Class 387 coming to Thames Valley - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Charge them a full single from origin to the first advertised stop, yes.

I wonder though whether such a charge would stand up to legal scrutiny?

I think that greater efforts should be made to prevent pax boarding a pick up only service, rather than looking at ways to penalise. Also I don't think it right that west bound Reading passengers should be inconvenienced by the complete removal of stops just because PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-RDG^‡(resolve) commuters are using services they shouldn't.

[Oxonhutch]

I wonder though whether such a charge would stand up to legal scrutiny?

Theoretical case ...  A person with a full single ticket to Didcot (the first advertised stopping place) decides to break his journey at Reading from a service which is pick-up only Reading.  What could Revenue Protection do in this case? Charge him for another ticket to Didcot? I think BNM's comments refer.

[PhilWakely]

Would be interesting to know exactly how this would be policed. I have been on a number of westcountry services over the years that were advertised as pick-up only at Reading, yet there has always been a large exodus on arrival at Reading.

Easiest way in the morning is for all the p/up trains to use one island platform (both sides if needed) with revenue protection at the top of the escalator. Thinking aloud, that would work in both directions actually

Theoretical case ...  A person with a full single ticket to Didcot (the first advertised stopping place) decides to break his journey at Reading from a service which is pick-up only Reading.  What could Revenue Protection do in this case? Charge him for another ticket to Didcot? I think BNM's comments refer.

Thinking aloud now.....
If a service is advertised as p/u only at any location, then somebody with a valid ticket for the specified train, but breaking their journey at a p/u only location is still deliberately flouting the timetabled restriction, so should be charged a penalty fare - whatever that maybe. There is absolutely no excuse. But, I guess the only 'legal' (for revenue protection purposes) way would be to introduce a new ticket restriction.  Then use the mechanism stated by ChrisB above. (??)

[ChrisB]

BNM, no one's suggesting a complete removal. There still needs to be capacity to carry all those widhing to travel (from) there in the peaks. I doubt dufficient extra services can be introduced with acceptable stopping patterns (say Maidenhead &/or Slough?, so some longer distance trains will still need to be full stops there

If the trains p/u only used a pair of separately barriered platforms (one island), intro of smart cards would enable gates to be programmed fir each train & could then refuse entry to Reading smart tickets

[Oxonhutch]

But, I guess the only 'legal' (for revenue protection purposes) way would be to introduce a new ticket restriction.  Then use the mechanism stated by ChrisB above. (??)

I honestly think that the best, and fairest way, for all passengers (Reading uploads included) is for key long-distance services - in the peak - not to stop at Reading.  That way it is self policing, passively punitive, and fair to those that want a seat for travel beyond the Thames Valley.  Those from Reading heading west should hopefully find plenty of seats vacated by their resident burghers (who are heading for the exit gatelines) on the allowable subset of Paddington-Reading down fasts.

[JayMac]

The two points I'm making are:

1) Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

2) Don't inconvenience westbound Reading passengers by reducing the choice of services they have by having more services non-stop through Reading. And I include in the coming years with increases in frequency to points west. Why shouldn't westbound Reading passengers also benefit from that frequency increase? Reading is a major interchange and nothing should be done to reduce connection opportunities.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

That, I understand. 

[ChrisB]

If Reading want a premium metro-style service, let them pay a premium price is my view. They can subsidise others who get a twice hourly service.

[Rhydgaled]

The two points I'm making are:

1) Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

2) Don't inconvenience westbound Reading passengers by reducing the choice of services they have by having more services non-stop through Reading. And I include in the coming years with increases in frequency to points west. Why shouldn't westbound Reading passengers also benefit from that frequency increase? Reading is a major interchange and nothing should be done to reduce connection opportunities.

I agree that connection opportunities are important, but I don't see how you can stop the wrong passengers boarding at PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) except by providing them with a strong disincentive to board. Issuing them with some kind of penalty on arrival at Reading seems to be one way of doing that, but can anyone think of any other approach?

[ellendune]

If Reading want a premium metro-style service, let them pay a premium price is my view. They can subsidise others who get a twice hourly service.

I agree. Given that the main capacity issues on the GW^▸ (Great Western) mail line are east of Reading and the price per mile is much lower than the longer distance services it does seem like they want their cake and eat it. 

Stooping boarding at Paddington seems a better option, but considering how short the turn-round times are in the peak sometimes, controlling entry automatically at the barriers would be the only possible way. 

[didcotdean]

This seems to have gone onto the general service plan rather than just the 387s.

However, in looking at such issues as the Reading stops, considering only the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services via the main line, the suggested stopping pattern per hour for the 9 services in the peak given in the consultation response is:

Reading - 5 (2*Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham, Hereford)
Didcot - 4 (Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham, Worcester SH)
Swindon - 5 (2*Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham, Swansea)
Bristol Parkway - 3
Bristol TM^‡(resolve) - 3
Cardiff - 3
Swansea - 1

Putting it another way, 4 out of 9 services are not scheduled to stop at Reading if that is the adopted pattern.

[PhilWakely]

This seems to have gone onto the general service plan rather than just the 387s.

apologies for staying off the original O/P, but maintaining the general service plan discussion...

However, in looking at such issues as the Reading stops, considering only the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services via the main line......, the suggested stopping pattern per hour ... is:
Reading - 5 (2*Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham, Hereford)
...............
Putting it another way, 4 out of 9 services are not scheduled to stop at Reading if that is the adopted pattern.

Then, add in the other main line services (i.e. via the Berks & Hants @ 2 p/h [??] ) which are all likely to stop at Reading, so 4 out of 11 not stopping is not unreasonable. As a user of longer distance services, whose family has in the past been denied access to seat reservations and had to stand because of Reading commuters, I would like to see some sort of measures put in place to prevent this abuse.

[didcotdean]

How were you denied access to seat reservations?

[PhilWakely]

How were you denied access to seat reservations?

I meant denied access to our reserved seats as opposed to seat reservations.
This occurred a few years ago. Very simply, we could see from the platform at Paddington that our reserved seats had already occupied by 'four suited gentlemen', but because the train was already crowded, we could not actually get to the seats and had to stand [the TM^‡(resolve) would not have been able to walk down through the train if I had been able to find him to complain!] These gentlemen alighted at Reading despite the service being advertised as p/u only and only then were we able to confirm that those were indeed 'our' seats and were able to sit down. 

[trainbus]

I am not a fan of pick-up only trains nowadays. Sadly, in these aggressive open data computer app days, many have scant respect for staff, rules or penalties and the ONLY way you can stop abuse of 'pick-up' only stops and avoid conflict is not to stop! This should apply to those long distance services that, in this case, are expected to be full upon departure from Paddington without Reading only customers. Not such a problem with inbound services as seats will already have been occupied upon arrival at Reading.

Trains with capacity should stop at Reading non-restricted, with westbound customers using space vacated by alighting commuters.

Non-stopping Reading gives a worthwhile commercial advantage to a small number of key trains in the down direction. In other words, bear in mind those high fare customers seeking a fast journey to, say, Exeter, who understandably would prefer not to be in competition with relatively short distance commuters for seats or otherwise.

Whilst I understand the comment about disadvantaging westbound customers from Reading, the flow is nothing like it is from Paddington. Using this argument perhaps all trains should also stop at Ealing Bdy, Slough and Maidenhead!!?? 

My golden rule on long distance journeys is to arrive at Paddington before most of the commuters to ensure no problem getting a seat, reserved or otherwise!! Numbers of commuters arrive last minute as they cut it fine, have many trains to choose from and take the first fast whenever that is! Thus introducing a fast shuttle with pick-up only services will not resolve the problem. The first fast train is the first fast train so far as commuters are concerned, irrespective of any nominal restrictions that may or may not apply, or where it may or may not be going after Reading!!

These are personal views of course, in the full appreciation that capacity is as ever finite, like it or not! The allocation of that capacity amongst the various traveller markets always has been and always will be subject of healthy tension!