Commuters furious over rail fare increase

[whole diary]

[NickB]

TaplowGreen, please tell me what else could sensibly have been done to add extra seats before the line upgrade completes and the new trains arrive?

As we are talking about the specific overcrowding on Maid-->Paddington services I would suggest that the overall calling pattern is to blame to some extent.
When I first moved to Maidenhead in 2010 both the 07.08 and the 07.18 were HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s.  Passengers such as myself were very happy to get either train as both had ample capacity and moved quickly.
In 2011 the 07.16 was changed to a Turbo.  Those that used to get that train experienced regular overcrowding and its arrival at Paddington was pushed back.
At that point the 07.08 became more and more crowded as passengers didn't want to travel on the 07.16.  This is why the 07.08 is over-capacity in both First and Standard areas.
The need to move to the 07.08 from the Turbo service was even more essential for First Class passengers as there is no provision of any services on the Turbo and the location of the First Class doors changes everyday making it impossible to even board in First Class.

So you see, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) created the mess on this service themselves.   

What can be done?  Well there is an HST that flies through Maidenhead without stopping around the same time as the 07.08.  You could stop the train and allow passengers on, thereby spreading the burden of the 07.08.  To my recollection the next train through after this train is the 07.16 which stops, so it ought not to cause too many problems with the down line.  But I'm just a passenger so don't know much about that.

[IndustryInsider]

What can be done?  Well there is an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) that flies through Maidenhead without stopping around the same time as the 07.08.  You could stop the train and allow passengers on, thereby spreading the burden of the 07.08.  To my recollection the next train through after this train is the 07.16 which stops, so it ought not to cause too many problems with the down line.  But I'm just a passenger so don't know much about that.

As well as the potential pathing difficulties, the trouble with that is you then annoy a different set of passengers who will say their journey times are being lengthened by stopping more long-distance fast trains at suburban commuter stations - in other words FGW^▸ (First Great Western) can't really win!  Let's not forget that less than ten years ago nothing apart from Turbos ever stopped at Maidenhead - the growth in commuting from there (and other places) really has been incredible!

There is a great opportunity to run nice long (8, maybe even 12 car) modern EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)'s through Maidenhead and Slough in a couple of years when the electrification is complete.  Let's hope that the benefits electrification will bring will mean many more seats for Maidenhead commuters, as well as those from Reading and further afield as that is the dramatic change that is just around the corner.  Until then, the odd tweak here and there is all that is really possible I'm afraid.

[BBM]

As we are talking about the specific overcrowding on Maid-->Paddington services I would suggest that the overall calling pattern is to blame to some extent.
When I first moved to Maidenhead in 2010 both the 07.08 and the 07.18 were HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s.  Passengers such as myself were very happy to get either train as both had ample capacity and moved quickly.

In 2009 a change in my working hours meant that my morning train from TWY^▸ (Twyford station) became the 0653 instead of the 0720 Turbo. At the time the 0653 was an HST and for me the additional comfort more than made up for the earlier start. Towards the end of 2009, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) introduced the First Eastbound season tickets and I seriously considered changing over to that, especially as at the time First Class on that train still had a host serving hot drinks and newspapers.

However I quickly changed my mind when I learnt that the 0653 was to go over to being a Turbo at the December 2009 timetable change. Apparently the change was to be temporary in order to release an HST to the Cotswold Line while Turbos were being refurbished. Five years later the 0653 is still a Turbo.

Every morning on arrival at MAI^▸ (Maidenhead station) there is always a crowd on Platform 2 waiting for the 0708 HST even though my train (the 0702 departure from Platform 4) arrives first at PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains). I can understand First Class ticket holders preferring this train, but there is also always a crowd at the Standard Class end. This is obviously an interesting demonstration of people's preference for HSTs!

[johoare]

And the fact that when that train leaves Maidenhead at 7.02 it is often/usually very crowded..

[ChrisB]

I suspect that the Eastbound-only annuals might be abolished before December....maybe only monthlies available thru 2015? Although no new stocjk is being in service until 2017, maybe 1 more year of annuals?

Making the service supplied by all the same stock would result in pax spreading themselves out again, rather than all trying to board HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train). With the same stopping pattern, a 15min service (4tph) would work?....

[grahame]

Let's face it, folks ... the basis on which current services were specified, a long time ago, assumed a growth rate of under 1%. The typical actual growth rate for rail has been 8% compound for the best part of a decade, and that means that the expectation of 100 passengers rising to 108 has been exceeded - the 100 passengers has risen to 216 ^{region not local figures}!

Some very sensible things have been done to improve the situation - but those which have been completed so far can't be sufficient to cope with the staggering increases seen to the extend of providing fast transits, frequent services and seats for everyone who wants them at a reasonable price.  We hope (and I'm not an expert here!) that the whole electrification / Reading rebuild / Crossrail thing has been specified not only in a way to bring us up to a system which copes with demand immediately after it's completed and launched, but also continues to cope with that demand into the future - i.e. through that generation of trains and services.

I was struck when I first got involved in calculating business cases and looking at potential changes as to how thoroughly cases were made and assumptions and hypotheses tested.  And that's absolutely how it should be before expensive investment decisions.    The input data was - in my view - just about as realistic as it could be.   The shocker to follow was that on the end of the calculations, an extra "optimism factor" of 60% was applied, dumbing down the figures we had as if to say "we don't believe you ... so we're going to cut that back ...".     The result in our little neck of the woods is that we're way over target in the first year of the improvements running (good), that we're already having capacity issues and people standing and even turned away ^{specialist case - cycles} (bad), and that the choice between an hourly and two-hourly service, which went for two-hourly, has left us with a service that requires enhancement sooner rather than later.

TravelWatch SouthWest have been very concerned at the gap between their anticipated passenger growth and fleet growth for coming years ... what's the score in the Thames Valley?  Do we know if the improvements as they come on line will simply catch us up, or provide what's needed for years to come?

[ChrisB]

I suspect the former. Simply because the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) in the Thames Valley is at capacity in the peaks. That won't be properly altered by simply upgrading stations. Other than lengthening trains, I'm not sure what a realistic answer is.

Possibly cheap seasons on Crossrail? There are many who would trade an extra 30mins each way for, say, ^1500-^2k in their pockets....

[IndustryInsider]

Splitting it into three different commuting zones of 'inner suburban' 'outer suburban' and 'long distance' I would have thought that when Crossrail is fully up and running the 'inner suburban' routes will provide more than enough capacity on the local services for quite some time - nine carriage trains will run at least as frequently as they do now replacing the current mish-mash of 2/3/4/5 and 6 carriage trains.

'Outer suburban' is the big question mark on service provision as we don't yet know what trains will be working the services, let alone their length and frequency in the peaks.  All we really know is that there are two relief line paths per hour off-peak.  If 8 car EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) provide a reasonable semi-fast service between Oxford/Newbury/Reading and Paddington calling (after Reading) at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough during the peaks giving the same sort of frequency (or slightly less) than currently provided then those stations will, I think, have adequate capacity, and if they're extended to 12 car trains then they'd be plenty of capacity.

'Long distance' and if the number of trains planned to run in the peak are all either 9-Car or 2x5-Car length trains, then that would be plenty to allow quite a large increase of passengers over the coming years, but we know they're not all going to be of that length, so it depends just how many are shorter 5-car length as to what growth can be accommodated.  Answers on a postcard!

One final unknown is how the inner/outer suburban services are going to be managed in the short period post-electrification but pre-Crossrail (Dec 2016-19), when capacity between Royal Oak and Kensal Green is reduced as the modifications to the track layouts to allow the Crossrail service to operate are made.  Curtailing the Greenford service at West Ealing will provide two extra paths an hour, but other paths will be likely lost so it's going to be interesting to see how the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) copes with that.

I'm optimistic about the number of seats rising to an acceptable level to accommodate growth (particularly after Crossrail in 2019), but it's very difficult to be sure given the number of variables that are still unknown.  The GW^▸ (Great Western) ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) document did give the topic of managing growth the highest percentage level of any category of the scoring system for the Greater Western franchise - 17.5% of the total points available in fact.  We all know that the franchising system crashed shortly after that, but at least it provesthe DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) had capacity right at the top of its agenda, so hopefully nothing has changed in that respect!

[4064ReadingAbbey]

TravelWatch SouthWest have been very concerned at the gap between their anticipated passenger growth and fleet growth for coming years ... what's the score in the Thames Valley?  Do we know if the improvements as they come on line will simply catch us up, or provide what's needed for years to come?

A very good question! The answer has to be, 'we don't know' as it depends on a variety of things - the continuation (or not) in the growth of employment in central London (and, if it continues to increase, at what rate), what will become of the Heathrow Express, pricing policy and so on.

Crossrail will make a huge difference in capacity from Maidenhead inwards and remove essentially all the inner-suburban travellers from Paddington. The longer, and for many stations more frequent, trains will absorb the growth expected for a long time to come.

I feel the situation is not so clear from Maidenhead westwards to Newbury/Bedwyn and to Oxford. Firstly the type of rolling stock has not yet been confirmed although Andrew Adonis in his original electrification announcement said that cascaded Class 319s from Thameslink would be used. These are, I would suggest, not ideal as their top speed is 100mph and having only 4 axles motored will not even be able to match the acceleration of an SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) so there will continue to be a performance gap if scheduled to use the Mains. Some performance improvement may be achieved if they are re-powered with ac motors but the situation will only be slightly better than the present with Class 165/166s mixing it with HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

The other part of this is that these semi-fast services will be effectively squeezed off the Relief Lines from Stockley Bridge Junction (or more likely Dolphin Junction at Slough) inwards due to the number of all-stations Crossrail trains running from West Drayton/Heathrow towards central London. If the service pattern stays similar to the present one then this will affect the Oxford terminators more than the Newbury trains which use the Mains with a stop at Slough. However the new layout at Reading will enable trains from Newbury to reach the Reliefs easily so this pattern could well change. But forcing outer-suburban passengers west of Reading to change to Crossrail to carry on to Maidenhead or Slough is unacceptable.

The issue of the capacity on the Mains between Reading and London has been addressed in the London and Southeast RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) of 2011. It stated:

The RUS anticipates significant crowding problems with Reading area to London Paddington commuters, in particular, unless further capacity is provided. Note that this conclusion has only marginally been affected by the recent funding announcement regarding electrification and the Intercity Express Programme (IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)), since additional trains into London Paddington in the high-peak hour over the fast lines are not operationally achievable regardless of train type". (My italics).

There are some 18 or 19 peak hour services using the Mains east of Airport Junction into Paddington. There is not only the issue of track capacity but also of platform capacity at Paddington as not all the platforms can accept the 9 or 10 coach SETs. Some longer distance capacity could be made available if the 4 Hexes per hour were relegated to the Reliefs - but this service would not then be attractive as it would have to conform with the all-stations inner suburban pattern of the Crossrail trains. I speak from experience - both S-Bahn routes into Munich from the Airport are all-stations affairs and take about 45 minutes to reach the Hauptbahnhof. A non-stop service could do it in 15 to 20 minutes and after a long day, coping with airports and then a flight then sebsequently sitting in a train stopping everywhere when all I wanted to do was get home was more than I could cope with so I often took a taxi.

So if the railways don't want to boost road transport then HEx, in some non-stop form, has to stay.

So my conclusion is - the improvements will be good in parts. The slightly longer SETs will offer some more seats, but there won't be many more of trains - at least in the peaks. Possibly one or two more as the new Reading layout will ease operation - and will certainly improve reliability - but they will fill up after a year or two.

So great if one takes the train from Iver, not much difference if one takes the train from Didcot.

[ChrisB]

But forcing outer-suburban passengers west of Reading to change to Crossrail to carry on to Maidenhead or Slough is unacceptable.

Why?

The number of pax wanting to go to those stations from west of Reading is infinitesimal.....compared to the numbers on those trains heading further East. I think a change at REading to get there is perfectly reasonable, probably on Crossrail, I suspect.

The rest of your piece seems to concentrate of journey time improvement?...Surely, this exercise is to improve *capacity*, with any journey time improvement being secondary? I think we've all suggested that at least in the short term, everyone should get a seat. Which is a huge improvement.

[didcotdean]

The other factor is what any suppressed demand might be that would be released with improvements. I recall that usage increased by 10% or a bit more with the introduction of the turbos replacing the previous heritage diesel etc service.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

But forcing outer-suburban passengers west of Reading to change to Crossrail to carry on to Maidenhead or Slough is unacceptable.

Why?

The number of pax wanting to go to those stations from west of Reading is infinitesimal.....compared to the numbers on those trains heading further East. I think a change at REading to get there is perfectly reasonable, probably on Crossrail, I suspect.

The rest of your piece seems to concentrate of journey time improvement?...Surely, this exercise is to improve *capacity*, with any journey time improvement being secondary? I think we've all suggested that at least in the short term, everyone should get a seat. Which is a huge improvement.

On current planning there will be only 2 Crossrail trains per hour extended to Reading, so if the semi-fasts are taken out of the Relief Line services there will be effectively a halving of the service east of Reading. I have seen no reference anywhere that all four of the Crossrail peak hour trains which are planned to terminate at Maidenhead will be extended to Reading. My post was written with this assumption.

I agree that the flows from west of Reading to the intermediate stations to London are not as large as those to and from Paddington. However people wanting a faster journey to London tend to change at Reading already and there are still large numbers of people who stay in the semi-fasts when they call at Reading. Whilst some of these will be people who don't want to lose a seat and are prepared to accept the 25 minute longer journey to London many are people going to and from work in towns such as Maidenhead, Slough and Ealing. The point is that forcing people to change to a less frequent Crossrail service is putting the desires of the train operator in front of the clearly expressed requirements of the passengers. It's not good public relations and it's not good for business.

I have no idea how you thought that my post had anything to do with journey time improvements - I certainly never mentioned or implied them - it's all to do with capacity. The point about the performance of the 319 sets is that, if they cannot keep up with the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)), there will be NO increase in the number of trains that can used the Mains over what is achievable now. A train that takes 5 or 6 minutes longer to reach Reading than the SET behind it costs 2 paths. Maximum throughput is achieved by running trains with identical, or at least very similar, performance.

[Rhydgaled]

Anyone who believes that a government wouldn't have increased fares or even cut fares under a nationalised railway is somewhat deluded! 

If you read the company accounts FirstGroup made a combined ^55million operating profit from all five of its rail franchises.  That's peanuts really in comparison to the leasing companies profits (^350million in 2011) and some franchises like the West Coast and East Coast.

That's ^400m right there that wouldn't have to come from fairpayer's pockets if the railways were still nationalised. Granted that is quite a simplistic view of things, but surely not a delusional one?

If anyone thinks that the arrival of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will solve overcrowding on our routes I think they're going to be very dissapointed. 

I think the project has been ill-conceived with more focus given by government officials on whether it works financial rather than looking at physical capacity required & passenger comfort as well.  It has already been said that the IEP is based on a poor spec by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) which Hitachi are trying to make good.  I also suspect the leasing charges paid will be astronomical which will result in cuts here and there to save ^

Hitachi might even actually manage to come out with a good train despite the poor spec but that won't do anything to resolve the deployment strategy, with non-expired 9-car trains on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) currently earmarked for replacement by brand new 9-car 800s/801 while many of 8-car ones currently going through capacity enhancment (by reducing first class) on the Great Western will be replaced by 5-car 800s/801s.

Yes, they do take up more of the additional standard class seating, but as there's much more extra standard class seating being added than first class seating being removed that's where your extra capacity comes from.

Indeed, less first class seats but more seats overall. Not ideal for those traveling first class but I suspect introducing 2+9 IC125 sets on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) would have been rather difficult, so probably a sensible move overall.

There is a great opportunity to run nice long (8, maybe even 12 car) modern EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)'s through Maidenhead and Slough in a couple of years when the electrification is complete.  Let's hope that the benefits electrification will bring will mean many more seats for Maidenhead commuters, as well as those from Reading and further afield as that is the dramatic change that is just around the corner.

'Long distance' and if the number of trains planned to run in the peak are all either 9-Car or 2x5-Car length trains, then that would be plenty to allow quite a large increase of passengers over the coming years, but we know they're not all going to be of that length, so it depends just how many are shorter 5-car length as to what growth can be accommodated.  Answers on a postcard!

One final unknown is how the inner/outer suburban services are going to be managed in the short period post-electrification but pre-Crossrail (Dec 2016-19), when capacity between Royal Oak and Kensal Green is reduced as the modifications to the track layouts to allow the Crossrail service to operate are made.  Curtailing the Greenford service at West Ealing will provide two extra paths an hour, but other paths will be likely lost so it's going to be interesting to see how the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) copes with that.

I'm optimistic about the number of seats rising to an acceptable level to accommodate growth (particularly after Crossrail in 2019), but it's very difficult to be sure given the number of variables that are still unknown.  The GW^▸ (Great Western) ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) document did give the topic of managing growth the highest percentage level of any category of the scoring system for the Greater Western franchise - 17.5% of the total points available in fact.  We all know that the franchising system crashed shortly after that, but at least it provesthe DfT had capacity right at the top of its agenda, so hopefully nothing has changed in that respect!

One question is, will the 8/12-car EMUs be enough to attract the passengers away from the faster, but shorter, 5-car 800s/801s? Perhaps the DfT have decided it will, which perhaps explains why they have decided to specify a reduction in train length on long-distance services. If so, I suspect they have been focusing on the London peak and assuming that if they provide enough capacity into and out of London everything will be fine. If that is the case, then that is where they have made their big mistake. London is not the only major city on the ICGW network and there will be commuting into all of them, at the exact same time as the London peak. The 10-car (2x5) trains can't be in two places at once, if they are providing capacity into London in the peak then they cannot be providing peak capacity into Cardiff, say. I expect some nasty non-London overcrowding if somebody doesn't boost the number of 9-car units in the GW IEP fleet. As for your 'postcard', from I quick look at the draft diagrams DfT used to estimate diagram requirements I didn't notice any fives arriving at PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) between 7am and 08:45, but outside the London peak they are rather too common.

Some longer distance capacity could be made available if the 4 Hexes per hour were relegated to the Reliefs - but this service would not then be attractive as it would have to conform with the all-stations inner suburban pattern of the Crossrail trains. I speak from experience - both S-Bahn routes into Munich from the Airport are all-stations affairs and take about 45 minutes to reach the Hauptbahnhof. A non-stop service could do it in 15 to 20 minutes and after a long day, coping with airports and then a flight then sebsequently sitting in a train stopping everywhere when all I wanted to do was get home was more than I could cope with so I often took a taxi.

So if the railways don't want to boost road transport then HEx, in some non-stop form, has to stay.

One idea of mine regarding HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) was that instead of a spur from the north there be a link from London to the GWML at Old Oak Common, with HEx diverted onto HS2 between Old Oak Common and London (even better would be a new HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) branch line between Old Oak Common and Heathrow, extending to Reading to provide the western rail access and allowing for futher westward extension in future if needed to boost capacity by having a second rail link between London and Bath/Bristol, plus using 'Euston Cross' instead of Euston so that the HEx is replaced by an extension of the SouthEastern Javelin service).

[stuving]

It's probably worth explaining what those RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) passenger figures quoted earlier are. There's no single table with them in.
There's are three 2010 base figures: capacity in seat, seats plus acceptable standing, and actual numbers carried. That last one may be demand, unless that's well above capacity in which case demand is unknown.
There's a pre-RUS capacity, i.e. including CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) infrastructure enhancements and further things known and committed (Reading, Crossrail) or announced by the government to 2011 (SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)), electrification, etc).
Then there's 2031 predicted demand, based on a huge increase on the relief/Crossrail side (211%) and "only" 55% on the mains and HEX.

This gives, for the morning peak hour arrivals:

Lines	2010	2010	2010	committed	2031	2031
	seats	+standing	actual	capacity	demand	unmet
Relief-Crossrail	2,500	3,100	4,100	17,600	12,800	-
Main	8,000	8,300	9,000	9,200	13,600	5,800
Heathrow Express	2,800	2,800	800	2,800	1,300	-

The table actually says "main line and other fast trains", so I guess it includes those that swap onto the mains after Reading. However, there must still be some some assumption built into the figures about how, for example, Maidenhead commuters split between the Crossrail and fast trains.