A driving licence is a strange thing, compared to other forms of licence.

It requires a significant amount of training, and the person is then in possession of a licence, which allows them to be in charge of a vehicle which could do a lot of damage if used incorrectly. There is also a significant amount of law around driving, with changes every so often.

Now in most areas like this, there is a requirement for Continuing Professional Development. A driving licence isn't so different from these, and yet it's just seen as such an everyday skill or right that there isn't the same requirement to keep up knowledge and understanding. Indeed, every so often I see clickbait to articles about how drivers are "only just realising" something that they really should know if they are on top of their game.

Perhaps there should be more of an effort to ensure drivers are up to date with changes, and are actively aware of things. It could be as simple as providing an annual update, requiring acknowledgment, or a simple theory re-test every X years. I don't think it would be popular, given that driving is often seen as a basic life skill and right (there would be more than a few "I've been doing it for 30 years and not had a crash" comments) but at the same time I'm very aware that a driver is able to wield a lot of damage if they don't know what they're doing, and really ought to be aware of what they should be doing! Perhaps it should be a condition of insurance, and paid for by the insurer, on the basis that CPD may reduce the total cost of payouts!

It happens in a small way - for example sending some on Speed Awareness courses. But that's more reactionary than 'normal' CPD!

Edit: I don't drive. Maybe this already happens and I just haven't noticed!

I wonder if a Delay Repay claim would be accepted on the basis of being informed of a cancellation and planning around that.

A somewhat similar situation with TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) recenty. The Manchester-Carmarthen (or something like that) was affected by disruption at Hereford, and the rest of the journey was cancelled. I had been intending to take it from CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) - it was a 4/5 car and likely to be not too busy. Then I saw it was cancelled. In this scenario it's not unusual for a replacement train to start at Cardiff; however, I checked Journeycheck, Tiger and RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website), and couldn't see any sign of a reinstatement from CDF.  I chose not to take the (2 car) stopper immediately after it because the cancellation would have pushed people onto the shorter train; I made a choice to wait for the next IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train - the now official name for the replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)).

I think it was just after the booked departure time that a headcode suggestive of a replacement train appeared on RTT, and not long after that the replacement showed on Tiger and Journeycheck. But by that point I had made other plans.

This is a bit different from the 'cancelled all day and then reinstated' scenario, as the operator was working with an issue that had just arose, so it is understandable that the information was late to arrive. However from the customer perspective the replacement train didn't exist until the last minute, and it would therefore be legitimate to think of the train as still effectively cancelled. It's still an inconvenience, however, and the business should be thinking about how this affects the customer if, for example, they were to make a Delay Repay claim on this basis. (I don't think I bothered on this occasion, as I'd chosen to miss the train after it as well.)

A few things that might be relevant here:

(1) In the West Highland example, they probably don't want the cycle vehicle to be the non-platformed one - a bit awkward if the cyclists need to carry the bike through after being given their dedicated carriage. Not completely different from any train with designated bike spaces, but more notable if there's a whole carriage designed for the purpose and it's a USP on the line.

(2) If there are too many short platforms, or main stations have short platforms, it may reach the point where the majority of people in a carriage are for stations where that car isn't platformed, in which case the operational hassle is increased.

(3) If SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) isn't available (i.e. local door operation is the only option) the short platforms only really 'work' at minor stations; at least the main stops need to be lengthened to avoid large numbers of people having to fit through one door, and move through the train before arriving, and there's a greater risk of people being caught out.

Thinking about the subsidised secondary routes near me - both urban and rural...

There are a few dominant local operators - primarily First, but also some other major plays. Mix of commercial and subsidised routes, mostly moderately frequent, or at least regular through the day. Day/weekly tickets useful as they can be used on all routes as long as the same operator is used. People know these companies run several routes in teh area, and a look at the websites shows the routes available. A lot of flaws with the service provision, but  essentially there's a well-known service provision.

Then there are the 'fiddly little routes'. In some cases 1-2 hourly, in some cases a few each day. Several companies involved - fine for pass-holders, but not so useful for those on day tickets. In many cases, the route varies a bit with each journey. Some are designed to connect with 'main' routes, but others aren't.

In reality the 'urban circular' type routes are probably are only useful to pass-holders, because the able-bodied will walk to the nearest main road for more frequent services, but they would probably be more useful if they were set up better. There's one that goes past my house, but I couldn't tell you when it runs. There are no designated stops, and my road doesn't appear on the rudimentary maps. The only designated stop is one by a nearby pub, which is shown in the timetable and on maps/planners; even that one doesn't have a sign. Which is fine for rural and occasional routes (and indeed more the norm in deep rural areas) - probably cheaper than maintaining stops - but without even the odd waypoint added to maps/planners/timetables, only regular uses would know where to wait for it! The map doesn't even hint that it passes my house, and many locals wouldn't even have heard of the company if only really familiar with the big players! If someone living on my road were shopping and a bit tired and happened to be ready to leave town when the bus is due, they might pick it over a route to the nearest main route, but as there isn't integrated ticketing they wouldn't unless they were a pass-holder.

It strikes me that if several of these 'urban circular' type journeys were linked, maybe into a 'city circle' type service, they could run to a more regular timetable, rather than sporadically (often a few journeys in a row, then none for a bit, then the afternoon batch - perhaps partly because of shift/lunch patterns, and partly because of swapping between the routes). And if there were integrated ticketing - be it an area-wide franchising model or one company just running hte whole lot - they would be more useful to everyone.

It's great that a particular market segment is served by these buses, but when I've seen them they aren't full to the brim, and if someone put the time into reviewing them perhaps they could be that bit more commercially useful.

The rural 'fiddly extra' routes are generally better - more defined routes, run by the same operator as the main axes, and designed to connect therewith, and quite useful for tourism so there is some marketing, although it's inconsistent. There are however some oddities - one or two (not sure how much they've survioved post-Covid) that run on certain days only for shoppers etc, and one that I've seen advertised at stops - possibly run on a voluntary or 'community' basis of some sort. The only way I know about it is from seeing advertising sheets at stops in that area. The photos (not sure if token/clipart or actuially representative) show coaches - not sure if a coach co runs it, or if someone has basically hired the coach. It runs on certain days only, between main axes so that it's useful for popping to shops etc - and the advertising at the stops says it's for pass-holders only. I can understand why in a way - perhaps avoids some sort of additional admin hurdle - but it could be more commercially useful if they could carry fare-payers as well. Again, perhaps if this type of route were linked into some of the others it could run daily, carry all passenger types etc.

This having to pick a specific train has turned into quite a bugbear recently...

A lot of people now buy on apps, and because they're given an itinerary they assume they have an 'advance' ticket and can't travel on a different train. I ask to see their ticket and it turns out to be an Off-Peak Return or whatever. It does say 'suggested' or whatever somewhere on the itinerary but still.

I suppose if it didn't happen they might use the off-peak ticket on a peak train without realising!

Also it's very hard to buy the right fare, or even know about it, when there are options. If the starting point were choosing the ticket, rather than choosing the journey, this would be alleviated. People would save money in some cases as they would see cheaper options that the planners don't offer because the algorithm doesn't pick out t hat journey. And people might even come to understand the fare structure better because the grids currently shown by the planners make it feel like the whole system is built around per-journey quota-controlled fares.

Examples:

Brighton Main Line: typically 3 routings - Any Permitted (great for Gatwitck Express, which is often lightly loaded - a useful gem at times!), Not Gatwick Express, Thameslink Only. Thameslink only is cheapest. But at certain times it's hard to pick out from a planner if the Victoria journeys are picked out by the algorithm, especially if it's a day when engineering work messes with the outcomes.

London: Do I want London Terminals, London Thameslink (Brighton Main Line example again), London U1, or Travelcard? I recently did a split journey where the best options involved splitting at London - i.e. one of the legs was booked to/from London U1 or London Thameslink. But there's a certain art to finding London U1 journeys. Why not just offer the options when entering London? For London Thameslink I tried entering Farringdon, but on that day it decided going to Victoria then Underground was quickest, and it was hard to force the Thameslink option! Someone who doesn't know the system well and isn't inclined to play around just woudln't get there.

Wales - London (and Southern Region destinations, actually): Via Salisbury is often cheaper. (For some destinations there's no route Salisbury fare so splitting is needed.) It's a very good way to save money, and sometimes avoid the same scale of peak fares, for those who don't have the flexibility to buy an Advance fare. But because it's slower, the planners don't find the journeys via Salisbury unless the user is in the know. If someone just asked for a flexible London ticket, the system would offer the fare.

I recently assisted someone with a journey plan between South London and the Midlands. The cheapest fare was route Nottingham but at certain parts of the day it wouldn't offer them this fare because going via Derby gave better options. They wouldn't have known to tell it to offer journeys via Nottingham.

Back when QJump was around and had its own engine (I think later it was absorbed into TheTrainLine) there was a button to list all fares. Very useful feature!

I've never been quite convinced that mileage-based fares are the answer, as rural routes and major arteries have such different fares now, which also potentially ties in with local economic needs, not to mention that there are so many mileage permutations for some A-B journeys, which could create a lot of anomalies, or require different more complex 'via' routings.

Dealing with the peak fare issue would do a lot to simplify journeys. I'm not convinced we need evening peak fares any more. Retaining morning peak restrictions would serve a purpose by by crudely differentiating between commuter travel (to maintain/maximise income) and leisure travel (lower off-peak fares to attract non-captive customers). Evening peak fares make planning long-distance journeys overly complex, and also could cause worries if late running causes the last off-peak train to be missed, or if unsure of return travel time - do I buy the off-peak and hope I make it in time, or buy the peak fare just in case, and then make it at the off-peak time after all? But even with just mornming peak fares we really don't need so many restriction codes. It might require more than one code but not hte number we have now! It might make sense to have before 09:30 for some flows, and arriving London after 10am for some flows, and some flows with peak ending before 09:30 if there are longer gaps in service, but doesn't need hundreds of restriction codes. And for railcards... either do away with the peak restriction, or just say it isn't valid for a discount on the peak fare! (That might cause problems where the peak ticket is the only fare, on routes with no peak/off-peak distinction...)

If there were just a morning peak, and just a handful of restriction codes, and if booking systems were based on purchasing the ticket rather than the journey, the system would immediately be much, much simpler, and easy to plan around!

For a recent journey that required crossing London in the evening peak, it took what felt like hours looking at all the split options - even on that one axis there were different restriction codes for the different combinations! And the trains weren't exactly overloaded. Perhaps without peak fares they would be though... but that's probably no different from the crowding on the first & last off-peak trains!

If prices are higher at peak times, is it because the holiday locations are at capacity and therefore reducing prices would just cause first-come-first-served booking chaos? Or perhaps there is spare capacity but the market will bear the higher price so they charge it.

This is one reason  why I'm not convinced by proposals for shorter summer holidays and redistribution of holiday periods through the year.

I'm wary of "it did me/us no harm" arguments but here's one anyway! In the 1990s it seemed fairly normal for people to take holidays during term-time. This was mainly at primary school. At secondary school it required the head's authorisation, and only happened occasionally. We sometimes had authorised holiday leave for one or two weeks when I was at primary school, and I don't remember it causing major problems. The summer term is often slower-paced anyway! I can see it being more of a problem at secondary school, but the nature of primary-age learning, being less geared to exams etc, was such that a week or two off wasn't the end of the world.

Not quite 3 minutes, but occasionally I've seen trains leave 1-2 minutes early where the platform clocks aren't easily visible where the guard is - e.g. Cathays, where the displays are primarily aimed at the platform entrances, and rather obscured by the shelter canopies at some points on the platforms.

I've also seen 2-3 minutes early where trains haven't needed to stop at request stops. Naturally trains don't wait time if not called to stop (and perhaps staff don't perceive a need to wait even if stopping), and similarly might not wait time at the next mandatory stop if it's also quite a small station. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) now generally time for full 30 second (sometimes even 1 minute) dwells at request stops, and often the advertised times match the working times. So it's quite possible that a train will leave a main stop 30s early if the working departure time is on the half-minute, and then recover some time by missing a request stop or two. Compare this to the Far North Line where there are still zero dwells at request stops (given that up there the chance of not needed to stop is much higher) and the advertised time is slightly before the working time.

I think the right solution for GWR & TfW, where request stops are fairly well used, is to have the 30s dwells, but make the working times realistic times passengers need to be there to hail the train, and factor in non-stopping - so maybe 30s before the working arrival time, and 1m earlier, for example, if there are two preceding 30s dwells that might not be needed. So the train will appear late by passenger times if making the stops, but will be back to right time at the next mandatory stop.

As far as I'm concerned an early departure should be considered the same as a cancellation for Delay Repay purposes - and I imagine (hope) a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) wouldn't fight that if the train genuinely left early.


IMX staff routinely start the process before departure time where the train is ready to go, such that it can leave bang on the advertised time, and TOC posters variously advise passengers that dispatch begins 30-40 seconds before departure time. At quiet self-dispatch locations it's perhaps more like 15-20 seconds, given that dwell times may only be 30s!

Circa 2000, about five Chiltern Turbos were with Thames Trains. Not sure for how long, or what changed at TT to end the need for them. Being 75mph units I think they were generally used on the Thames Valley branches. I've no idea if there have been electrical changes, but I think the ATP difference existed then.  I can't remember if the Thames Turbos had GWR ATP or just HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) anyway, but again running on just the branch lines presumably avoided it being a problem - is/was ATP just on the main lines? Or perhaps ATP was allowed to be disabled if running only on sub-100 lines.

I hope the all-day couple/uncouple arrangement works out in practice. A Sprinter covering something would snarl it up!

I wonder if there's any scope to swap the arrangement so the 3 car portion goes past Swansea and then ends up on Cardiffs in between. With most other routes in theory going up to an appropriate new baseline train length (CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains)-HHD 3 car, CDF-MAN 5 car etc) the off-hour Cardiff-West journeys are a bit of an anomoly being stuck with 2 cars. Swapping the arrangement would mean more 3 car (with Standard Plus) diagrams in total, as some will be locked into West Wales cycles at any one time. I can see why the extras aren't attaching/detaching at Swansea - it would otherwise involve having two sets couple/uncouple movements going on at the same time each hour, and either very tight movements or having overlapping layovers, none of which is good for resilience. Maybe once things have settled down the 'extras' could have a separate routine of attaching/detaching a 2 car set at CMN to make 4 cars.

Several 153 subs today, it seems, and a 150 on at least one Ebbw Vale diagram, which was doing the stepping-up thing that suggests availability is tight. So I am a bit concerned about how there will suddenly be an increase in availability! Especially with 150s starting to be withdrawn now AIUI^▸ (as I understand it). 756s are starting to appear; only 1 diagram on today, as far as I could see, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a dramatic increase in the next few weeks. That would help to cascade some 150s to the Valleys routes currently operated with 153s, which would then help to cover the SWML^▸ (South Western Mail Line) locals etc until 197 availability improves. Most of the Pembrokes seem to be 197s atm, for example, so they could be released if covered by 153s per previous plans.

I found the suggestion of filling the gaps rather questionable. If there were a height issue, raising the platform would still be quite a task but relatively feasible. But 'filling' the horizontal gap? Perhaps there could be a rolling programme to rebuild platforms to be straighter, but that would take many years and entail a huge amount of disruption, even if TfL^» (Transport for London - about) had the budget for it and could identify alternative locations in all cases.

A FLIRT-style retracting step solution might be more practical but I'm not sure if it would work in all locations – the technology may have some limit of gap or curvature. However my impression is that FLIRTs aren't the cheapest of trains, and the S stock is relatively new, so replacement isn't on the cards any time soon, even if there is (or can be for the right price) a FLIRT-style product available for this context.

Lord Blunkett does refer to a more practical solution – staff being available to help. Perhaps officially there are, but clearly that solution didn't pan out here. It may be difficult for someone with limited or no vision to find help, and their need may not be immediately visible to staff, especially in a crowded Underground station. Staff helping out does seem to be the best solution here, though.

The point about the 'commuter train' is interesting.

It seems to be that suburban trains are improving over time, but express trains are deteriorating.

Suburban trains are losing 3+2 low-backed seating, no longer have doors to every seating bay, often gaining air conditioning, etc.  (Typically, YMMV^▸ (Your Method/Mileage May Vary) etc) The contrast was quite noticeable when TFW borrowed a couple of 150s from Northern, which still had older suburban-style seating.
Express trains often seem to be sacrificing luggage space for seating and often the end-saloon arrangement is done away with. Some may also observe catering changes.

In fact, in many cases the two are being merged, and the 197 is perhaps quite a good example of this. Hopefully, however, 2 car trains on long-distance routes have had their day. When the 158s were introduced, 2 cars became something of a standard except in a few areas, but 3 car variants became more common with newer classes.

Especially in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) setting where even long distance trains aren't running as dedicated high speed services and provide the local service especially on the periphery. I assume reservations only will only be properly enforced towards the London end (if at all) but going by the letter rather than spirit does the person popping into Cardiff or Plymouth "need" to reserve? Even if that's not going to be a problem it is technically saying they do and that's potentially off-putting.

Also it removes flexibility to replan given that delays and cancellations have been promised on this occasion, which will mean potentially two loads of reserved passengers on the next train, and perhaps soemone on a flexible ticket could usually choose to avoid that train. Maybe the Eustons will be "protected" from this but there's no guarantee of this.

A couple of years ago I was on a train that failed at the type of local station that just has signs for 'Trains to X' in lieu of platform numbers, but which has numbers on the systems. The failed train was sitting there so I contacted the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) via Whatsapp for an update. They told me the next train would make an extra call. It wasn't clear if the failed train would be moved or if the 'replacement' would run wrong line and stop at the other platform. So I asked the person on Whatsapp and they told  me the platform number, which I don't think was displayed anywhere on the station. Not exactly helpful to someone standing there! Only way to find out was to check online for the booked platform for other trains to deduce which was which, but I suspect in any case had it run wrong line the system would still have shown the platform it was booked to pass, so the info may not have helped unless the person personally knew the details.

An interesting case is Llanelli where I think platforms are numbered, but RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) shows the platforms by their line identities, UPL and DPL!

It seems to be that bus travel has a long way to go to be genuinely user-friendly. We bemoan issues with trains, and in some ways buses have an easier time as they don't rely on fixed infrastructure to the same degree (there's usually another road...) and the driver can't hide away so there's always a visible staff presence, but equally I often feel that the bus networks are really designed for people with local knowledge, and the customers are left to fend to themselves when there are problems.

Some things I've seen around here, with a lot of overlap with the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter)'s points:

• Delays and cancellations are effectively 'not our problem' – true, heavy traffic is an external factor, but it's predictable that it would affect the performance of the product from time to time, and there are paying customers affected.
• No Delay Repay or assistance with missed connections, cancelled last services etc – as much as the railways have their problems, they have these things in place. Cancel a last bus in a rural area and the user has to fork out for a taxi. Given the demographics that use buses most, this could be a problem! I feel I can rely on trains for regular commuting and long-distance travel as I know there is at least some info and some help if a journey involving a last or infrequent train fails, but I don't feel I could with buses.
• Even where apps provide information, they don't really account for delays, cancellations and diversions. If they've posted in social media that there will be xyz diversion, the planners still show the buses stopping as normal. It's often unclear if they will make stops on the diversionary route. A non-local isn't going to follow the operator's news reports or social media, and won't have local knowledge of things that might snarl things up, and therefore won't know there's an issue when they plan their journey.
• Similarly, if a bus isn't showing on the tracker, is it cancelled or just not tracking? (Or still on a previous journey, in fact – regular users may be able to check hte tracker more intelligently, but shouldn't have to.) Wait and see if it turns up, or walk to another stop while there's still time for the alternative?
• Passenger who doesn't speak much English or is hard of hearing? Driver will probably make some effort but will often show irritation.
• No PA^▸ (Public Address), so if there is information to impart, a driver mumbling it at the front won't be heard properly at the back. Confused looks as people try to work out if it affects them, and maybe irritation when several people then ask for more information. (But I could say the same about the PA quality on a Sprinter when changes to stopping patterns are announced...!)
• A current trend is for operators to advise passengers to hold up their phone so they're visible at stops at night. From a personal safety perspective, does everyone want to wave their phone around for easy taking when alone in the dark? Shouldn't the driver be vigilant when approaching stops if visibility is poor?
• Lack of proper info on the bus. Cardiff Bus is quite good at this and has for a long time used auto-announcements and displays to announce next stop. The main operators in Swansea have the TV^▸ (Thames Valley) screens fitted but they either are switched off or occasionally show a static branding screen.
• Poor info on stops. Near me there are a couple of locations (on quite touristy routes) where there are multiple stops that could be used depending on the exact route taken through the area. Even the same route number has different variant routes on the peripheral part of the journey, that follow a different pattern of stops, or even run through in the opposite direction on the evening pattern (or did before recent cuts). But timetables aren't clear, showing the same name for multiple stops, and also using multiple names for the same stop on different routes! A local might be able to work it out from the overall direction of the route, but should someone have to study the route if the timetable says the bus stops at X?

Line closed between Swansea and Port Talbot for works - I think all week. This may be affecting the early working.