Great Western Coffee Shop

I was on this train this morning - a single 153. It was fairly well loaded from BPW, and more joined at Filton Abbey Wood. At Bristol Temple Meads, a lot of passengers alighted, but even more - particularly families with young children, and pushchairs - wanted to board.

Seeing this, I vacated my seat and moved to stand in the rear vestibule - where the conductor was struggling to reach the door control panel, around assorted luggage, folded pushchairs and toddlers.

This 'crowding' situation got worse at Bedminster, and worse again at Parson Street - many more families with children and pushchairs boarded, on their way down to Weston on a sunny day, but very few passengers alighted at either station.

I alighted at Nailsea, and had a quick word with the conductor: on my enquiring whether his train was actually booked as a 153 (I thought that unlikely!), he confirmed that it was booked as a 150. I wished him 'good luck' on his increasingly crammed service down to Weston: he grinned rather ruefully, and departed ...  ::)

A couple of points from me:

1. I'm sure there was a reason for substituting a single 153 for a 150 on this service - but it really did cause a problem in logistics for the excellent conductor - just dealing with all the pushchairs (folded or not). Interestingly, there were no bikes - which is what usually causes aggrieved comments - just families wanting to enjoy a sunny day out on the beach with their children in pushchairs.

2. There were no ticket checks at all on that service between BPW and NLS - and, I suspect, not on the remainder of the journey either - for the simple reason that the conductor could barely move from the rear cab to the door panel, never mind move down the carriage.

Very frustrating when this happens!

We like to put the bikes on and get off at Yatton, when the frequency is only once an hour, not getting on is a real pain. Its annoying because its just rolling stock. Not big things like signals. You'd think they could manage it better.

Chris and JaminBob,

Unfortunately the "Bristol local services" do seem to suffer the most when it comes to unit allocation. This is purely because the broken units end up at SPM of a night time and the impotus is to cover all the outstabled diagrams first (Gloucester, Westbury, Weymouth, Portsmouth) and then SPM (hopefully) provide the right number of trains the following morning.

The way that the current diagramming works to maintain exam cycles is that, for instance, a Class 150 diagram will come off SPM on a Saturday morning and finish up at Penzance or Plymouth, then rotating through one or two of the West Country branchlines before returning to SPM up to 8 days later.

IIRC there are currently a pair of 153's booked to run around together all day starting from Bristol and finishing in Exeter. So when we are short of units the "pair" become a 150 thus providing the right number of carriages on the long-distance train and two 150 diagrams become a 153 each. It might have created 2 short-formed diagrams but at the same time every service is covered with some type of unit and no cancellations are created.

It's just unfortunate for you (and fortunate for us) that both BPW-WSM diagrams start and finish at SPM on a Saturday. It gives us the scope to put the allocation right over night for the Sunday and it also keeps the short-formations close to home should SPM complete repairs or exam during the day and the unit can then come out into service.

Should the repaired unit be one of the"missing" 150's then all our problems are solved and everything gets the right number of coaches again.

It's just very unfortunate that it is the BPW-WSM corridor that suffers.

Hope this is of some use (and demonstrates to JaminBob that this is actually managed, it's just unlucky that it is his route)

FC

Thanks for providing that very useful explanation, fatcontroller!  :)

Totally agree fatcontroller, its a real pity the guided visits around SPM for interested parties stopped a few years ago, as i dont think a lot of people actually appreciate the work that takes place to keep the trains running.

Whilst I am no a major poster on these boards I believe I have been consistent in my impatience for apologism and excuses for our beloved TOC.

They should manage the stock in a way that means no routes takes a hit on a regular basis. Especially if its the same route again and again. If that requires a surplus of stock, so be it. I have no sympathy. Railways have been running for 150 years. They should get it right.

If you can find a surplus of stock, I'm sure we'll be more than happy to operate it. Only problem is we wouldn't have a surplus if we did have more trains as the services that need bigger trains would get them.

Firstly, just as the obligatory disclaimer, I'm not FGW staff (or indeed rail staff of any description unless you count a heritage operation which for these purposes I don't).

The logistics of operating a railway are fiercely (and indeed fascinatingly, to my mind) complicated. The vast majority of people who travel on trains have very little idea of the behind-the-scenes operation that takes place to get them from A to B. That's not a criticism, but to use a couple of tired cliches it's frequently like the proverbial swan floating serenely on the surface with its feet paddling furiously, or like an iceberg where a vast amount of it is beneath the surface.

Through my activities in the heritage sector I have been fortunate to meet many railway men and women - not only have I had the privilege of learning from them, but they have become my friends. I am unfailingly impressed by their professionalism and dedication to duty: although it may not seem like it they are genuinely doing their best to get as many people as possible from their origin to their destination. I think it's also fair to say that more than in almost any other industry staff really will often go the extra mile to help their customers.

Where am I going with all this...? My main point is that the railways are run largely by dedicated, knowledgeable, professional people. However good they are though, they can only work with the cards they have been dealt, which in the case of certain areas on FGW are frankly suboptimal and don't leave them much room for manoeuvre as soon as something goes wrong.

Current government policy keeps the railways in some areas run on a "wing and a prayer" in terms of stock availability. It's very easy to jump up and down shrieking that "they should buy more trains because the parent companies make huge profits". However, the current, government-imposed structure on the railways means that this is anything but simple: see Christian Wolmar's piece here (http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2011/02/rail-662-no-room-for-entrepreneurs-on-the-railway) which explains things much more elegantly than I can. Until there's some kind of radical structural overhaul of the entire system, nothing is likely to change fast.

You can bounce around on the sidelines shouting about it, or try and take it out on staff as much as you like, but it won't make a blind bit of difference other than raising your blood pressure.

You can read this as me being an apologist if you like, but I prefer to think of it as trying to give a balanced view of the realities that train operators face and illustrating that solutions that may appear "obvious" to the uninitiated aren't necessarily that straightforward in the real world.

I'm agreeing with sentiment, and 95% of your words, JaminBob.

The 5% I'm going to vary?

1. At a first reading, you appear to be singling out the TOC as the only party that would need to get its act in order to put things right - whereas there are a lot (far too many?) parties involved.   Actually, at a second reading you're mentioning "excuses from our TOC" and you might be right in that ... given that it's part of their role to make the apologies even for things that are under the control of others.

2. There is always going to be something of a limit as to just how many extra spare resources you can have around "just in case" for unexpected happenings.   But actually, at a second reading, you used the word regularly ...

Hmmm ... perhaps I'm not varying from you at all.

There are, as InspectorBlakey says, a lot of really excellent people working at TOCs, and elsewhere (Network Rail, DfT, LTAs, etc) who do their best ... but limits and rules imposed on them. Some of those limits and rules are correct - but some are arcane, excessive and frustrating for them, and indeed some encourage or force them in a direction which doesn't put the passenger as high up the pecking order as (s)he should be.   

On a number of aspects, we could do with some "out of box"  thinking - and indeed there is some of that going on at the moment. Problems are that some vested interests (businesses built around current system) may resist, that people who have an excessively favourable deal at the moment would resist, and that we might find that we had chucked out some really good things with the bad.   The cost, worry and uncertainty of change aren't exactly great either.