trains that are booked for a 5-car.

The planned 12-car 387 from December will be warmly welcomed!

De-classified 1st class yesterday, but refused to today.

Instead the train manager shooed everyone out, after announcing there were seats towards the front, quickly ammended to there being standing room at the front.  Well thanks very much for providing standing room!

It's also a lottery if 1st class is at the back or front of the train.

And this is during the relatively quiet summer.  It's going to be carnage once everyone gets back from their hols and I predict lost tempers all round.  What GWR were thinking with the change of train or how this is providing an acceptable service is beyond me.

I have successfully argued with the TM on two occasions that this train is automatically declassified as it it advertised in the Public Timetables as a standard class-only train. There is no mention of First Class on any of the journey feeds, nor on the platform information screens.   I did this in first class with a first class season ticket but being accompanied on both occasions by an offspring travelling with me to London with a standard plus 16-25 rail card.

If the service is not advertised as carrying first class it effectively doesn't carry it. That is why I don't use this train except in the company of my adult children as it carries no services and the pseudo-first class is full by Twyford and rammed by Maidenhead. By rights the 'First Class' seats should all be occupied after Goring and Streatley!

There's no seat reservations either although I haven't looked at Trainline to see if I can reserve them on a standard ticket as opposed to my season ticket. Not sure I fancy my chances of getting people to move though if I did have a reservation.

Even with first class available its still pretty cosy and options at that time are limited as the train before it from Twyford is also an 5 car IET and just as packed as its the only non stop train to Paddington.

With details now much clearer, though still not 100% confirmed I thought I'd see what Maidenhead to London commuters can look forward to in the morning peak from December, against today.

Times covered are 06:30-08:45 departures which involve no more than two stops en-route, and journey times of no more than 35 minutes.

A train by train breakdown is listed below, but the headline estimated figure is an increase in carriages of 21 from 97, to 118.  Crucially in terms of the current crowding on the 07:01 5-car IET, the equivalent at 07:02 now becomes a 12-car 387, and the 07:08 equivalent at 07:07 remains a 9-car IET.  Six trains are formed of 12-car 387s against two currently.

As and when unconfirmed train lengths become certain I will update the list.

Today: (total of 97 carriages)
1P01 - 06:32 dep/06:54 arr - 8 car 387
1P02 - 06:42 dep/07:06 arr - 5 car IET
1P03 - 07:01 dep/07:24 arr - 5 car IET
1P04 - 07:08 dep/07:29 arr - 9 car IET
1P05 - 07:10 dep/07:36 arr - 8 car 387
1P06 - 07:18 dep/07:38 arr - 8 car 387
1P08 - 07:33 dep/07:55 arr - 12 car 387
1P09 - 07:44 dep/08:16 arr - 6 car Turbo
1P11 - 08:02 dep/08:24 arr - 12 car 387
1P81 - 08:06 dep/08:30 arr - 8 car 387
1K07 - 08:11 dep/08:41 arr - 5 car IET
1P15 - 08:32 dep/08:54 arr - 8 car 387

December: (total of 118 carriages)
1P92 - 06:33 dep/06:52 arr - 12 car 387
1P10 - 06:45 dep/07:05 arr - IET (assume 5-car as from Oxford)
1P75 - 07:02 dep/07:22 arr - 12 car 387
1P11 - 07:07 dep/07:24 arr - IET (assume 9-car as from Worcester)
1P76 - 07:15 dep/07:40 arr - 8 car 387 (length not confirmed)
1P77 - 07:32 dep/07:52 arr - 12 car 387
1K05 - 07:35 dep/07:54 arr - 8 car 387 (length not confirmed)
1P78 - 07:44 dep/08:19 arr - 8 car 387 (length not confirmed)
1P79 - 08:02 dep/08:22 arr - 12 car 387
1P80 - 08:14 dep/08:49 arr - 12 car 387 (hoped to be a 12-car - powers that be are working on it still)
1P81 - 08:31 dep/08:53 arr - 12 car 387
1P82 - 08:44 dep/09:09 arr - 8 car 387 (length not confirmed)

We will see an improvement at Pangbourne (and thus at Cholsey, Goring and Tilehurst also).  There are more and longer peak hour trains from December.  I agree with II that RTT info is changing frequently: when timings first went up last week some of our “semi-fasts” – ie non-stop from Maidenhead – were showing as running RL to Padd. These are now all showing ML.

I’m a bit surprised that there are no significant accelerations: journey times Pangbourne – Padd on a semi fast will be very similar to the timings now.

Finally, as has been said, it looks like some trains aren’t in RTT yet – eg I assume there will be a 1649 Padd – Didcot semi-fast.

No it's not, it's a complete disaster! (for me anyway, as I commute from Tilehurst to Ealing Broadway) - NO local stopping services at all whatsoever in either the morning or evening peak apart from Crossrail trains (and to make it even worse that what I had expected, I can't even see their promised semifasts only calling at Reading/Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough/WD/EB/Pad, they all look like slower stoppers!)

So basically I'll either have to change at Reading or Maidenhead and endure a long, uncomfortable journey in a rattling cattle truck with no toilets or tables, or have go via Paddington in both the morning AND the evening, which is even worse than now, when I just have to do it in the evening. That option also will be much worse when the new Crossrail platforms come in as it will make changing at Paddington a lot more complicated on top of everything else.

Just don't understand why they are doing something that will unnecessarily INCREASE the number of people who need to change at Paddington, when the whole point of Crossrail was to do the opposite.... Grrrrr!!!

I think I assumed wrong.  Looks like this train isn't going to run from December: its path Padd-Rdg has got a better offer, and its path Rdg - Didcot is being filled by a new stopper from Padd leaving Rdg at the same time as the 1649 ex Padd does now ie 1725. I don't know what time Janes finishes but this train calls at Ealing Broadway at 1634.

12-car evening services are planned to be the 17:20, 17:50, 18:20 and 18:49 Paddington to Didcot services (17:20 and 18:20 detach a portion at Reading).

"I don't know what time Janes finishes but this train calls at Ealing Broadway at 1634"

That would be an incredibly early finish for me - I tend to leave the office between 17:00 and 18:30 depending on the day of the week - and it's then a 10-15 minute walk to EB station (I can get so much more work done in that last hour or so once everyone else has gone home! :)) However to look on the marginally brighter side, it is still half an hour later than the last stopping service now, so may find myself using it on the odd occasion.

Still doesn't explain what has happened to the semifasts though...

And to bring the topic back to the actual thread (mods, I think some of these posts actually belong on the new timetable thread - but I was just replying to one that was there already, your honour!) - the situation is likely to result in the fast Twy-Mai-Pad trains being even more full of those of us from the local stations between Didcot and Reading who are turning back at Paddington to EB than they are now, because we are losing our two stopping options that we have now in the mornings which a lot of us use.

No seats at all today.....

05:50 Oxford to London Paddington due 07:24
05:50 Oxford to London Paddington due 07:24 will be cancelled.
This is due to a shortage of train crew.

I did think this is one way of dealing with over crowding as I stood waiting on the platform.

Late this morning as there appeared to be a new train scheduled before it. There was a 06.51 to Twyford - Henley waiting on the London platform this morning for several minutes which caused the London trains to be delayed. Bit of a surprise if anyone can shed any light on it?

That confused me - you mean at Twyford.  The 6:51 isn't new, but it usually runs from P5. The Henley train should arrive from Reading at 5:45 and reverse in P4 for its first run on the branch. Today it was meant to come from Slough, for some reason, but the first Henley rotation was cancelled due to (guess what) "overrunning engineering works (I5)." So it arrived an hour later, when even a couple of minutes in P4 delays at least two trains.

ah - that makes sense. Glad its not going to be a regular occurrence as as you say it has quite a big knock on effect to other services.

Big? Two trains were five minutes or less late at Twyford and Maidenhead; both were back on time into Paddington. Was there anything else?

Well you yourself said even a couple of minutes delay impacts at least two trains. It also doesn't seem to take much to knock the whole timetable off kilter but I was mainly looking at the 06.53 which is regularly slightly late in Paddington. Even a couple of minutes each day starts to get tedious on a regular commute especially on a train that is so crowded.

Still it was a one off so crisis averted.

The announcers at Maidenhead have, this week, taken a new approach to managing the 7.01 - ‘Project Fear’ 😁

The arrival of the 7.01 is now preceded by a del station that it is ‘extremely busy and full and standing and formed of only 5 coaches’. Instead of boarding customers should move to platform 2 for the 7.08 ‘which has 9 coaches’.

This has had the effect of making the 7.08 ‘full and standing’ so no gain there. Maybe I’ll start a thread about the 7.08...

They also managed to balls this up on Tuesday when the 7.08 was shortformed resulting in the 7.01 leaving relatively empty and the 7.08 leaving passengers on the platform. Slow hand clap.

I’m curious about how the announcer knows that it is full and standing in advance. Does the train manager call ahead or, as I suspect, the announcer is making it up as he goes?

I expect they're just trying to help even out the number of people over the two trains as best as possible until the improvements in December?  Two very full trains is better than one incredibly full train and one full train I suppose?  Not a bad thing, unless the 07:08 is a 5-car.

I did wonder if there had been some changes at Maidenhead as the number of people waiting and then standing has seemed slightly less than usual. I assumed they'd just declassified first class and everyone was stood there.

I think its was Wednesday when the 06.43 at Twyford was cancelled/delayed/evaporated which meant the 06.53/07.01 was completely packed even before it arrived at Maidenhead.

There speaks an optimist!  :)

Don't the IETs have systems for monitoring the relative loading in carriages - be that weight or numbers through the doors.  A bit of automatic calculation on there will suggest an answer, as well as feeding the new information systems which are starting to show which carriages are best to join.

Quite optimistic about this one, as the 07:01 5-car IET becomes an 07:02 formed by a 12-car 387.  :P

IETs do have that facility based on a counting system.  There’s also advanced plans to provide real-time data to staff (and passengers) based on mobile phone signals.  I believe this is the research scheme:

https://ts.catapult.org.uk/current-projects/railwatch/

https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=103968

What was specified for IEP came in two parts. The counting system per se was required to count people through the doors, both on/off and between coaches, to give occupancy per coach to 5% or one person. The result of that was to be available on board in the TMS, and remotely at control.

The second part was a single sentence within the passenger information spcification: "The PIS must utilise the data from the passenger counting system to indicate to passengers within the IEP Train the status of the occupancy of each IEP Vehicle." I don't think that exists - at least I've never noticed it. In which case it's hard to tell whether tthe counting system itself is operational.

It would make sense to have something that puts loading information on line, or in stations, etc., drawing its data from whatever sources there are. Presumably a built-in counter should be better than one installed on a few platforms, and counting phones might (or might not - lots of assumptions there) be quite good as well, and in any case be cheaper to implement widely. But note - that's a "should", not a "will".

‘Occupancy’ columns have started to appear on industry systems, though not yet populated with any data, indicating that implementation for some trains at least is imminent.

Wrong way round today again  (or opposite from how its been for the last couple of months).

Highlighted how unsuitable these trains are for this route as most of the platform all tried to board through the same two doors to avoid First Class.

Roll on December

I note that many people nowadays have 2 phones, presumably one for work and one for personal use.  Carriages are going to seem very overcrowded if occupancy is measured by phone signal!

I guess there will be some kind of allowance averaged out for the likely percentage of people with no phone and those with more than one device.

Maidenhead Shoppenhangers Rd station car park full by 06.55 again this morning with those missing out on a space facing a tortuous drive around the town centre to find alternative arrangements.  Any news if more convenient car parks will be opened up, or if Shoppenhangers Rd will go double-decker?  if Crossrail ever runs from Reading to central London (2022 maybe?) the situation will only get worse.

I fully concur - this morning was awful in shoppenhangers. Although, as an aside, whilst 20+ cars were battling over the final space at the end of the carpark there was a space right next to the exit that no one had seen!

I have it on good authority that Silco Drive will be reopening, and not too long (in GWR terms) to wait. Once the platform works are completed there may be encouraging news.
Plans to double-deck (or triple deck, which is what is actually needed!) shoppenhangers have been abandoned as non cost effective. In some ways that goes without saying, that parking for an additional 200 cars would take a millennium to repay the millions it would cost to build the carpark, but Wokingham managed to overcome that hurdle...

In the meantime we’ll all have to set our alarm clocks earlier and earlier (I now get up 20mins earlier than I did 9 years ago, purely due to that infernal carpark).

3 coaches this morning.

With my season ticket due for renewal next week I can see me becoming increasing incoherent and inarticulate if this continues.

1P10, 06:45 departure confirmed as a 9-car IET, and 1P11 is a 10-car IET (after Oxford), and two unconfirmed 387 services have now been confirmed - list updated.

12-cars it may have been but it was still full and standing throughout, late, and on the wrong platform.

Today is not a good start.

This mornings issues are signal failure related rather than lack of stock, causing many problems in the Twyford/Maidenhead area.

You beat me to it.  12 minutes late.

Not a great start ::)

off sick today so didn't go into London but this is so disappointing to hear.

Was it crush loaded like the old 5-car train was, or just full with a few standees?  I see it left virtually on time and the following 10-car 07:07 was expected to be between 5 and 10 minutes late so perhaps more people made a dash for it than would have otherwise? 

The previous 06:45 left at 06:53 and was the newly extended 9-car IET, so that’s 31 carriages worth leaving Maidenhead on fast trains within the space of about 25 minutes!

Looked pretty cosy from where I was stood.  If anything it looked as though there were more passengers onboard from previous stations, and then the avalanche of maidenhead passengers that have been waiting for a full-size, earlier, service than the previous 7.08 will gravitate towards this enhanced service.  Deleting the 7.10 service from the new timetable doesn’t help space people out either.

The return trip this evening is looking pretty ropey already. The reduction in frequency of services compounded by poor platforming decisions, cancellations and late calls for boarding reduce my overall rating for today to 2/10. Those points being scored for not having to travel via Marylebone.

I see the 0707 missed out Maidenhead today - apparently because it was running 8 minutes late?

Indeed it did. ‘A fault on this service’, that didn’t prevent it stopping at Oxford or Reading after that fault was declared.  Perhaps the fault discovered was an allergy to delay repay 😉

Needless to say that the 7.02 from maidenhead was full and standing throughout.

It was 12 minutes late from Oxford after being delayed on the Cotswold Line.  It has to stop there as it couples to another unit.  Expect more ‘brutal’ decisions like that though.  Nothing whatsoever to do with delay-repay, but simply because anything late holding up the mains at Maidenhead will knock on to other services for a long while after.

At least the 07:02 was 12-cars, departed from the right platform, and was early into Paddington.

We appear to be entering a glass half-empty vs glass half-full circular here so I shall state for the record that I acknowledge that teething problems with the timetable might be expected, but I am also simply stating my opinion of the service provided, and doing so as a passenger/customer/client of GWR.
 
Maidenhead has an acknowledged capacity problem (that will only get worse when another 10,000 homes are built in the next decade) and therefore curtailing a popular peak service such as the 7.07 so that it doesn't 'hold up the mains' fails to acknowledge that there were actual people expecting that train to arrive and take them to Paddington.  A delayed arrival at Paddington for the 7.07 and the 2 trains behind it that are caught in that 12min window is not, in my opinion, as important as people arriving at the station and having no service to take them at all, particularly as it still found time to stop at Reading which has a wide range of fast services.
If the 7.07 becomes a victim of frequent curtailment then what will likely happen is that myself and my fellow passengers will cease to 'expect' it to arrive and will therefore squash on to the 7.02, negating any benefit of the upgrade in formation.  It is also worth noting that Maidenhead used to have the 7.10 (slough and paddington only) that used to catch anyone who really wanted a seat or whose train had been curtailed but this has now been removed.  That means that the capacity in that super-peak window of 6.45-7.15 has shrunk from 23 carriages to 20, and this morning was only 12.
 
I was really happy with GWR services over the past year.  I really thought that they had got their act together, but the new timetable feels like a backward step, in my opinion.

I'd echo Nick's sentiments but from a Twyford viewpoint. It's very frustrating when the 'fast' Maidenhead/Twyford trains go non stop to London/Reading as that's not where the capacity issues are. Similarly we seem spoilt for choice on stopping services but they're pretty empty from Twyford and I'd imagine its the same at Maidenhead. Equally though they're packed by the time they reach London. Without changing the topic its why I'm not convinced about Crossrail for this area.

I still have high hopes for Twyford and the new timetable if only to replace the terrible 5 car IET at 06.53. This was a reasonable service (with hindsight) when a 6 car turbo so hopefully its just infrastructure issues that means the (eventual) 12 car replacement is packed. Maybe its the butterfly flaps its wings effect and a change someone else we've not clocked is causing it to be packed? Can't think what though as it was already a Didcot stopper and pretty full from the Henley connection.

The 06.44 non stop to Paddington still exists (on paper anyway). That has variously been a 9 car 125 to a 3 car turbo and always crowded. Not sure what it is currently but if that was upgraded (if it hasn't been already) then it would ease some of the pressure on Maidenhead. The previous 5 car IET though didn't make it worth the grief from a personal point of view.

It does make me worry what it will be like in a couple of years time with all the house building promised/threatened.

I can see the logic, and I can see your point about sacrificing the Reading stop rather than the Maidenhead one, but in terms of just delaying the next two trains, I'm afraid it's far from that simple.

Between Ruscombe to Taplow that train recovered five minutes this morning, so that's approximately the 'cost of the stop' in terms of time.  Doesn't sound much, does it?  But it's not just the one, two or three trains that might have caught it up running behind, it's the concertina affect that can have further back - a bit like when a motorist touches the brakes on the M25 that resulting in a log-jam a few minutes later a junction or two back. 

Then there's the feeding points to the main lines to consider, so at Maidenhead East, Slough West, Dolphin Junction and Airport Junction there are all possible conflicts with trains coming off the relief lines to the mains.  If they have to wait five minutes they can knock on trains behind them, or possibly trains heading on the relief line in the other direction when they do get to cross over.  If they get the signal ahead of the 07:07 then that can lose much more time very quickly as it catches up with them. 

Then there's the flighting of platforms at Paddington to consider - everything arrives and departs on a sequence, so an extra delay to an arrival can mean a delayed departure to other services.  Or if bad enough the next working of that train can be delayed, which can affect other arrivals and departures, even if, like that one, the train only goes to North Pole Depot after arrival.

The new timetable is tighter than ever in that regard, hence my comment about brutal decisions being more likely.  Saving five or so minutes on a critical part of the route can save knock on delays reaching the hundreds of minutes surprisingly easily.  I do get understand all that is not the passengers problem, but hopefully that explains a little more why a decision such as this morning's is taken in the wider interest?

 

That train is certainly more fragile than it was and is likely to be more susceptible to problems.  That's basically down to it now running as a 5-car from Worcester and getting another 5-cars attached at Oxford, rather than running as a 9-car throughout.  Previously it had five minutes booked at Oxford, and if on time usually arrived a couple of minutes early, so there was a bit of leeway should it be running a few minutes late.  That booked time at Oxford is now seven minutes, but with the coupling procedure that time is instantly eaten up - indeed this morning it lost a couple more minutes.  Expect that operation to get a little slicker over time, but this is the first time IET's have coupled at Oxford, and the first time for a lot of drivers that they have coupled up in service ever.  More time is ideally needed.  It then has two minutes less to get to Maidenhead which was slack in the old HST based schedule, but again that gave it a little more scope to make back a few minutes worth of delay.

We will see whether it becomes one of the genuine problem trains that action has to be taken over when a little more data on it is received, but like I say, I fear it will be far less reliable - initially at least - than the old incarnation of it.


The 07:10 was principally designed to be a commuter train for the good people of Slough, rather than Maidenhead.  It hasn't been removed, it just runs 5 minutes later from Maidenhead (arriving 4 minutes later at Paddington).  It's the 07:18 that's been removed from Maidenhead which no doubt is the reason behind the extra passengers for the two earlier trains.  I wonder how the following 07:32 now loads?

The capacity in the the 'super-peak' 06:45-07:15 window you describe is now:
06:45 - 9-car IET
07:02 - 12-car 387
07:07 - 10-car IET
07:15 - 8-car 387
Total: 39 carriages, but down to 29 today.

Stretching that window slightly, it used to be:
06:42 - 5-car IET
07:01 - 5-car IET
07:08 - 8-car IET
07:10 - 8-car 387
07:18 - 8-car 387
Total: 34 carriages.

I can see how the 07:07 is a big loss, but it's nowhere near the shrinkage you describe, and is an increase when everything goes to plan.  Fingers crossed for tomorrow!

0707 is running today (as I write this) but the 0715 & 0735 are cancelled (amongst many others this morning).

Quite a few now reinstated.  Not the 0735 though.  07:07 has left Oxford on time.

07:35 now reinstated.

Thank you for taking the time to pen such a lengthy reply. The context around knock on impact was particularly helpful.

There used to be such slack in the 7.08 service schedule that it would often arrive before 8am. Now it is apparently wound so tightly that a gnat will knock it off course. I still can’t see that as progress, but maybe it will bed down.

FWIW, I write this from sat in the luggage rack of the 7.02.  I reckon it arrived today with maybe 5 seats free per carriage and is back to ‘crush loaded’. The 7.07 may follow soon after but it takes a lot for passengers to decide not to board a train right in front of them. Again, maybe this will even out over time but having two days of problems on the 7.07 already have cast its die for my fellow commuters.

It was pretty good today, got slowed slightly on the approach waiting the 07:02 to depart in fact.  Five minutes late into Paddington due to the speed restriction at Slough. 

Perhaps take the ‘risk’ of waiting tomorrow if it’s looking good?  It would be good to know how it’s loading.  If it’s left Reading within a minute or two of it’s booked time, which you’d know by the time the 07:02 would be leaving then it’s unlikely there will be a problem. 

I can understand the reticence of doing so mind you.

I was on this from Goring at 06:32 due to the 06:45 being cancelled past Reading (why?). I was in carriage 1 and seating wise, it was 50% full when it left Reading. At Twyford, was as good as 100% full - I could only see 2 empty seats.

As it left Maidenhead, it was full and standing in all carriages, the ones towards the back which stop next to the stairs being very full as every one tried to cram on.

There were several people waiting for the following service on Platform 2, and did not even attempt to board.

Any why did they only extend the platforms to take 10 carriages, when they obviously knew they would be increasing to 12?! The front 7 already suffer extra loading due to mainly being the ones most accessable at the prior stations, and then at one of the busiest loading points, they can still not get into all carriages from the platform.

I've avoided coming in all week so far, because I just knew it would be a mess. On Monday I wanted to get a train to Pangbourne, but the one I would have gotten back was cancelled. Yesterday I tried to get a different train to Pangborne - it was cancelled. Today I tried to get what will be my usual train to Maidenhead, it was cancelled past Reading. So much for progress....

The 06:45 from Goring ran as usual in the end, I don’t know for sure, as I’m not at work, but I am guessing defective track was found at Slough, but a patch up was made so in the end a whole host of trains shown as cancelled were altered back to running as normal (with minimal delays slowing through Slough).

It was reinstated at 06:32 on the systems, so too late for most Thames Valley commuters who had got the earlier train, which of course is the 07:02 from Maidenhead - that may go some way to explaining why that was packed solid today?

Thanks for the info, as always II. Thankfully I am not coming in anymore until the New Year, so will see what its like then!

I made one of my now very irregular work journeys into PAD from TWY this morning catching the 06:54 (07:02 from MAI). The 06:48 was cancelled which might have accounted for any extra passengers. However I boarded in coach 8, the rearmost with opening doors at TWY, and walked down to coach 11 where there was only about 3 or 4 passengers already there. After the MAI stop it got rather busier but it was still only about half full. From what others are saying it looks like the train was much busier further forward?

Thanks for that BBM - presumably coach 12 on the 07:02 was the same as coach 11?  That’s the place to head for the best chance of a seat then?  It would be good if Nick and others can try that part of the train to see whether it is usually like that.

I was towards the back this am, probably coach 11 or 10, I wasnt counting.  It was full and standing from Maidenhead.  Didn't get a seat.

It was probably coach 10. I wish now I'd taken a photo of coach 11 as proof! At MAI i'd say that more people walked past me into coach 12 than sat down in coach 11 but I'd guess it was just as quiet - presumably if it'd been busy then those people would have returned to coach 11 to grab the empty seats.

Sanfrandragon if you could perhaps also try 11 and 12 next time you catch it?  I’m not suggesting everyone will get a seat by any means but the better spread out everyone is the better.

Many times I’ve seen trains packed at one end with plenty of seats at the other - hardly anyone moves down even when announcements are made on the train!  I guess for 20 minutes some don’t think it’s worth it?

Good intel thanks, I'll try right at the back tomorrow.

I’ll give it a bash tomorrow. I reckon I was in coach 8 or 9 (standing where I used to pick up Coach G of the old IET)

I should imagine that will be down to who was paying for the extensions.  At Maidenhead Crossrail will have paid as they need to get their 9-car 345s to fit.  They’re roughly the same length as ten coaches worth of 387.  The number of longer formations of 387s or IETs operated by GWR is small - i.e. not an all day operation like at Slough, so I expect nobody wanted to cough up any more money.

That being said, the down relief platform at Maidenhead (and Twyford) are both good for 12-car 387s, so at least all doors open on the way home!

Network Rail's project W004 "Thames Valley Electric Multiple Unit Capability Works" included platform lengthenings to take 387s throughout their operating routes, though the work at Slough and Maidenhead was noted as jointly funded with Crossrail. The list of 13 platforms required to reach 12-car length was:
  Slough – Platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5.
  Maidenhead – Platforms 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5.
  Twyford – Platforms 1, 2 and 3.
  Didcot - Platform 3 – funded by IEP but still delivers 12 car EMU capability

In September 2018 this work was described in the plan as:
"Milestone:    EIS Infrastructure authorised (Paddington to Didcot)
Description:   Infrastructure authorised for passenger use
Date:      December 2017
Status:   Complete"

Well, that’s not happened at Maidenhead (except for Platform 3), or Twyford (also P3).

I did wonder if I was reading that correctly as Twyford P3 was completed far later than December 2017.  ???

I think P1 already is 12 coaches or certainly very close so I wasn't expecting any work on that side of the station.

Wrong way round - P3 was 244 m from a long time ago, while P1 and P2 were extended to 250 m in 2017/8.

P3 was extended at Twyford a very short distance, no more than 5 metres.  Correcting what I said earlier though, P1/2 are also 12-car 387 length.  P4, for obvious reasons, will remain 8-car only.

For the record, the following platform lengths (in m) are longer in the latest Western Sectional Appendix (November 2019) than they were in September 2018.

Slough
P2    208>254
P3    192>253
P4    161>253
P5    161>253

Maidenhead
P1    177>210
P2    199>211
P3    198>254
P4    205>204*
p5    205>209*

Twyford    (between June 2017 and June 2018)
P1    172>250
P2    182>250
p3    244>250
[p4    180 no change]

*These look more like remeasurings than extensions

As to why NR claimed to have finished this before they actually did, or in the case of P1 and P2 at Maidenhead didn't fully, that's baffling.

Why would platform 2 at Maidenhead be shorter than 3, given that they are the same block?

I wondered that - and the best guess I can come up with is OLE in the way near the platform edge. But from satellite pictures (which predate the extensions) that seems to be just a true on the existing length. But just a minute - haven't you noticed that?

If you look at platform 3 at the London end it now extends a little further.

So the good news is that carriages 10-12 on the 7.02 provided plenty of seats today. Judging by the tube school holidays have kicked in today as well which will help. I think I’ve found my new regular spot on the platform though... bye bye to my travellers from coach 8 after all these years 😁

The bad news is that the 7.07 was badly delayed and lots of cancellations followed that one (only maidenhead cancelled!), so I return to my earlier point about the timetable being wound too tightly. It looks like the linkup at Oxford did for the 7.07 today.

That’s good to hear.  As you say, numbers will now drop, especially from tomorrow so please report back in the New Year when everyone returns as to how it’s coping.

The actual coupling of the 07:07 went very smoothly this morning, the empty set from the sidings caused the problem as despite having the signal it took several minutes to move - don’t know why.  At least it retained the Maidenhead stop, and it was the following 07:15 that had a Maidenhead stop removed (along with Twyford), but kept its stop at Slough.  The 07:35 also skipped Maidenhead (a short train), but the 12-car 07:32 stopped and left 3 minutes late, arriving Paddington 8 minutes late, so there were 43 carriages worth provided from Maidenhead at 06:48, 07:02, 07:17 and 07:35.

I would say that’s probably the optimal outcome for Maidenhead if infrastructure problems are leading to delays as they were again today.  Perhaps somebody listened after the 07:07’s stop was culled earlier in the week? 

Let’s hope NR’s kit behaves itself properly in the New Year so we can determine just how resilient the new timetable is.

Stand in a different spot? That sounds a bit drastic. We struggled with the idea of moving a couple of metres along the platform to align with the new doors. Fortunately that took us back to our regular spot of so many years for the DMUs so crisis averted.

Although commuting numbers were no doubt down this morning, all of the high peak Maidenhead trains ran within a couple of minutes of time and at the correct formation.

Happy new year!  The 7.07 extended its reputation as the problem child of the new timetable - cancelled today due to ‘a member of train crew being unavailable’ but it didn’t have a problem calling at every other station on it’s planned route.

Does anyone know when the new timetable is due for its first revision?!?

7.07 cancelled again today.  Today’s given excuse was that a problem occurred when coupling units together, but that would again appear to be BS because it made every other calling point and was only 3mins late from oxford where the connection is made.

This lack of reliability tips all of the 7.07 passengers into the 7.01. An utter mess.

Totally with you this morning, Nick.  As it left Reading just two minutes late, and at its worst was 4 minutes late from Oxford, that was a ridiculous decision to remove the Maidenhead stop.  I note that shortly after it flew through Maidenhead (2 minutes early) it caught up with trains in front!

Thanks II - what is your take on when the new timetable will be revised to sort out conspicuous problems such as this?

Isn't this what was expected, sooner or later? NR have always made clear that running more services on the Main Lines (taking advantage of the grade separation at Reading) requires the reduction in other conflicts inwards to Paddington. Those conflicts are the trains that stop at Twyford or Maidenhead on the Mains, and the (proper) semifasts that switch to or from the Reliefs. If there is less leeway to recover a train being late then skipping that stop is one way to get it back, and is more feasible than not switching to the Up Main!

Yesterday it was the stopping train that was late, but it could be a non-stop one. Today it's not clear that any train was late - the two following trains through P2 were early! I think they've just set the excuse generator to "random pick" for the time being.

Yes, I outlined the reasons why it might be the sensible thing to do if it’s at Reading getting on for ten minutes late in a post before Christmas.  No obvious such excuses today though.

It will get more slick as drivers get used to the coupling procedure at Oxford.  It’s  being done by Worcester drivers (most of whom have never coupled before in service) and are understandably taking it steady until more confident.  You could retime it a couple of minutes earlier from Worcester in the morning to allow a little more time, but that sort of change won’t be possible until May I doubt.

Until then it remains a risk, but if decisions like this morning are made then they might as well just take it out of the calling pattern totally!

I was on the 7.02 this morning, first day back for most people I should think, but coach 8 wasn't too bad; just a couple of people left without seats.

A good morning all round this morning.  Even the 07:07 managed to stop at Maidenhead!  ;D

In coach 4 I was surprised how crowded it was. Wasn't even sure I was going to get a seat when it pulled into Twyford.

Really struggling to understand why its so busy when you've gone from 3 and a bit IET coaches to 12 EMU (is that correct term)?

On the platform we were discussing the 'golden days' of the 5 or 6 coach DMUs where the boarding at Twyford was much more relaxed and polite than currently.

0702 not stopping at Maidenhead this morning as it's running 9 minutes late.

7.02 and 7.07 cancelled today due to a delay of moments.
7.15 via Slough formed of 8 coaches to take its normal flow plus the previous 20 carriages of passengers.
Car park full and turning cars away by 6.40 which is a new record.

Maidenhead is fast becoming a non-commuter town. I used to proudly state that from shutting my front door to standing on Paddington concourse could be done in 35 minutes. That same journey is now always over an hour and today will be an hour and twenty.

Maidenhead is trending on Twitter. Before even clicking on the page I knew exactly why.

07.02 didn't even reach Twyford until 07.06 but no information other than a continually changing display screen that was little help. At least the stopping trains are now purple so you know not to get on them if it's not clear which train has just arrived.

The irregular freight train that makes everything late turned up again as well. It must be scheduled so I'm never sure why trains have to run late because of it.

All in all another great start to the day  >:(

My thoughts exactly.  If Maidenhead is going to become the sacrificial lamb for fast trains that are running late to make up time, its going to make commuting very unpleasant.

I can see why the 07:07 ran through this morning as it was 14 minutes late from Oxford (it only became 9 as a result of not making the stop), and the 07:01 was effectively running in its path being delayed by the freight train mentioned, but IMHO the 07:01 should have stopped. 

There would have been a reaction to the trains behind it as a result, but nothing too major and you should only remove 22 carriages worth of peak provision if there are major problems.

i am voting with my feet until the timetable settles down and because of the ridiculous lack of parking at Maidenhead.

My current commute:

35 minutes (traffic depending) drive from Maidenhead to Hounslow West. Lots of empty car parking spaces there at 7.30am (and I imagine it doesn't fill up all day from what I can see).
40 minutes ish from there to Victoria on the tube.

Car parking cost - £6.50 for they day
Transport costs - £9.50  (and no I don't always get a seat but for that price I really don't mind!)

NB - traffic back in the evening not so good yesterday so will see how that goes...

Hounslow West is often mentioned on the Flyertalk frequent flyer forum as an alternative short term parking option for Heathrow. This post (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/31579109-post41.html) mentions it being less than half full, also on a weekday at 7.30am.

Very interesting johoare - I had wondered whether others had found alternative routes.

In related news I see that the forecourt carpark of maidenhead station is due to close imminently, with the loss of 80 further parking spaces.  No doubt this will occur prior to Silco Drive reopening.  The mind boggles!

Hillingdon is another good tube station to use depending which part of London you are trying to get to. .That is in Zone 6 (Hounslow West is in Zone 5) so slightly more cost for travel but not much. It's not far from the A40 at all and is about 35 minutes drive  from Maidenhead too if traffic is ok. I imagine that car park does get full at some point but not that early.

Is Silco Drive definitely re-opening then finally?

I really am going to have to learn to drive at this rate!

I know colleagues out West use Ruislip and then Central line although my driving geography is none existent to know how well that works. 

It’s not the driving, it’s the parking that’s the problem!! 😉

Yes, I have it on good authority that Silco Drive will reopen in the not too distant future.  A bit like Crossrail...

I can also recommend Westfields at Shepherds Bush for parking (£6.50 a day if you register online) which has the benefits of easy access to the Central line (Zone 2), TFL rail and secure underground car parking.

In the interests of impartial reporting I should probably report I got a seat and arrived on time.  ;D

Bit depressing that this is the exception rather than the norm though.

Reading the Twitter posts the new timetable really doesn't seem to be working for Maidenhead. I thought it was a bit disingenuous of GWR to keep replying that services had now moved to TFL whenever people complained and they should catch a stopper.

It has added to my worry that with Crossrail proper will mean no fast trains for Twyford and Maidenhead.

I also note it must be so bad at Maidenhead now, there are 2 security guards on the platforms! I saw them yesterday and assumed they were catching the train (I walked past them before everyone had boarded at the door they were standing by), but they were there again today and after the train left, they wandered over to another platform.

Security guards, or just the regular TfL Rail staff?

Good to note the timetable was provided as planned this morning.

I think that this is what it’s always been leading to, both pairs of lines acting as separate railways, GWR on the fast lines and TFL only on the relief lines eventually. The gamble was always going to be frequency over travel time with crossrail.  Things may have been different if it finished at Heathrow or Slough. The amount of people at Maidenhead in the morning is probably only going to increase for the next couple of years and it’s a shame this change has led to some considering further car use.

Security. I thought it was BTP at first (same type of uniform), but when they turned it had Security across their backs (white text on blue background if I recall)

I’ve encountered these guys too. Proper overkill.
On Tuesday, when the 7.02 and 7.07 were cancelled and several hundred passengers were crammed on to Platform 4 in the cold, their role appeared to be enforcing the yellow line to prevent encroachment.

I’d love to know who pays for these guys, what their actual job is, and why maidenhead is deemed to be under such imminent threat.

Probably a darned sight more to do that this security guard I came across ...

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/chathillsecurity.jpg)

To be fair, I chatted with her and learned that they were overstaffed that day and so she was taking a "reeky" to learn more about the area she and her colleagues covered ... this was a station she had never visited before.

Perhaps the guys at Maidenhead are under training for tougher assignments such as Taplow  :D

0702, 0732, 0831 fast services all non stopping at Twyford and Maidenhead this morning according to Journeycheck.

Not running inward of Reading at all ...

0735 cancelled too.

Another great start to the day.

After the fun of getting home last night - Twyford being dropped from a couple of the services was really hoping for a smooth journey in.

Sadly not. Platform at Twyford was rammed so I'm guessing an earlier service was cancelled or ran fast to Paddington. As I couldn't get to my regular spot decided to take the drastic step of trying the rear 4 carriages. Didn't even get close. Was still queuing to get on when the TFL person told us to move back up the platform as the train was departing. Eventually ended up in carriage 9 which was standing room only.

Is this really the culmination of billions of pounds of investment in trains, track, signals and stations? A service that subjectively feels as bad as any period over the last couple of years. Talking to my fellow commuters we were all quite angry that this appears to be as good as it gets.

The previous train was indeed cancelled, well, had the Twyford stop removed as it was running 20 minutes late.  The delay was due to a freight train with braking issues.

The culmination comes ones the Elizabeth Line opens I suppose?  At least the train you did get was on time and formed of 12-carriages - I had feared it might be a victim of 'more than the usual number of trains needing repair' syndrome, but I don't think it has been shortformed yet?

I see the 07:07 called at Maidenhead despite being 6 minutes late from Reading, though it lost a further 6 minutes to Paddington.  Perhaps words have been had with those making the decisions?

I was just about to say thanks/well done for the 7.07 being allowed to stop today at Maidenhead despite being slightly late. 

Tuesday is in my estimation ‘peak unreliability day’ and I feel the freight train that shuffles through is something to do with it.

Personally I’ve abandoned the 7.01/7.07 completely and have moved to the 6.45.  I wouldn’t choose to be getting up even earlier but that choice has been removed from me by GWR and the unreliability of the 7.xx services.  For the record the 6.45 appears quite reliable but was shortformed today so a lot of grumpy standing people at Slough.

Roll on summer timetable changes...

But what about the one before that? The 06:26 (1P92) was on time, yet it too non-stopped at Twyford and then stopped at Maidenhead. Maidenhead's 06:45 doesn't have a Twyford stop to not do. So Today Maidenhead got the sweeties, and Twyford the empty packet - and probably loads of people saying "if I'd known how late I'd be I'd have got on the TfL train".

Thanks for the update. Hasn't been shortformed yet but I think allowing a bit more time for boarding would make a big difference but then we know the timetable is very aggressive on timings. I'm not going to try using the back 5 coaches again.

Has a review date for the new timetable been set as I think there are a few issues with Maidenhead/Twyford as well as the London centric issues mentioned by other posters?

Are you sure?  I can find no reference to any alterations to 1P92 today?

Just for clarification the freight train that was the cause of the delay to the train that definitely didn’t stop at Twyford wasn’t the one that has got in the way of trains at that time on the morning before.  This was a Whatley Quarry to Appleford service that doesn’t go east of Reading at all, but caused the delay in the Newbury area.  Though it’s not even booked to go that way as it should go via Melksham!

Goodness knows what was going on this morning ... the 06:12 Frome to Paddington which serves stations via Newbury got diverted via Melksham ... 7 late from Westbury, 8 late by the time it got to Reading and probably near as darn it empty by the time it had skipped all the stops from Pewsey to Theale on its normal route.

Well, no, I can only go by what's reported. I based that on RTT showing the actual arrival time as "pass", the same as it does for 1K03. But looking wider, in this case RTT's in the minority - OTT shows a call and so does liverail. Mind you, they all show slightly different times, as does RTT for the departure - and not just rounding the fractions either, it's whole minutes. Maybe that's telling me something about the data feeds, though I've no idea what.

If anyone returns on the 17:37 to Maidenhead (9-car Paignton IET) it was absolutely crush loaded in the back part of the train.  Coaches B and A much quieter though - two people stood up and a handful of seats available.  I know where I’d rather position myself!

Isn't that the idea? Cancel the big bad GWRs services, so that the oh-so wonderful Crossrail to Reading can be justified...  ;)

Whose idea? Not Network Rail's - they have wanted to get the semifasts off the Main Lines since long before Crossrail was was approved to go to Reading (and even long before Crossrail was approved full stop).

All good today although again pretty much standing room only by Maidenhead in carriage 4 at least.

Seemed to be lots of cancellations today although the 06.54 from Twyford ran albeit late.

Not too crowded at Twyford as the Henley connection had broken down. I know it probably makes me a bad person but I gave a little smile as it meant I had a better chance of getting a seat.

7.07 cancelled again today.  Thats a 66% failure rate this week.  I dont know how to get the data, but wondering what is the cancellation (for whatever reason) rate of this service since the new timetable was introduced?

I was looking at this myself.  For the 7.07 it is 5 cancellations since the new year and an average of 33% reliability. The adjacent trains are not much better.

I sent my official ‘this is not good enough what are you doing about it?’ to GWR two weeks ago. Obviously no reply as it is still 2020. Next week I’ll be contacting my MP as she ran for re-election promising improvements (not abolition) of fast commuter services.

Coupling issue at Oxford again this morning!  Eventually left 25 minutes late as a 5-car.

Maybe we can have a competition to find the worst performing service since the beginning of the year ;D ;D
I give you the 0807 Didcot to Oxford at 31% RT - 5 minutes and 6% RT (which was Jan 1st).

I've heard reports that the performance of the 1708 PAD-BDW (first stop TWY) has been pretty bad so I've just checked the past 5 journeys on RTT and found this:

15/1: arrived BDW 27L
16/1: arrived BDW 39L
17/1: terminated 30L at NBY
20/1: terminated 33L at NBY
21/1: arrived BDW 17L

 ::) ::) ::)

The 17.08 has also run non stop to Reading once or twice which meant it was pretty empty after all the Twyford passengers got off.

This must be a winner, since the beginning of the year the RT-5 Minutes measure has been 0% (average late 19.5 minutes) and the 1708 is 43% (average late 7.5 minutes).

Is that the one that splits at Newbury?  There have been numerous problems with that at Newbury.

According to RTT the service does divide at Newbury.

I am surprised that GWR use a class 800 on a stopping service from Newbury to Bedwyn, why not Didcot - Oxford?

Operational inconvenience mainly.  If it was a Turbo it would be limited to 90mph, not so good in terms of the peak paths on the main line out of Paddington.  If it were a 387 it would not be able to go any further than Newbury where the wires run out.  Didcot to Oxford does in fact have the odd IET on stopping trains, too, but usually a Turbo is the best option as it is a 90mph main line, so no speed benefit from an IET.

Looks like there are also problems joining it at PAD tonight, I've just seen this on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/sjm881/status/1220030275016691714 (https://twitter.com/sjm881/status/1220030275016691714)

Most of the delay (34 mins late into Twyford) was caused by door problems. Announcements just said that problems closing the door meant might be a few mins delay. half an hour later we're off....

Sounds like one unit wasn't talking properly to the other.  Hitachi still have plenty of work to do to get the couplings to work to an acceptable level.

I don’t suppose GWR fancy rolling back to the pre Christmas timetable do they?  This one is total guff, in so many ways.

Skipped Maidenhead again this morning after arriving 5 mins late at Twyford. Possibly due to that freight train that keeps sneaking onto the tracks just as the 06.54 is due.

Edit: Looks like the 07.07 also didn't stop at Maidenhead according to angry Twitter posts

Both 7.02 and 7.07 cancelled this morning to preserve the timetable, amidst angry scenes at Maidenhead and dangerous over-crowding on the platform.  I didn't see any security guards, but not surprised they have been sighted before.  In the words of the GWR official on the platform 'Twyford, Maidenhead & Slough have been cut adrift' under the operation of the new timetable.  Just how many times do they need to practise coupling at Oxford to get that train to leave on time?  With Crossrail from Maidenhead not making sense for another 2 years until it goes through the tunnels, commuting from Maidenhead will be impractical.

All this and higher ticket prices too!

Very poor to cancel both trains at Maidenhead.  The 07:07 ran as a 5-car as it wouldn’t couple, so would’ve had no room on board anyway.  That was known to be the case by 06:40, so control should’ve made damn sure the 07:01 stopped.

They were there on Platform 4 when the 0715 arrived.

Totally agree.  If it helps to form a picture the message announcing the cancellation of the 7.02 came at 06.34 and the 7.07 at 06.42 so, in my opinion, there was plenty of time to make sure the 7.02 was reinstated.

I can't help but think of all those vacuous writers on the property pages of the press who predicted that the arrival of Crossrail at Maidenhead would result in a rush of Londoners buying homes in the town to take advantage of the wonderful new rail link to London.

I hope that not too many invested in new homes in Maidenhead in reliance on these predictions!

I've planned my early retirement around it.

I'm not quite fully committed but the initial increases in house prices based on what people thought Crossrail gave me the impetus to set things in motion. Can't decide now whether to jump ship even earlier before people realise how poor it is or wait and hope.

Of course the grind of the daily commute may have also influenced my decision...

Both trains called at Maidenhead with the correct number of carriages and ran to time today.  A pleasant change.

Heavy snow likely in Maidenhead tonight? ;) :P ;)

I believe a unicorn was sighted outside.

Just to redress the balance though the 7.35 fast departure from Maidenhead to Paddington was cancelled (ran from Newbury to Reading and no further) due to a late running freight train 

I've used my Friday afternoon productively, writing to both Mark Hopwood's office and my MP (who ran for re-election last year promising to preserve fast and direct commuter services) about the giant backward steps that GWR have taken.

I can only encourage others who feel similarly to do the same.

Three pretty much perfect days in a row for the 07:02 and 07:09 trains.

0707 not stopping at Maidenhead this morning.

Looks like a coupling problem again. The service arrived on time at Oxford (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y94505/2020-02-03/detailed) but was at platform 3 for nearly half an hour eventually leaving 20 minutes late.

Is there an inherent problem with coupling at P3 Oxford? Track geometry, cant, visibility, etc.?

Edit to add: it arrived at Paddington only 5 coaches, 18 minutes late.

... which is an admirable improvement upon Monday and Tuesday.  Sadly even before this morning’s cancellation of the 7.07 I was going to say that GWR will need to keep that performance going for a consistent month in order to restore confidence that the service will run.  Otherwise customers, such as myself, will regard it as perpetually at-risk and find other ways to reach their destinations. And keep moaning. 😉

Richard Fairhurst on another thread;

"I do wonder if GWR's next poster should be "Five Fail To Couple To Another Five".

 :D

And you're perfectly entitled to do so as the performance of that particular train is shocking.

I'm not aware of any infrastructure issues at Oxford as the track is level and pretty much arrow straight at Platform 3.  It is a combination of staff unfamiliarity and the IET couplers still not behaving themselves, mostly the latter it seems.

It is pretty hopeless that day after day at Oxford the following trains 2V11 (06:04 BAN-RDG) and 1P01 (04:48 HDF-PAD) keep on being allowed as far as OD2378 and OD2386 and 1T03 (06:25 BIT-OXF) is allowed as far as OD2380.  All three trains are then stranded outside with nowhere to go whilst the fallout of coupling problems is dealt with.  It would be rather more sensible to hold these three trains at OD2392/2408/2490 until it is known the coupling has been successful - and then if there's problems they can be routed round it via platform 4 rather than locking up a large portion of the station and it subsequently taking far longer to catch up from the delays.

Either that or put the offending train through platform 4 anyway and put anything heading north through platform 3 if there's problems with it.

So I assume this is why the infamous 0740 RDG - OXF was cancelled again, and the following 0834 DID to BAN also left late due to the late running 1V17 BAN - PAD, all caused by the same issue.

What a lot of delays caused by the inability to couple a two sets together.

How can it be that after 2 years of running these trains there are still basic issues with them?

A delayed 17.08 to Bedwyn again yesterday evening which seems to be one of the equivalents to the morning trains.

And a delayed 06.54/07.01 again this morning possibly due to the irregular freight train that runs at the same time some days.

- I believe the 0633 (non stop to Paddington) was cancelled too this morning?

Indeed it was, making the (slightly delayed) 06.45 quite busy.  I suspect that this was all due to the same freight train that came bowling through Maidenhead on the main line at about 06.35. 

This forms the 0820 from Didcot I think?  I caught it three times in the last two weeks,  late and missed connection at Reading each time. Waiting for it provided an opportunity to watch people going to Oxford struggling to get into the 0834, rammed because of the cancellation of the 0807. These problems are causing serious disruption to Didcot to Oxford commuters who must be late for work several days a week at the moment.

Yes it does form the 0820.
No late to work every day and several people were left behind at Didcot and Radley yesterday as train so full.

0648 fast service from Twyford cancelled this morning which should ensure that everyone is nice & cosy when the 0702 arrives at Maidenhead......

Yep - that's what I get for getting up earlier and trying a different train.

Bit more crowded that usual on the platform although for some reason no one got on at Maidenhead. I was in coach 4 or thereabouts and after we'd set off loads of people appeared and started moving to the front. Don't know if there was a problem with the doors or something?

In terms of passenger numbers at Maidenhead this morning the 6.45 didn’t arrive until 6.53 and so picked up a number of 07.02 customers who were already on the platform.
That in turn left standing room only (in my carriage) at Slough.

Decided to work from home for the rest of the week to give my colleagues a break from daily updates on the new timetable so probably all worked perfectly if I wasn't there to see it.

I made one of my now very irregular TWY-PAD journeys this morning and all seemed well from my point of view, I caught the 0654 from TWY, and coach 11 where I sat was only half-full after MAI. One thing I did notice was that the 0648 (a 5-car IET from BDW which is non-stop from TWY) was full and standing on departure and if more people were prepared to wait for the 0654 (like me!) then that later train would be rather busier.

All was well with the 07:02/07:07 off of Maidenhead again this morning, though it looks like the previous Class 387 semi-fast from Didcot ran fast from Reading (that's the 06:26 off of Twyford, and 06:33 off of Maidenhead) and might explain why the 06:48 off of Twyford was busy this morning?  The decision to run the 06:26/06:33 fast from Reading was due to it being delayed at Reading for 21 minutes due to unit problems.

MODS: Perhaps we should rename this thread as it now discusses other trains from Maidenhead and the commuter services into London from Twyford as well?

07.01 didn't stop at Maidenhead this morning. It was only 2-3 minutes late leaving Twyford (freight train again) so not sure what the problem was.

As was reported to rather cold customers at Maidenhead this morning:
MAI to PAD on your route: 07:02 - cancelled - a problem currently under investigation.

The 06.37(?) and 06.45 ran with delays today. The 06.37 was held back to allow other HS services to pass it.

I hear the 0707 was cancelled at 0701 this morning.

Nonsense.  The messages was sent out at 06:55, so [sarcasm mode on] plenty of notice!   ::)

It looks as though a delay of five or more minutes will trigger this alteration as per contingency plans to try and protect other trains from delay.  Of no consolation to those at Maidenhead.

0831 at Maidenhead......could be cosy!

07:52 Didcot Parkway to London Paddington due 08:52
Facilities on the 07:52 Didcot Parkway to London Paddington due 08:52.
This is due to a fault on this train.
Will be formed of 4 coaches instead of 12.

I've been working remotely so don't know what the service was like last week. This morning though there were no seats left in Coach 4 after it left Twyford so bit cosy from Maidenhead but on time.

Not sure any amount of hand washing is going to help contain anything when people are packed in so tightly though.

0633 & 0645 non stopping at Maidenhead today.....should make things cosy around 0700! 😫

Plenty of seats this morning. I think I've found an upside to the end of the world.

0633 & 0702 cancelled this morning.

On time and very pleasant this morning.

Only downside was this was my first trip back into the office for several months and the shock of getting up at 5.30am was almost enough to make me think about putting it off. The whole routine just felt strange.

I'd forgotten just how expensive buying tickets on the day was. Just under £30 for a Twyford to Paddington return. Despite all the hectoring from the government to get back to the office its not covid that puts me off but the cost. Going in the odd day is quite expensive and i've really got use to having a couple of extra hundred pounds a month from not paying my season ticket loan.

The train was quiet although for a Friday in mid-August it didn't seem excessively so. Out of the 8 or 9 people I could see on the platform I was the only one wearing a mask which surprised me. The London Transport staff (and their private security companions) weren't challenging people.

The stopping service coming back (it was a quick trip to the office!) was fairly busy and felt about right for a mid morning train, Friday in August. Seemed to be a better percentage of people wearing masks or going through the motions anyway. Some British Transport Police got on at Southall but ignored people not wearing masks.

Victim headbutted and punched in face in row over mask. (https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/victim-headbutted-punched-face-during-18914267)

The incident took place on August 12 between Slough and Langley but the photo was only published yesterday.

Well it’s now been over a year since I had the pleasure of using any form of GWR service and my blood pressure is much the better for it

Good to see you back online, Nick.  I think it's fair to say that those who have continued to commute have also seen their blood pressure levels drop considerably!   :D

It would be interesting to hear your future plans over on the thread I created last month at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=24728.0 - even though the associated poll has now closed.

A first trip to Maidenhead Shoppenhangars car park for quite some time revealed that approximately 20 bays (10%) have been removed and replaced by c10 disabled bays.

As one might have expected all of the regular bays were in use (ie car park full) but not one disabled bay was in use.

Does anyone know whether the reassignment of valuable parking spaces is a temporary phenomena whilst the forecourt is re-done or whether this work of face-palm genius is permanent?

Thanks

I believe GWR / TfL / NR and RBWM have agreed that the RBWM will be providing the additional car parking capacity for Crossrail at Stafferton Way and Vicus Way

That would be most unfortunate if that is the chosen solution to Maidenhead’s lack of parking because they are park of a one way system that would massively compound the majority of driver’s routes and time spent accessing parking that is not actually near the station. For me that would add 15mins at least to my commute.

What has happened to Silco Drive?  Closed for refurbishment for a couple of months, never to be heard of again?  That was another 100+ spaces.

Should I take it that the answer to my question about the disabled spaces is that they are there to stay (and never to be used)?

Obviously there are rules, and for stations the relevant requirement is in  Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/918425/design-standards-accessible-stations.pdf):

C2.	European standards	Reference
	The European TSI requirement is that UK national standards shall be applied to ensure consistency across the UK. Therefore, the national standards below must be followed.	PRM TSI 4.2.1
C2.	National standards	Reference
1.	The minimum number of designated spaces should be one space for each employee who is a disabled motorist, plus 5 per cent of the total capacity for visiting disabled motorists.	BS 8300:4.2.1.4
2.	A further 5 per cent of the total capacity should be enlarged standard spaces of 3600 mm wide x 6000 mm long that could be adapted to be designated parking spaces to reflect changes in local population needs and allow for flexibility of provision in the future.	BS 8300:4.2.1.1
3.	Spaces designated for disabled employees should be differentiated from spaces designated for other users.	BS 8300:4.2.1.1
4.	Where space permits, at least one large designated parking space, 4800 mm wide x 8000 mm long, should be provided for side or rear access using hoists or ramps.
5.	Designated disabled persons’ parking spaces must be 2400 mm x 4800 mm with a zone 1200 mm wide between designated parking spaces and between the designated spaces and a roadway (without reducing the width of the roadway) to enable a disabled driver or passenger to get in or out of a vehicle and access safely the boot or rear hoist (Figures C2.2 and C2.3).	BS 8300:4.2.3
6.	Designated on-street parking must be 6600 mm long × 3600 mm wide. This allows access to the rear of the vehicle and free passage between parked vehicles. It also enables the driver or passenger to alight from the side (Figure C2.1).	BS 8300:4.1
C2.	Code of Practice guidance
	If all the designated spaces are occupied for more than 10 per cent of the car park’s operating hours, the operator should consider increasing their number.

The "total capacity" should include all car parks provided for the station, but the designated spaces all go in the nearest one. What if the demand for parking exceeds what is provided specifically, so passengers have to park elsewhere? That isn't clear, but as "total capacity" isn't defined we have to rely on this text alone. So it appears that only capacity specfic to the station is counted, i.e. the assumption is that any other car parking would have its own "accessible" provision. Maybe.

Would suggest it's permanent I think there has to be certian percentage of disabled bays in any car park.

Interesting reading and interesting to see what drives the decision making.
It remains a crying shame that GWR can’t support their actual passengers who increasingly can’t actually park at the station.
With the loss of Silco Drive and the forecourt and the additional disabled spaces I think the total capacity has been halved in the past few years, at a time when it already could have benefitted from being doubled.

I see ground is being broken at the Vicus Way site.  You're right, its a pretty poor location, and I guess will be a year to completion.  However Stafferton way multi-storey is a bit closer to the station and in the past had spaces in the morning.  Neither is as convenient as Shoppenhangers Rd though.  Just another nail in my decision whether to go back to commuting.  Although I expect I will, I will be pushing out my re-start to as far in the future as possible, and only a few days a week.

As an aside, and probably in the wrong thread, but is the extension of the station on the Shoppenhangers Rd side still going ahead?

All

I have been posting about this topic on the London to Reading board here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=25964.msg317946#msg317946) and thought there ought to be a link here.

Shoppenhangers Rd car park back to being full by 06:55 today, presumably due to the opening of the Elizabeth Line.  Neither the Stafferton Way car park nor the new one under construction by Lidl are particularly attractive alternatives, being a longer walk and the wrong side of the busy Braywick Rd.  Cycling might be an option, but the station bike racks are the 'bike theft capital of Europe' according to one local counsellor.

Agreed - I’m not sure what the sudden burst of interest has been this week as the services from Maidenhead are exactly the same as they were pre-go live for the central section of Crossrail.

Time for me to ask GWR why Silco Drive remains shut…

Ps. ALL of the additional disabled spaces at Maidenhead that I mentioned in this thread remain empty.

From the statistics the numbers return to commuting has been gradually increasing over the last few weeks.  There was an initial spike in return numbers it levelled off for a while but has shown a slow increase in the last few weeks, busy days Tuesday to Thursday although Boom Town Rat Day (Mondays  ;D ) has been improving in numbers of late

I see the the price has been increased from £6 to £8 - a 33% price increase when inflation is running around 10%, for no change in service except for bigger potholes.  Also, I've never understood the 20p extra 'convenience' charge to pay via the APCOA app.  Surely it costs more to send someone to collect the cash from the machine as well as to maintain it, whilst the incremental cost of paying online is virtually zero.

The new timetable has probably been discussed elsewhere, but this is specifically for Maidenhead to Paddington.  It looks like the 06.46 and the 07.16 have both been axed, leaving the only fast train during this prime commuter time as the 7.02, leaving Maidenhead feeling less connected than before; surely a retrograde step.  And good luck to the developers trying to sell the monstrosity flats in the town center as commuting to London becomes less practical!

Looking at Realtimetrains and the new T10 GWR timetable there are non-stop MAI-PAD services at 0633, 0702, 0707, 0733, 0736, 0802, 0831 and 0905, each taking about 19 minutes into London.

I suspect it relates to what the market will stand - it's for the convenience of the car park user who does not have to have the change to hand nor have to walk to the machine.   Convenience (and cost) to the provider is not the issue.

This reminds me of the big sign ... "Loaves of bread at popular prices", and when someone says to the vendor that £5 is not a popular price he tells them "it's popular with me" ...

There are also some semi fast Elizabeth Line services with only intermediate stops at Burnham, Slough, West Drayton and Ealing Broadway 38 mins to Padd instead of the 43 mins.

Whilst the 345's lack facilities, toilets, charging points and the seats are not the most comfortable where the Elizabeth Line does win is it removes the need in many cases to change trains at Paddington which can take more time than people often take into account.

Maidenhead does now have a very good level of service all day, 2 tph, now faster, GWR to Padd only calling at Slough, in under 30 mins and 4 Elizabeth Line in around 40 min. 

I cant find that 7.07 on the GWR website.  Ex the 7.36 which looks ambitious, the service has gone to roughly every half hour in that peak period.  Higher fares for a worse service.

Its 07:02 not 07:07, why do you say the 07:36 is ambitious?

Slough have it even worse, nothing in the morning peak much under 30 min, National Rail Journey Planner at some times gives the option to travel to Maidenhead and change ??? ??? although it only save a few mins

 

I'd say for a lot of people out West though the benefits the Elizabeth Line bring in terms of not having to change at Paddington outweigh the loss of one or two fast services to Paddington?

I guess a typo from Oxenhutch on 7.02/7.07.

Ambitious because running a fast service 3 minutes behind another fast service seems likely to be impractical and an anomaly that will get cut in any future new timetable.

A 'good service' and 'better than Slough' can't hide the fact it's not as good as it was in that peak time.  And for more money.

No it's in the timetable but as it is ex-Oxford it may be cancelled with the bridge repairs

I’m very much with sanfrandragon on this topic - the current timetable (especially with the 07.07 that has never run) is a significant deterioration in service for Maidenhead since the introduction of the Elizabeth Line and I’ve written to our MP to state the same.

We used to have a direct non-stop service every 10mins (average) from 06.30 until 08.00 and now we have shorter services once every half hour.

Taking the 07.33 as an example - that was full and standing upon arrival at Maidenhead yesterday.

The 07:07 will presumably resume next week?

Would it not be best to step back and wait for the 0736?

That service starts at Reading, misses Twyford and acts as a relief for the 0733.

Local MPs on the route pushed like mad for quite a few years for Crossrail to be extended to Reading. 

A great example of being careful what you wish for.

The 0736 starts from Newbury. These two trains are on different platforms (4 and 2) and only three minutes apart, so you have to pick one to go for. The same is true of the 0702 and 0707, at five minutes apart - I guess it's feasible to go for both of those, but a bit risky.

The 0646 from Oxford should also be able to start next week, if that helps.

The morning services and evening "commuter" services at Maidenhead have been impacted by the line closure between Didcot and Oxford next week should see this improve.   The levels of service have been impacted by the DfT (aka Treasury) taking the stance that rail commuter usage is at 70% of pre-Covid levels, this was based on figures last Autumn / Winter however now the industry believes the return is closer to 80 + % and in places 90%, however its not consistent during the week Mondays (Boom Town Rats day I don't like Mondays) and Fridays commuter passenger numbers are lower that Tue to Thur.

The DfT have placed a lot of pressure on the rail industry cut train / reduce services to reduce costs to the Treasury.


As a side note Monday I did travel off peak from Furze Platt to Euston, it was the quickest I have ever done it off peak just about an hour from boarding the train at FZP and arriving on the concourse at EUS.  The GWR off peak "fasts" with the connection off of the branch is an improvement.

Maidenhead Advertiser are reporting the reintroduction of the 07.16 fast (via Slough) to paddington

Sounds like your letter had some impact!

Lol - I can claim no personal responsibility but I am very pleased with the outcome.

It does go to show that sometimes there is actually some leeway to be found when organisations like Network Rail and GWR say that something ‘simply can’t be done’.

I don’t commute by train to London anymore thank goodness but imagine my surprise when I was dropping off passengers at Maidenhead station that as a private car you can’t actually access the station anymore.  Access is controlled by ANPR.  Grenfell Drive has limited space (all taken) and Shoppenhangers is a complete no no.  Aren’t we supposed to be making access to public transport easier, not harder?

What are others doing?  Is this RBWM, TFL or GWR’s machiavellian strategy?