I stumbled into this whilst checking trains to London for New Year's Eve/Day
Using the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) App I selected an off-peak service for the outward journey.

For the return I searched for 31st December 23:30 and was offered an off-peak day return.
Scrolling forward up to 03:43 (for Maidenhead) I could still have an off-peak return. So far so good. I guess the cut-off point is 04:00 (special for New Year's Day?).

Retracing my steps, I entered 1st January 01:00 and was offered two off-peak singles - nearly twice as much for the same trains. Even if I scrolled backwards to 31st December I would still be charged for two singles.

You can understand the logic but you can't excuse the developers or their management who allowed this glitch to go live. It should never have got past the design stage.

I also tried the National Rail Enquiries app. It has an appalling user interface but as I'd selected an off-peak day return it simply wouldn't let me choose return services that needed two singles i.e. after 04:00.

"What if the train had been scratched, and then withdrawn for a week to remove the scratch. Consider the legal costs in apportioning blame for the scratch."

Why should surfboards be treated any differently to bicycles? I would have thought that boards were less likely to cause damage than bikes.

You would think that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would have one or two mobile credit card machines for use in emergencies. Not a hope!

What was really annoying was that the last train to Marlow left Maidenhead just 1 minute before the slightly delayed 2300 from Paddington arrived. The ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies see - here) help desk (when I found a help point that worked) was completely unable to grasp the situation and authorise a taxi for the stranded passengers.

This was at Reading P16 on 12th December. I was last there on the 14th but sans camera.


Edit note: Quote marks fixed. CfN.

@Paul7755: "I also thought that the underpass would have been the most obvious/logical place to have a short changeover section, and there have been a number of subsequent statements, (including by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) in response to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as recently as last October) that they intend to allow for AC and DC^▸ (Direct Current) in the underpass"

It would be preferable to make the changeover in a platform because then there are more options if it fails for any reason. You don't want to have a train stuck in the underpass or needing to reverse out, even though it is bidirectional.

I last went into Reading (from Maidenhead) about three weeks ago by which time track had been laid into P13-15 from the Southern underpass. P11 and 12 are blocked by the footbridge support. I didn't notice any masts at that time.

Incidentally, I was told that the underpass was going to be laid with long sleepers so that conductor rail could be added later if needed (and there would also be room for OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE")). I didn't see whether this had actually been done.

And not forgetting to take a moment to read the important safety information in the vestibule. Has any passenger (sorry, customer) ever been seen to get up and read the safety notices as a result of such an announcement? At least they now use "in the vestibule" instead of "which are located / adjacent to the / train doors" which took three passes to display on the old system.

I think it was always the plan to make passive provision for electrification during the Reading remodelling. It makes sense, in order to minimise disruption later, to do as much as possible in places that are currently away from the live railway. I suspect that now electrification beyond the extent of Crossrail is going ahead, it's worth putting up the masts before the new platforms open.

The NR^» (Network Rail - home page) links are now defunct.

I remember the 4DDs. There was one coach standing outside Chart Leacon for a long time. The forced ventillation didn't work very well and they were very stuffy when full. And it took an age for people to clamber down the steps from the upper compartments.

Picking up the double deck debate...
Low platforms on the continent mean you can  have a lower saloon with entrance doors between the bogies and gangways on the upper deck only. That's not really feasible with the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) platform height. Apart from that station dwell times would be significantly increased, which is not a good idea if you want to put 24tph through the central section.

I don't think there are any 2-car 25kV electric units, but as you say it would just about be possible to squeeze a 3-car unit into the down platform at Bourne End. One driver did make an attempt at extending the line a few years ago, and the result made the front of the local papers :-( I think it was after that that they installed the friction buffer stops.

There's no chance of any more third rail electrification outside existing areas, and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would like to convert the SE to overhead. However if the Southampton-Basingstoke section is converted to AC then some of the redundant equipment could be used for infill on less heavily used lines such as North Downs, Uckfield or Marsh Link. That would require dual voltage stock on the Soton/Weymouth services.

Hello! I've just come across this forum. We're wondering how the Marlow branch would be operated post-electrification. One possibility would be a stored energy solution between Bourne End and Marlow along with an all-day half-hourly service to Maidenhead. Some EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) will of course be displaced from Liverpool Street services by Crossrail and it wouldn't be difficult to convert some 315s to 3 cars, but they will be pretty well life expired by that time.

Conversion to a tramway and extension to High Wycombe had been mooted, and that would have atractions for the local community. Also it might be easier to circumvent the places where the trackbed has been built over, in particular at Wooburn. Loudwater is not so easy because of the M40 but light industrial premeses would be easier to relocate. However reinstating the line for heavy rail would provide a diversionary route for the Chiltern line and open up the possibility of a HW to Heathrow service once Heathrow western access is complete. Also commuters on the line value their through services to/from London in the peaks.

The Greenford service from West Ealing could be extended over the GW^» (Great Western - used as an abbreviation for the area / lines under the Great Western franchise, as opposed to FGW which includes "First", the company operating them too. For tickets - about) line to South Ruislip and West Ruislip, where reversal would be easier, and transferred to the Chiltern franchise. This would require reinstatement of platforms at Greenford and Northolt. This would provide a useful connection between the Chiltern main line and Crossrail without requiring a short hop on the Central line. Should the HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) interchange at Old Oak Common be built then a full service could be restored from the Chiltern line to OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)). Currently there's just the Parliamentary into Paddington once a day and one wonders what will happen to that when Crossrail starts operating.