1915 from Paddington skipping the Pick up only call tonight

[infobleep]

If the media stopped to think, it wouldn't give any time to those commuters who moaned about being 'kept hostage' on the train (a likely thing that would be written) because it would point out that these people were being incredibly selfish by even trying to use what they might see as an innocent 'loophole'.

Intercity trains should be allowed to reserve space for those going a long way, not have people unable to board because some people are getting off a 'few minutes up the line'. Pick up only solves this, while allowing people to travel a long distance from that station without having to first go into London and back out.

But how to get this through the thick skulls of those commuters who think they're better than everyone else? Hit them with penalties, or just expose them as selfish and ignorant, so they're shamed into compliance? I'd expect the latter would be more successful.

I wish they could have done something on the West London Line. The 8.39 from Clapham Junction was sometimes impossible to board. Making Shepberds Bush pick up only would have helped. That way passengers to stations nor H could board. Bear in mind there is only 1 train an hour north of Shepberds Bush or there was until they introduced 2 an hour during peak.

At least they are now in the process of lengthening the platforms so they can run 8 car trains.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[A-driver]

I wish they could have done something on the West London Line. The 8.39 from Clapham Junction was sometimes impossible to board. Making Shepberds Bush pick up only would have helped. That way passengers to stations nor H could board. Bear in mind there is only 1 train an hour north of Shepberds Bush or there was until they introduced 2 an hour during peak.

At least they are now in the process of lengthening the platforms so they can run 8 car trains.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Those platform extensions make me laugh. I was working for southern when they built those stations and they said that they only built them as 4s because some existing stations were only that long. Nothing like forward planning-why not build the new ones longer incase they extend the others (well I know the answer...money)!

 

[Starmill]

Those platform extensions make me laugh. I was working for southern when they built those stations and they said that they only built them as 4s because some existing stations were only that long. Nothing like forward planning-why not build the new ones longer incase they extend the others (well I know the answer...money)!

Exactly this is basically repeated again and again throughout the entire industry They have done exactly the same thing at Liverpool South Parkway.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

South Parkway's platform lengths are constrained by the junction at one end and a bridge at the other. Not much that can be done without some other serious engineering implications.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ultimately, they think they're being clever but are actually being downright selfish. Perhaps if someone boarded at a set down only station, it wouldn't be a problem but this way around, there will be people unable to get to where they want and need to go. And it can't just be the 'evil' TOCs having to explain this.

"It's not my fault you lot *waves hands at TOC* don't run bigger trains."

 

[tlionhart]

Serves them right in my opinion. Think it should happen more often. Its situations like this, that put a smile on my face. The customer is always right... :roll:

 

[richw]

The customer is always right... :roll:

I've always wondered who came up with this phrase as quite frankly they are not right a majority of the time.

 

[Greenback]

Wasn't it something to do with Henry Ford being ironic about something? As in 'You can have any colour you want as long its black'.

 

[londiscape]

Serves them right in my opinion. Think it should happen more often. Its situations like this, that put a smile on my face. The customer is always right... :roll:

I speculate that, psychologically, the act of handing over thousands of pounds, perhaps in some cases potentially a quarter of a person's income, for an annual season ticket may cause said person to think that they are more entitled to be "always right" than would be the case in other non-railway related situations.

 

[A-driver]

I speculate that, psychologically, the act of handing over thousands of pounds, perhaps in some cases potentially a quarter of a person's income, for an annual season ticket may cause said person to think that they are more entitled to be "always right" than would be the case in other non-railway related situations.

The issue is that the clue is in the title 'public' transport. A single person paying 7k PA for a season ticket is just one of hundreds of thousands on that route. They can't all be right all the time as they all want different things. In this case letting reading passengers on as 'they are always right' will help them but mean that those traveling into South Wales will loose out.

Look at most morning rush hours with the scores of late runners...a 'customer' running late will think that they a right by expecting you to wait for them to get on. But those already on the train will think they are right by expecting you to close the doors and ensure the train leaves on time so that they are not late into work.

The phrase 'the customer is always right' can apply to industries where the service can be tailored like a restaraunt or hotel but not to an industry which is specifically designed to moves great masses of the public. Every single 'customer' would love a fast train from their station to their work place which gets them in at a perfect time to start work but it's simply not possible. Therefore the customer cannot always be right with their expectations.

 

[30907]

In the old days, when nobody knew how to run a railway properly, did they not have strange people in uniforms checking tickets before the passengers boarded the train ?

I believe the idea was to ensure that the correct and valid ticket was held for each particular train and that the passenger did, indeed, board the proper train

Well, they did in many places (at least on the Southern suburban network which I knew best) - but not for long-distance services necessarily (because tickets were checked on train, platforms were often "open" - including IIRC Paddington which keeps the thread vaguely on-topic).

 

[87019Chris]

Could you not just open the barriers then have one RPI on each individual gate and anyone with reading tickets will be turned away on Fridays only. 8 RPI's doing it for a couple of weeks and all of a sudden the commuter changes their habits and hey presto! However then after a while when they come back, so you might have to do it again but just refusing them travel and telling them which train to catch means they might start doing that on a Friday.
Also I think nowadays that we make too many excuses for people, 9/10 people know exactly what they are doing and if they don't they should have been more organized, and looked at what they needed to do. I do get that mistakes are made and can be traumatizing but after all you should learn from them, and if a £100+ fine is part of the punishment you wont forget that mistake and you will learn from it.
There is too much protection in place for people and not harsh enough punishments meaning people are happy to take the risk, imagine if FGW said that if you were found on to be alighting at Reading with a season ticket then it would be taken from you as you are misusing it, then it would soon stop, those reading commuters wouldn't risk £7k for 10 mins then would they? Call me harsh but I attempt to do things correctly and I commute Mon-Fri for 4 Hours a day using public transport, so when those who cheat the system and get away with it really annoys me.
Rant and Paragraph over.

 

[jamesr]

I think some of you may overestimate the extent to which the general public read the small print in railway timetables. I'm sure some of the sixty knew it was pick up only. The rest of them probably saw the FX and FO columns in the timetable, couldn't see note "u" at the bottom of the page, and thought "oh well, it stops at Reading anyway". Certainly not something to punish some of your most loyal customers for - there'd certainly be an outcry if they tried to remove a £7k season ticket for it as some posters suggested above.

Even if they did know they were doing it, it's hardly a terrible, or even moral offence. You can't really expect the average Reading commuter to know (or frankly, care if not explained to them) whether it's more operationally convenient for the railway if they get on a train with final destination Penzance, or Swansea, or Bedwyn, or Hereford.

People will often not follow rules if they can't see any good reason for them - on my cycle to work I always ignore a "cyclists dismount" sign at a place where I see no purpose for it. It's a similar thing.

Put a couple of members of staff at the end of a platform explaining why the rule exists, and that the train will, on busy nights, not stop at Reading again in future, no annoyed loyal passengers, people understand the reason, everyone's happy.

 

[PermitToTravel]

People will often not follow rules if they can't see any good reason for them - on my cycle to work I always ignore a "cyclists dismount" sign at a place where I see no purpose for it. It's a similar thing.

Those are advisory anyway

 

[infobleep]

I think some of you may overestimate the extent to which the general public read the small print in railway timetables. I'm sure some of the sixty knew it was pick up only. The rest of them probably saw the FX and FO columns in the timetable, couldn't see note "u" at the bottom of the page, and thought "oh well, it stops at Reading anyway". Certainly not something to punish some of your most loyal customers for - there'd certainly be an outcry if they tried to remove a £7k season ticket for it as some posters suggested above.

Even if they did know they were doing it, it's hardly a terrible, or even moral offence. You can't really expect the average Reading commuter to know (or frankly, care if not explained to them) whether it's more operationally convenient for the railway if they get on a train with final destination Penzance, or Swansea, or Bedwyn, or Hereford.

People will often not follow rules if they can't see any good reason for them - on my cycle to work I always ignore a "cyclists dismount" sign at a place where I see no purpose for it. It's a similar thing.

Put a couple of members of staff at the end of a platform explaining why the rule exists, and that the train will, on busy nights, not stop at Reading again in future, no annoyed loyal passengers, people understand the reason, everyone's happy.

What the railways need to go is educate passengers more on when they shouldn't travel and the reasons why.

So don't use this service because it stops other passengers needing to get to z or from X to z. I'd be surprised if that ever happens. South West Trains did have posters at some stations showing which services were busy they have since been removed. Not sure why.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[455driver]

The 1915 needs to be made pick up only at Reading Monday to Friday.

 

[jon0844]

People will often not follow rules if they can't see any good reason for them - on my cycle to work I always ignore a "cyclists dismount" sign at a place where I see no purpose for it. It's a similar thing.

That's very worrying and depressing. There's a VERY good reason here and if people just choose what laws to abide by based on their own thinking (or lack of it) then God help us.

But what you say is of course very true, and you only need to look at the many comments on the Internet from people who think things are silly and often don't realise until told, and even then don't always believe it.

As for 'cyclists dismount', what do you think the reason for the sign is? It's quite rare for signs to be erected for no purpose, no?

 

[infobleep]

That's very worrying and depressing. There's a VERY good reason here and if people just choose what laws to abide by based on their own thinking (or lack of it) then God help us.

But what you say is of course very true, and you only need to look at the many comments on the Internet from people who think things are silly and often don't realise until told, and even then don't always believe it.

As for 'cyclists dismount', what do you think the reason for the sign is? It's quite rare for signs to be erected for no purpose, no?

There was a report out a few years ago that said we too many signs and it can be a distraction to motorists have too many.

As for breaking the law, cyclists regularly cycle on the pavement or public footpaths. Perhaps they object to the lack of cycle ways.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk