|
John R
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2008, 08:55:27 » |
|
So is this another possible example of someone at FGW▸ reading the Forum, as you pointed this out only a couple of days ago?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2008, 10:03:19 » |
|
So is this another possible example of someone at FGW▸ reading the Forum, as you pointed this out only a couple of days ago?
In general, anyone who posts up on a publicly readable forum such as thsi must expect that their text is going to be read by a lot of people, including people the praise, people they criticise, and these people's contacts too. In fact, the interested parties will tend to read much more (and much more closely) than people not concerned. I expect (and know) that certain people who regard themselves as competitors of what I'm involve in away from this forum are significantly active of my work sites. Having said that, no-one should every regard a forum as a replacement for actually asking a direct question of (in the case of FGW) Customer Services or an alternative; there are lots of web sites out there and whilst I'm sure that we are read in various quarters, I wouldn't want to delude myself into thinking that it's any more that the occasional casual visit, nor that we have been the influence in "this" or "that" case. FGW gets lots of other inputs, and the "hey - that's daft" in this case probably hit them from elsewhere as well! To give you some statistics, this thread has been read around 430 times, from 268 unique (different) IP addresses. A quick glance through them tells me that between 50 and 80 of those visiting addresses are automata - search engines or crawlers - which is why a google search for local door operation at eggesford brings you here, the rest look to me like they're real visitors, and mostly from UK▸ IPs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2008, 12:06:46 » |
|
Good news then
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
des5564
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2008, 16:20:41 » |
|
Noticed today the 12.40 from Barnstaple was 2x142 but rear unit locked with front one full and standing. Thought this problem had been sorted?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2008, 16:37:21 » |
|
Welcome to the forum, des5564.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2008, 16:37:36 » |
|
Hi, des5564,
Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your post here!
Can any of our FGW▸ staff (or, indeed, other) members provide any answer to this apparently ongoing issue?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
des5564
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2008, 16:49:13 » |
|
Thanks for the welcome. I see the same thing happens every saturday but not sure about weekdays.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gaf71
|
|
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2008, 17:39:09 » |
|
Noticed today the 12.40 from Barnstaple was 2x142 but rear unit locked with front one full and standing. Thought this problem had been sorted?
In that case I would say that it was one of the new conductors (of which there are a few) working the train, who hasn't seen the new instruction. It still states on the diagram that the rear set should be locked out of use. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
qwerty
|
|
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2008, 18:07:10 » |
|
Noticed today the 12.40 from Barnstaple was 2x142 but rear unit locked with front one full and standing. Thought this problem had been sorted?
In that case I would say that it was one of the new conductors (of which there are a few) working the train, who hasn't seen the new instruction. It still states on the diagram that the rear set should be locked out of use. Believe one of the old hand drivers was responsible. His diagram stated 'rear unit oou' so he stuck to that rather than the briefing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2008, 19:13:35 » |
|
That service will probabally go back to two car in TT change, as the return no longer forms the PM Torre SChool train....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cheers Jim  AG's most famous quote "It'll be better next week" |
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2008, 19:38:30 » |
|
on a Saturday?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2008, 20:07:05 » |
|
on a Saturday?
Didn't check Saturday, but weekdays yes.......... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Cheers Jim AG's most famous quote "It'll be better next week" |
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2008, 20:10:53 » |
|
From previous posts the overcrowding tends to be on Saturdays, so hopefully someone will have thought of that if its reducing to 1 unit during the week.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
des5564
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2008, 15:20:32 » |
|
North Devon Journal says journeys increased by 20% during first 3 months of 2008 and additional train being put on.
Julian Crow, FGW▸ general manager for the west of England said: "We are delighted to have been able to find the resourses to run this additional train and to meet the needs of passengers on this increasingly busy and important railway line. If growth continues at this rate, we will soon need even more trains on the line"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2008, 15:51:43 » |
|
Doesn't surprise me, Devon local services are very well used. Cutting the line off at Exeter would be suicidal!
I'd love to see figures for the whole of Devon
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
