'More than 7,000 of FGW's services cancelled in a year'

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Exeter Express & Echo:

More than 7,000 rail services run by the firm that operates trains between Exeter and London were cancelled in one year alone.

Around half were the fault of First Great Western itself, while the rest were blamed on Network Rail, which is responsible for the track, or other train operators.  Despite this the Government says FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was currently meeting its target to cut the number [of] cancellations.

Responding to a parliamentary questions into the performance of FGW, Transport Minister Paul Clark said that in the 12 months to March 30, 2009, 7,024 First Great Western trains had been cancelled.  ^Of this total, 3,055 cancellations were attributable to First Great Western itself, the  others being caused by Network Rail or by other train operators.  These figures include partial cancellations (where a train departs but does not complete its planned journey),^ he said. ^Officials meet First Great Western at least every four weeks to review overall progress of the franchise.^

FGW did not provide a comment.

For the full article, see http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/7-000-FGW-s-services-cancelled-year/article-1015126-detail/article.html

[devon_metro]

That cannot be right??

[Timmer]

That cannot be right??

Very likely when short run services are classed as a cancellation. Is it classed as a cancellation if a train misses stops during the journey?

[Btline]

That cannot be right??

Very likely when short run services are classed as a cancellation. Is it classed as a cancellation if a train misses stops during the journey?

It should be, because as far as the passengers from those station are concerned, their train has been cancelled!

[Chris from Nailsea]

That cannot be right??

Is it possible that you are casting doubt on figures provided by a Government minister, devon_metro?? 

[devon_metro]

That cannot be right??

Is it possible that you are casting doubt on figures provided by a Government minister, devon_metro?? 

Oh the irony 

[grahame]

That cannot be right??

Is it possible that you are casting doubt on figures provided by a Government minister, devon_metro?? 

I calculate a cancellation rate of 1.6% (98.4% of trains running) equates to 7000 cancellations per year - based on 8500 scheduled services per week.   

Seems plausible to me ... counting trains that didn't serve every station they shoulf have done, current rate for last 2 days is 98.6% ( http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/running.php ). Note that this page only lists notified short term cancellations (not those which are cancelled well ahead for engineering works) but on the other hand it does cound trains that skip stops or run a short route - so it tallies up a Brighton to Malvern train that only gets to Shrub Hill (at one extrerme) and the Foregate Street to Southampton service that only got as far as Shrub Hill on the other.

[Super Guard]

Wouldn't be like the Express & Echo to sensationalise anything now would it? 

[kizzers]

Now now, E&E is a credible newspaper, as much as its bigger brother the Western Morning News! Described often as the Daily Mail with hay bales and manure.

[moonrakerz]

That cannot be right??

Very likely when short run services are classed as a cancellation. Is it classed as a cancellation if a train misses stops during the journey?

It should be, because as far as the passengers from those station are concerned, their train has been cancelled!

This reminds me of an incident many years ago, reported I believe in the Southampton Evening Echo. At Bursledon station one Sunday morning, the train arrived, but stopped way down the platform, as the couple of passengers hurried down to board the train, the guard leant out of his door and shouted:- "don't hurry, you can't get on. We've only only stopped to tell you that this train doesn't stop here on Sundays any more"

I suppose he meant well !

[Btline]

Why didn't he just let them on? The train has already stopped!

And can TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) announce timetable changes like that?

[devon_metro]

Why didn't he just let them on? The train has already stopped!

Unauthorised stop = the sack

[Btline]

I won't dig too much, but I fail to see how it is unauthorised. It seems only fair to passengers to be let on, if the timetable change is announced in that way.

Hmmm, and haven't they already stopped? Or do the doors have to be unlcoked for a "stop" to become official?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.  I rather got the impression, from this story, that the timetable change had perhaps already been decided, and had no doubt already been announced on posters / in the timetable?

However, on seeing a couple of potential passengers waiting for their erstwhile service, the train crew on that particular occasion just decided to stop to explain why there was no point in them waiting for such a service any more?

I agree - an 'unauthorised stop' like that is like a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) - it just isn't acceptable! 

[devon_metro]

I won't dig too much, but I fail to see how it is unauthorised. It seems only fair to passengers to be let on, if the timetable change is announced in that way.

Hmmm, and haven't they already stopped? Or do the doors have to be unlcoked for a "stop" to become official?

If the signal is off any stop could be scrutinised if a manager does an OTMR^▸ (On Train Monitoring Recorder) download. Likewise if doors are unlocked. Any delay has to be paid for and crews must explain any delays.