This is a test of GDPR / Cookie Acceptance [about our cookies]
Really irritating test - cookie expires in 24 hour!
Great Western Coffee Shop
As at 17th March 2025 10:39 GMT
Recent Public Posts - [guest]
Re: Sad death of Shirley Pope, 82, and her dog, hit by train on foot crossing at Pewsey, Feb 2025
In "London to Kennet Valley" [359546/30033/8]
Posted by stuving at 10:34, 17th March 2025
 
Openstreetmap's useful for this. For one under railway ownership, it's a very singular footbridge.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.344990/-1.762909

But that shows it to be a rail over footway, rather than correctly as footway over rail

There is also a small wooden footbridge over the same lane (Hollybush Lane), 20 m from the railway. And oddly, it's owned by NR and got its "Railway Authority" plate to prove it. But I can't fathom what that, or any other footbridge, has to do with crossing the railway near here. A key piece of information is missing.

Re: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359545/30025/51]
Posted by grahame at 10:30, 17th March 2025
 
There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR that's a little ungenerous.


I am seeing what I'm pretty sure is some good-natured bantering there, but it does remind me that the railways showed startling levels of reliability when there were hardly any passengers travelling during covid - but I then remind myself that there was hardly any income to the railways either and in the continuum there is a need for income, even if it requires the harding of a wide range of passengers.

* Those with heavy luggage.
* Those bringing a bicycle with them
* Those who need customer information
* Those who require boarding assistance
* Those who'll want help buying a ticket
* Those who can't read and understand signs and notices in English or Welsh
* Those who wish to have a guaranteed seat
* Those who are otherwise limited for health or other reasons

Would you restrict the use of the railway to people without certain needs?  Make additional charge for some of those items?

Declaration of interest - I ALWAYS fall into one of this categories, and for certain journeys fall into most of the other too.

Re: 2025 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury
In "TransWilts line" [359544/29726/18]
Posted by grahame at 10:17, 17th March 2025
 
09:46 Westbury to Swindon due 10:29

09:46 Westbury to Swindon due 10:29 will be starting late from Westbury and is expected to be 10 minutes late.
This is due to train crew being delayed.

Looks like a 'false' report - just 1 minute late off Westbury in the end

Re: 2025 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury
In "TransWilts line" [359543/29726/18]
Posted by grahame at 10:13, 17th March 2025
 
09:46 Westbury to Swindon due 10:29

09:46 Westbury to Swindon due 10:29 will be starting late from Westbury and is expected to be 10 minutes late.
This is due to train crew being delayed.

Re: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359542/30025/51]
Posted by grahame at 10:07, 17th March 2025
 
I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

Certainly the A46 coming down off the M4 through Pennsylvania now dumps the traffic between Batheaston and Bathford ... with onward routes south for smaller vehicles through Bradford-on-Avon who love all the traffic they get - not sure how much is long distance stuff.  Other traffic carries on via Box - eastwards rather than south, and if it's headed south joins the A350 at Chippenham or Melksham.  I would not describe the Batheaston bypass as "wasted" investment, but I would agree that it misses an element that would have made it much more valuable.

Re: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359541/30025/51]
Posted by Clan Line at 09:39, 17th March 2025
Already liked by Mark A
 
I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

Re: Thames Valley infrastructure problems causing disruption elsewhere - 2025
In "Across the West" [359540/29650/26]
Posted by GBM at 09:37, 17th March 2025
 
Alterations to services between Reading and Maidenhead
Due to a points failure between Reading and Maidenhead some lines are closed.
Train services running to and from these stations may be delayed or revised. Disruption is expected until 11:30 17/03.
Customer Advice
A problem with some points (the means by which trains move from one track to another) in the Twyford area means that we have to reduce the number of train services operating over that section of line.

As a result, train services between London Paddington, Reading and Oxford will operate to a reduced frequency in both directions. Any customers travelling between London Paddington and Oxford (and vice versa) may utilise Chiltern Railways services between London Marylebone and Oxford (in both directions) as an alternative. GWR tickets will be accepted on those services and also on London Underground services between Paddington and Marylebone in order to facilitate this.

Train services between London Paddington and Newbury will not operate between London Paddington and Reading. Customers to / from these services will be required to change trains at Reading.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.

Photo enquiry: Abingdon Branch: pannier tank engine + canvas kayak.
In "Railway History and related topics" [359539/30035/55]
Posted by Mark A at 09:37, 17th March 2025
 
It's not particularly famous 'cos few people will care and any narrative is lost to time: does anyone else recall this photo? I think in the station at Abingdon, a tank engine with a canvas canoe sort-of strapped alongside the boiler. The reason why being lost in history...

Mark

Re: Cornish delays
In "Shorter journeys in Plymouth and Cornwall" [359538/28556/25]
Posted by GBM at 09:36, 17th March 2025
 
Due to a points failure between Plymouth and Penzance the line towards Penzance is blocked.
Train services running to and from these stations may be cancelled, delayed or revised. Disruption is expected until 09:30 17/03.
Customer Advice
We're sorry for the delay to your journey.
-
A set of points at the Royal Albert bridge at Plymouth have failed. Network Rail colleagues are on site investigating.
As a consequence services from Plymouth to Penzance will be disrupted, however services towards Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol Temple Meads and London Paddington will run.

05:03 Penzance to London Paddington due 09:56
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington due 09:56 will no longer call at Taunton.
It has been delayed between Liskeard and Saltash and is now 30 minutes late.
This is due to a points failure.

1A73 0503 Penzance to London Paddington is now non stop between Exeter and Reading.
A rarity surely?

Re: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359537/30025/51]
Posted by Mark A at 09:30, 17th March 2025
 
There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR that's a little ungenerous.

Thinking of the maximum number of bikes I've seen in an HST bike space, yes, that Sunday evening when at least 15 teenagers off the Bristol to Bath path happily piled a collection of wheeled things aboard for the trip home was memorable, and even if there were far too many of them they were helping to pay the railway's wage bill (and everything went aboard because the space was somewhat flexible and everyone including staff were in a good mood, confident, and generally less under the cosh). Of course the DfT has now sorted this out with cycle accommodation on the IEPs that's not particularly useable at all.

Mark

Re: Sad death of Shirley Pope, 82, and her dog, hit by train on foot crossing at Pewsey, Feb 2025
In "London to Kennet Valley" [359536/30033/8]
Posted by ChrisB at 09:22, 17th March 2025
 
Openstreetmap's useful for this. For one under railway ownership, it's a very singular footbridge.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.344990/-1.762909

But that shows it to be a rail over footway, rather than correctly as footway over rail

Re: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359535/30025/51]
Posted by Mark A at 09:16, 17th March 2025
 
Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html


At the inquiry the potential of the new road to generate noise pollution was recognised, with various mitigations. Concerning the A36/46 link component, this was identified as a problem, as vehicles would come to a stand for its junction and then need to accelerate again for some distance, and uphill for good measure. Short of putting the whole thing underground, there wasn't a way to mitigate this, and also there was the issue that it then dumped the problem on the er, suboptimal A36 route through the Limpley Stoke Valley.

Another aspect of this road is the 50mph speed restriction throughout, but particularly on the flat bit past Batheaston. People who aren't keen on speed restrictions tend to rail against this thinking its for safety reasons, but again, it's an environmental restriction - vehicles are far noisier at 70mph than they are at 50mph.

Mark

Re: Sad death of Shirley Pope, 82, and her dog, hit by train on foot crossing at Pewsey, Feb 2025
In "London to Kennet Valley" [359534/30033/8]
Posted by grahame at 09:05, 17th March 2025
Already liked by hoover50
 
** Made me think of that foot crossing on the Westbury avoiding line too. Another that's found itself amid housing. And probably many other examples...

The Westbury avoider now has lights that warn you if a train is coming making a comparison with Pewsey (which I've seen only from the recent article photos and comments) and that crossing should be much safER.  Whether it is "totaly safe" ... I leave open. I am aware of other deaths on crossings within memory at Bedwyn and between Westbury and Trowbridge

Re: When will all stations be "fully accessible"?
In "Across the West" [359533/22629/26]
Posted by grahame at 08:59, 17th March 2025
 
Catching up (rather belatedly, for which I apologise) with this topic here:

I, too, doubt that they will ever be 'fully accessible'.

An opportunity to add a few words so, thanks, Chris - thought I am getting older and forget what I posted years ago.

The other way - and we should be careful - of making "all stations accessible" is to close those which have low passenger numbers and are difficult to do.   Or if it's very hard to make the platform in one direction accessible, close of all access to it and have people "bounce back" at the next station along.   I'm not saying it would be done at Nailsea and Backwell, but it's already done at Pilning.  And if you keep one direction open it's not going to involve a pesky and expensive closure procedure.


Re: Sad death of Shirley Pope, 82, and her dog, hit by train on foot crossing at Pewsey, Feb 2025
In "London to Kennet Valley" [359532/30033/8]
Posted by Mark A at 08:53, 17th March 2025
 
Openstreetmap's useful for this. For one under railway ownership, it's a very singular footbridge.

It's also an instance of a formerly rural location that now has a lot of housing, with, perhaps, little thought to the burden on walking routes**. Looking on old OS mapping, the footbridge has been there from the off, but no ordnance survey mapping marks the descending spur to the road, despite that an old GSV image suggests that it's a built component of the set-up there.

Mark

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.344990/-1.762909

** Made me think of that foot crossing on the Westbury avoiding line too. Another that's found itself amid housing. And probably many other examples...

Re: 2025 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury
In "TransWilts line" [359531/29726/18]
Posted by grahame at 08:50, 17th March 2025
Already liked by matth1j, GBM
 
Just back from a week in Lanzarote, and was pleasantly surprised to find my 0721 Melksham-Chippenham train on time this morning. But it didn't last - the Paddington service that precedes it into Chippenham was running a bit late, so mine was delayed and I just missed the (unofficial) connection with the 0734 Chippenham-Bristol service. Then the next 0809 was cancelled (train fault). And now the 0832 is showing as 'running late' by 11 mins.

Good to be back

Welcome home ... what more can I say?


Re: 2025 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury
In "TransWilts line" [359530/29726/18]
Posted by matth1j at 08:30, 17th March 2025
Already liked by GBM, Witham Bobby
 
Just back from a week in Lanzarote, and was pleasantly surprised to find my 0721 Melksham-Chippenham train on time this morning. But it didn't last - the Paddington service that precedes it into Chippenham was running a bit late, so mine was delayed and I just missed the (unofficial) connection with the 0734 Chippenham-Bristol service. Then the next 0809 was cancelled (train fault). And now the 0832 is showing as 'running late' by 11 mins.

Good to be back

Re: Great British Railways
In "Looking forward - the next 5, 10 and 20 years" [359529/30032/40]
Posted by Electric train at 06:41, 17th March 2025
Already liked by Witham Bobby
 
Looking at the governments recent decision to abolish NHS England deemed a quango; is the new Briitish Railways just another quango overseen by the Department of Transport.

Oh - the same irony that rail franchising is declared dead and the TOCs will be nationalised, whereas flavour of the month in bus operation is a network designed by the public sector, with routes or areas operated by franchises?

No.

The first phase of GBR is to bring all the National Rail franchise under on body, GBR.   Phase 2 will be the reshaping of the operators, it could see all the London 'metro' services handed to TfL; consolidating Southern, SWT and SE outer services into one operator, the interesting one will be the proposals for a Hampshire IoW unitary authority which looks like transport is part of that proposal, there are likely to be others, Buckinghamshire??.   Cities like Manchester, Birmingham all local services handed to the metro mayors to run.

The Labour Government move with NHS England seems more about devolving power to Health Care Trusts than micro management by the men from the Ministry the same is for GBR ................ However the men from the Ministry tend to be  control freaks, hopefully the Government will be able to prise control out of the dyeing hands of the Civil Servants

Re: North Cotswold line delays and cancellations - 2025
In "London to the Cotswolds" [359528/29711/14]
Posted by Worcester_Passenger at 06:24, 17th March 2025
 
Monday March 17

05:23 Hereford to London Paddington due 08:23
Facilities on the 05:23 Hereford to London Paddington due 08:23.
This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time.
Will be formed of 5 coaches instead of 9.
Last Updated:17/03/2025 06:12

Re: When will all stations be "fully accessible"?
In "Across the West" [359527/22629/26]
Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 21:40, 16th March 2025
 
Catching up (rather belatedly, for which I apologise) with this topic here:

I, too, doubt that they will ever be 'fully accessible'.

Using Nailsea & Backwell station as my local example: here we have a rather steep slope up to platform 2, but that has to be accessed from some distance along the road, Station Close.

There is no disabled access slope up to (or down from) platform 1.  There simply isn't anywhere to build it, on the embankment below our elevated station.

The solution would be to build a new set of lifts - but that was last costed at around £1million, so that isn't ever going to happen, purely for the 'cost benefit ratio' numbers.

Chris from Nailsea. 

Re: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359526/30025/51]
Posted by Clan Line at 21:26, 16th March 2025
 
Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

35 years ago - and all they have managed to do since then is close the Cleveland Bridge to anything over 18 tonnes.

Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not
In "Buses and other ways to travel" [359525/30005/5]
Posted by grahame at 21:22, 16th March 2025
Already liked by Chris from Nailsea
 
But it wasn't (overturned)

The question from the OP was why was the penalty reduced to zero, rather than the penalty cancelled/overturned.

I would suspect it was zeroed rather than removed to avoid setting a legal precedent.   It means that someone coming over with an undocumented passenger in the well of (but not inside) a flatbed pickup can't point at the Fenton case and say "but you said on appeal they had not done wrong".

Re: Staff Fatality at Tyseley Depot 15/12/2019
In "The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom" [359524/22585/51]
Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 21:06, 16th March 2025
 
With my sincere apologies for missing this at the time:

Here is the Rail Accident Investigation Branch report on that sad incident.


Summary

At around 20:00 hrs on Saturday 14 December 2019, a train driver became trapped between two trains in the yard at Tyseley maintenance depot, Birmingham. The driver received fatal injuries as a result.

The driver became trapped because he was passing between two closely-spaced trains when one of the trains was moved towards the other as part of a coupling operation. The driver had not used a safe route when he was walking within the yard, and almost certainly did not expect that the trains would move as he passed between them. Another driver, who was attempting to couple the trains, was unaware that anyone else was close to them. He did not sound a warning prior to coupling because local instructions did not require this.

RAIB’s investigation identified that the depot operator, West Midlands Trains, had not adequately considered the risks faced by drivers on depots. The investigation also found that Tyseley depot is operating at or beyond its capacity at night and that West Midlands Trains’ management assurance processes had not promoted safe working practices.

Recommendations

RAIB has made two recommendations as a result of the investigation, both addressed to West Midlands Trains. The first recommendation is that West Midlands Trains ensures that effective assessments are carried out of the risks to those walking and working in depots, yards and sidings and that suitable measures are in place to control these risks. The second recommendation is that West Midlands Trains reviews its safety assurance processes to ensure that unsafe working practices within the company can be effectively identified and their causes addressed.

The investigation has also identified six learning points for the railway industry:

* the first two learning points warn duty holders and railway staff of the dangers of being in close proximity to railway vehicles

* the third learning point reminds duty holders that authorised walking routes must be made known to staff

* the fourth learning point reminds duty holders of the importance of assessing the capacity of depots relative to the operational demands placed on them to ensure that they can be operated safely

* the fifth learning point is that results from brake tests and other safety critical examinations are routinely checked and understood by competent staff

* the sixth learning point covers the importance of screening staff members involved in accidents for the presence of drugs or alcohol in accordance with the relevant procedures.

Simon French, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said:
The death of any member of railway staff on duty is a tragedy. As we publish RAIB’s investigation report into the accident which took place at Tyseley depot in December last year, my thoughts are very much with the family of the train driver who died as a result.

This sad accident highlights how dangerous depots and sidings can be. When I started on the railway in 1982 one of the first things that was drummed into me was to take care around vehicles, and to only go under or between vehicles when you were quite sure they were not going to move. That is as true now as it was then. No matter how bad the weather, don’t be tempted to make a quick dash through a small gap. It could prove fatal.

In a depot like Tyseley, trains are maintained and serviced in readiness for their next duty. Train drivers are required as part of their normal work to take trains into depots for these activities to take place. They will also carry out the final preparation of trains and take them out of depots afterwards. We found that the department within the train operating company responsible for managing traincrew and the department responsible for the servicing and maintenance of trains were not working well together. This meant the company as a whole did not understand or sufficiently manage the risks posed to drivers who were working or walking in depots. The company was also not taking effective action to deal with unsafe actions in depots. Good safety management requires both an understanding of risk and spotting when things are not being done properly, and then doing something about it.



Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not
In "Buses and other ways to travel" [359523/30005/5]
Posted by ChrisB at 20:55, 16th March 2025
 
But it wasn't (overturned)

The question from the OP was why was the penalty reduced to zero, rather than the penalty cancelled/overturned.

Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not
In "Buses and other ways to travel" [359522/30005/5]
Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 20:44, 16th March 2025
 
I repeat:

No: he was found clinging to the outside of their vehicle.  The article makes that clear.

That is why the 'civil penalty notice' was overturned.


Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not
In "Buses and other ways to travel" [359521/30005/5]
Posted by stuving at 20:31, 16th March 2025
 
Not fully understanding how fines and convictions work in this case.... I guess there is a distinction between 'reducing the fine to £0' and dropping the case altogether?

This was a civil penalty notice under the Carriers' Liability Regulations 2002 (as amended). The offence was defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.  The explanation, with leaflets etc, is here.

Most of the words are about goods vehicles, of course. This looks like the relevant offence for this case:
32 Penalty for carrying clandestine entrants.

(1)A person is a clandestine entrant if—

(a)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft,
(aa)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a rail freight wagon,
(b)he passes, or attempts to pass, through immigration control concealed in a vehicle, or
(c)he arrives in the United Kingdom on a ship or aircraft, having embarked—

(i)concealed in a vehicle; and
(ii)at a time when the ship or aircraft was outside the United Kingdom,

and claims, or indicates that he intends to seek, asylum in the United Kingdom or evades, or attempts to evade, immigration control.

The law and regulations define the maximum penalty; the Secretary of State decides the amount in each case - there are guidelines about how much.

And in case you were wondering:
10.—(1) A notice may be served on a person under regulation 9(3) by:
(a)delivering it to that person;
(b)leaving it at his proper address;
(c)sending it to his proper address by first class post in a prepaid registered envelope or by the recorded delivery service;
(d)facsimile, sent to his usual or last known business facsimile number;
(e)electronic mail, sent to his usual or last known business electronic mail address.

Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not
In "Buses and other ways to travel" [359520/30005/5]
Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 20:22, 16th March 2025
 
Railway staff, lineside, with mains water hydrant hoses: problem solved. 


Re: Drivers carrying passengers who are travelling when they should not
In "Buses and other ways to travel" [359519/30005/5]
Posted by grahame at 20:14, 16th March 2025
 
Had me thinking of this


Re: Sad death of Shirley Pope, 82, and her dog, hit by train on foot crossing at Pewsey, Feb 2025
In "London to Kennet Valley" [359518/30033/8]
Posted by grahame at 19:57, 16th March 2025
 
To help me get my head around this, I looked up that part of Pewsey on a map.   It is to the east of the village, which is to the south, with a small cluster of houses located north of the railway only accessible via Hollybush Lane and that foot crossing.

The foot crossing is at the other end of that scattering of houses, hence no picture even in Danny Kruger's video showing the relationship.


Re: Sad death of Shirley Pope, 82, and her dog, hit by train on foot crossing at Pewsey, Feb 2025
In "London to Kennet Valley" [359517/30033/8]
Posted by Chris from Nailsea at 19:21, 16th March 2025
 
Thank you for posting this very sad topic, hoover50.

I've simply expanded the heading, in the interest of clarity, for ease of future reference.

CfN. 

 
The Coffee Shop forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western). The views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit https://www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site at admin@railcustomer.info if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules. Our full legal statment is at https://www.greatwesternrailway.info/legal.html

Although we are planning ahead, we don't know what the future will bring here in the Coffee Shop. We have domains "firstgreatwestern.info" for w-a-y back and also "greatwesternrailway.info"; we can also answer to "greatbritishrailways.info" too. For the future, information about Great Brisish Railways, by customers and for customers.
 
Current Running
GWR trains from JourneyCheck
 
 
Code Updated 11th January 2025