UK Railways, better now than they have ever been!

[whoshotjimmi]

I think you'll find that BR tried to get rid of 1st class wherever possible, this was partially due to proportion of 1st class passengers who were BR managers

Throughout my experience of BR, Intercity trains advertised First Class shamelessly and, at least on the ECML, had an extra First Class carriage. As soon as the network was privatised, the advertising swtiched to the lower fares and a first class carriage was removed. BR getting rid of first class? Fraid not. It was all that made Intercity viable.

Failed unit - services in cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool are much, much better than under BR. They are more efficient, more regular and still very good value for money. They are very busy, I concur and there are stil things that could be better, but it is impossible to agree with your assumption that you are now worse off getting to a major city for a shopping trip.

 

[Failed Unit]

Throughout my experience of BR, Intercity trains advertised First Class shamelessly and, at least on the ECML, had an extra First Class carriage. As soon as the network was privatised, the advertising swtiched to the lower fares and a first class carriage was removed. BR getting rid of first class? Fraid not. It was all that made Intercity viable.

I remember the class 114's and 101 DMU's used to have 1st class in the same style as the 170's do now. It was declassified, but it was available on most routes back then.
As for the ECML, HST's have always been 5 standard - 2.5 first. (well until GNER added an extra standard coach). 91's used to be a mix of 5 standard 3.5 first or 6 standard 2.5 first. The ones with the higher number of 1st on the "pullman services" which did need extra 1st space. GNER changed this to 5.5 standard and 3 first. So if anything there is more first class seating post GNER.

Failed unit - services in cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool are much, much better than under BR. They are more efficient, more regular and still very good value for money. They are very busy, I concur and there are stil things that could be better, but it is impossible to agree with your assumption that you are now worse off getting to a major city for a shopping trip.

Even the routes with pacers on them I guess I am bitter as I the area I live in is worse in everyway, not helped by been ran by Central trains. I remember going to a railway future meeting and the guy from Arriva trains Northern was talking about getting public information systems fixed within 24 hours of them going wrong and us Central people were thinking what is a public information system.

However following the laws of science, the statement is "UK railways - better then they have ever been". To prove this statement wrong I need to provide one example - I have done so I have therefore proved the statement wrong. Maybe it could be UK railways - for IC passengers then they ever have been - but then I would counter that with NXEC

A couple of points of debate however, electrification. Lets say we did the MML Bedford - Leeds. Now we have 4 passenger operators to compensate, Northern, EMT, XC and TPE or which a couple of them will get no benefit (XC and TPE). No wonder it is a lot more difficult. I wonder if the wires came up if Northern would be forced to run EMU's between Leeds and Sheffield via Wakefield, I doubt it as Virgin run voyagers under the wires. If Northern ran pacers under our new wires people would be asking what was the point or us suffering when we still have the same short trains..

My other question, what % of people travelling use AP tickets? I certainly have seen things published that it is less than 10%

 

[Snapper]

That research does not show anything of the sort, it shows that a majority of passengers on IC routes are getting better deals than the open return ticket. Not that a majority of passengers are picking up some pretty good deals. As previously stated more passengers are now only getting the choice of an open return or an AP, that is not progress. The majority of passengers can not buy any for of advance purchase ticket - fact.

Sorry, I'm having difficulties trying to work out what it is that you're trying to say as the comment about AP seems rather confused. But you'll also have to excuse me if I take any assertions of 'fact' with a pinch of salt as some of your other ones have been shown to have been untrue.

Once again, the PF research is at odds with what you (appear) to be trying to say.

Passenger satisfaction at fares varies from TOC to TOC (from 37% to 71% in fact). Now that suggests that more than a few people are happy!

But as usual, the picture is a damn sight more complex than some people would try to make out. One of the wonderful aberrations is that the people who pay the least are also the least satisfied! (season ticket holders!).

Anyone who is interested would do well to actually have a look at the PF survey and judge for themselves. It really is a mine of information. It's available as a PDF on the Passenegr Focus website!

The sad truth about fares it that the railways have to be paid for somehow. And current Government policy is to make passengers pay more rather than taxpayers.

We have an odd approach to investment in this country. Everyone wants it, but no-one wants to pay for it - either through fares or taxes!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Failed unit - services in cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool are much, much better than under BR. They are more efficient, more regular and still very good value for money. They are very busy, I concur and there are stil things that could be better, but it is impossible to agree with your assumption that you are now worse off getting to a major city for a shopping trip.

Absolutely! One only has to look at the Merseyrail network to see that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However following the laws of science, the statement is "UK railways - better then they have ever been". To prove this statement wrong I need to provide one example - I have done so I have therefore proved the statement wrong.

Oh please...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My other question, what % of people travelling use AP tickets? I certainly have seen things published that it is less than 10%

Once a gain, a simplistic question which illuminates nothing as it's hung up on the name of a product.

Here's a quote from the PF report:

Proportion of passengers using full price, ‘walk up’
discounted and Advance single tickets

Unfortunately, there is virtually no publicly-available data to
show in what proportions full price fully-flexible tickets, ‘walk up’
discounted tickets and Advance purchase tickets contribute to
the ‘ordinary’ category. However, the Association of Train
Operating Companies (ATOC) has provided data showing that
in the long distance sector just over half of all non-season ticket
standard class journeys are made using ‘walk up’ discounted
tickets (e.g. Off-Peak, Super Off-Peak), with the remainder split
between full price (e.g. Anytime) and Advance purchase tickets
– each accounting for 20% to 25% of journeys.

In addition, the percentage of passengers travelling on the
following routes using the cheapest tickets was included in the
public presentation by ATOC to a Passenger Focus conference
on 24 April 2008:

• Passengers obtaining the cheapest Advance purchase tickets
from London to:
• York – 10% pay £22.50 return
• Leeds – 17% pay £22.50 return
• Edinburgh – 6% pay £31.40 return
• Cardiff – 7% pay £24.00 return
• Weymouth – 19% pay £25.30 return
• Manchester – 10% pay £26.00 return

 

[2030720310]

The prices ware way too much, but there have been both improvements and not on modern railways. We only need longer intercity trains (voyagers are fine when their toilets don't smell and they HAVE to be longer) and I do like the idea of regions, the franchises are just too short and, when franchisees do get settled, they MAY get better (??).

 

[Failed Unit]

Unfortunately, there is virtually no publicly-available data to
show in what proportions full price fully-flexible tickets, ‘walk up’
discounted tickets and Advance purchase tickets contribute to
the ‘ordinary’ category. However, the Association of Train
Operating Companies (ATOC) has provided data showing that
in the long distance sector just over half of all non-season ticket
standard class journeys are made using ‘walk up’ discounted
tickets (e.g. Off-Peak, Super Off-Peak), with the remainder split
between full price (e.g. Anytime) and Advance purchase tickets
– each accounting for 20% to 25% of journeys.

In addition, the percentage of passengers travelling on the
following routes using the cheapest tickets was included in the
public presentation by ATOC to a Passenger Focus conference
on 24 April 2008:

• Passengers obtaining the cheapest Advance purchase tickets
from London to:
• York – 10% pay £22.50 return
• Leeds – 17% pay £22.50 return
• Edinburgh – 6% pay £31.40 return
• Cardiff – 7% pay £24.00 return
• Weymouth – 19% pay £25.30 return
• Manchester – 10% pay £26.00 return

So basically you are saying because the open return from Market Rasen - Edinburgh is £209, and I buy a saver (or off-peak) which is valid on every single train for £95.50 , I should be happy that I am paying 45% of this. Should NXEC then decide to ban the off-peak from certain trains and I decide not to travel on them I should be still be happy as I can still get discounted walk-on fare on most trains. (pity if the only one I want to use is now the one that the £209 fare applies to!)

Likewise the SDR from Market Rasen - Lincoln is £7, and the off-peak is £4.80, I should be happy even though the peak return from Newark which is longer in distance is £4.40 :roll:

Sorry I just can't agree that "UK railways are better than they have ever been" - I have given good arguements why they are not, I admit that you have given good arguements to why you think they are but to make such a sweeoing statement that they are "better than they have ever been" then surely everyone should be happy. Surely we should have no loses in terms of price paid, I am sure FCC users love the fact they can't use cheap tickets in the afternoon peak now and think things are better than they have ever been.

People are not happy when they miss a local train by 1 minute due to a late arriving connection, when it would have been held in the past - surely you can't disagree with that.

People are not happy when they used to travel direct from A-B that they now have to change, again surely you can't disagree with that either. Do you think people in Oxenholme are happy they can no longer travel direct to Bristol?

Fragmenation is the cause of this problem, TOC's are only interested in thier own little piece of the pie they don't care that this is a national network. Why should they what incentive does NXEC have for someone to arrive at Newark on an EMT train rather than drive? They lose out on the car parking charges if they take the train for a start. BR running a daily service with a 158 from Cardiff - Cleethorpes didn't matter as long as the 158 ended up somewhere to be loved and back at it home depot for exams, but under the new regime it messes up diagrams. But this kind of once daily was a good thing, people used to look out for it and use it, now they can't - surely you can't disagree the railway is a worse place for such people?

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Even the routes with pacers on them I guess I am bitter as I the area I live in is worse in everyway, not helped by been ran by Central trains. I remember going to a railway future meeting and the guy from Arriva trains Northern was talking about getting public information systems fixed within 24 hours of them going wrong and us Central people were thinking what is a public information system.

Leaving the 3-car class 144 aside (which works surprisingly well on all routes), the main problem with the pacer is that they are often used in 2-car formation on busy routes. I know the passengers of Manchester are particularly plagued with that problem. This is not a Privatisation vs BR issue, however. The issue stems from the fact that this is the only stock available. Even then, the problem is concentrated to peak times. What Privatisation has done, however, is take the humble 142 - a unit that, under BR, was a national laughing stock and turned it into something that is very useful. 142's under BR were horrific. Examples of how good the Pacer can be are found on Northern's network. It shows that with some care and attention, even the lowliest of units can be of a reasonable quality. I'm not saying they are perfect, but the TOC's have given them a bit of extra life. If people do have a problem with pacers, it is important to make the point that they were a BR creation whilst trying to save money.

 

[Failed Unit]

If people do have a problem with pacers, it is important to make the point that they were a BR creation whilst trying to save money.

Yep not one of thier better moves, along with the 153's! I know they were formed in a recession and everyone though that demand would fall forever. I know they have thier uses such as creating 3 car units by running 156+153 combo. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I bet BR wished they had not bothered with the pacer and gone direct to the 150, it would have been cheaper in the long run.

Shame that as things are better now then they have ever been we can't order new stock / electrify lines to relieve the overcrowding. I know the government has started the ball rolling but we are now hitting a recession so I wonder how many new trains will really be ordered. We have been here before as well, it reminds me of BR and the networker program. Extend most Southern region platforms to 12 cars - oh no recession, cut the order we don't need it anymore and we have been stuck with it ever since along with the overcrowding that goes with it. The joys of a crystal ball, I wonder if BR expected the pacers to still be around in 2015?

 

[Snapper]

Sorry I just can't agree that "UK railways are better than they have ever been" - I have given good arguements why they are not, I admit that you have given good arguements to why you think they are but to make such a sweeoing statement that they are "better than they have ever been" then surely everyone should be happy. Surely we should have no loses in terms of price paid, I am sure FCC users love the fact they can't use cheap tickets in the afternoon peak now and think things are better than they have ever been.

Actually, some of your arguments have been demonstrated to be completely untrue...

You are misrepresenting what I and others have siad. I have never made a "sweeping statement" that they are "better than they have ever been" - but I do agree with the argument that in many ways they are better - if not all.

But the argument you put forward that until everybody is happy there is no improvement is patent nonsense. If a majority believe something has improved - are we to ignore that and say it's worthless because a minority don't agree - of course not!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Shame that as things are better now then they have ever been we can't order new stock / electrify lines to relieve the overcrowding. I know the government has started the ball rolling but we are now hitting a recession so I wonder how many new trains will really be ordered.

Look around and see the contracts that have been let and others that have been tendered...

 

[Failed Unit]

Actually, some of your arguments have been demonstrated to be completely untrue...

We will agree to disagree, the figures you quote can be interepted in many ways. Look at Nottingham - Birmingham 100% of people did not pay the full fare between these cities, the open return existed but no-one bought it as the saver was valid all day. Today people need to buy the open return in the peaks, maybe 85% buy discounted tickets on this route since CT introduced the restrictions still not as good as 100% from BR days

You are misrepresenting what I and others have siad. I have never made a "sweeping statement" that they are "better than they have ever been" - but I do agree with the argument that in many ways they are better - if not all.

I agree that some many things are better, but would never agree that everything is better when we start operating a national network again rather than a series of small franchises then I will agree things have got better.

But the argument you put forward that until everybody is happy there is no improvement is patent nonsense. If a majority believe something has improved - are we to ignore that and say it's worthless because a minority don't agree - of course not!

OK for me personally I think things are worse than BR, they are not the worse that they have ever been that period was happening when CT were running the route, I think 2000 could be classed as rock bottom for most people - so thing are definately better than that year. I am happy to admit things are better for some people, but things are certainly not better for everyone - I might get upset you consider me as a worthless minority as my area has lost direct trains and robust connections. :cry: Improvements are subjective, ask me if things have improved since CT left I would say definately, timetabling to the ECML has even improved so more trains actually connect. Ask me if things are better than BR then the answer is no! A lot of people won't even remember BR now however and the days that connections were held etc. Some don't even remember Lincoln had a direct train to London (yes I know EMT provide one now but it is a lot slower than the old one was...)

Look around and see the contracts that have been let and others that have been tendered...

I know contracts have been let recently, but overcrowding has been with us a lot longer. Yes short franchises may be why we haven't planned for growth but these orders are shutting the door after the horse has gone. BTW even the IEP is at prefered bidder status - it is not set in concrete yet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Adding couple more points about areas where people are less happy.

NXEC and NXEA (Liverpool St - Norwich) passengers are less happy then they were under GNER judging by press reports, this may not filter through to passenger focus until next year as the things that have made them angry have only just take place.

EMT passengers on the Nottingham - Liverpool route are not happy as the overcrowding has increased due to less stock on the route.

XC passengers are ironically happy because those horrible old slam door trains are back, but at least they are getting a seat.

On the fares point, rather than the PF figures of how much difference the average passenger pays from the highest possible walk up fare it would be interesting to see how much the average passenger really pays for various journeys between 1996 and now. I don't know if the data exists and compare it to inflation. We know that the highest fares have gone up significantly between 1996 and today, well above inflation. I bet these figure are a lot less flattering then the PF most people pay less than the full fare arguement, which is true when railcards, children etc are taken into account. As I said earlier from my local station most fares have open returns, but every journey can be made on a saver (or off-peak). But my pocket is a lot emptier than it used to be everytime I travel!

 

[87015]

Passenger focus surveys are a farce anyway, picked up a leaflet with C2C results on, all the individual ones were below 80% with some as low as 17% and 34%, yet apparently overall 'happiness' was at 92%. Riiight, hows that work then?

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

Shame all you people don`t get your heads ripped off so we can talk some more sense and travel in HST`s without the aircon struggling against the draught you`re giving us you idiots!:-x

I don't do it so don't fire off at me - it was simply a question.

When talking about whether railways have improved or not I think it is important too distinguish between the thoughts of 'enthusiasts' and the general public. A classic example being the Pendolino's.

Amongst enthusisats they are disliked for what they have replacesd, their design, etc. However, amongst the general public they are popuar because they are comfy, smoother ride, quiet etc. When the loco hauled serivces were introduced to the Fife Circle line enthusiasts were overjoyed at the propect - whilst everyone else had their arms in air about how their beloved dmu's had been taken away.

The_Rail_WAy

 

[Snapper]

XC passengers are ironically happy because those horrible old slam door trains are back, but at least they are getting a seat.!

Yet another classic misrepresentation, and a shining example of why your arguments can't be trusted. Look at the whole history of PF surveys since the old loco-hauled stock was replaced by Voyagers and you'll see that the figures (which have been collated over the years through interviewing thousands of people) show absolutely no such thing.

XC pax were more than happy to see the back of knackered Mk2's and un- reliable 47s. Will the reintroduction of HSTs help those figures? Yes probably, as one of the prime pax considerations is the ability to get a seat. But that doesn't mean the inference you have made is in any way accurate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

but would never agree that everything is better when we start operating a national network again rather than a series of small franchises then I will agree things have got better.

In other words, you have another agenda and fundamentalist approach which won't allow you to admit to any real improvements unless an impossible criteria is met.

So much for an informed discussion.

 

[Daimler]

OK in the case of the voyager they are a bit short of capacity but other than that there is nothing wrong with them!

Now as I have said railways are a business, they prvide a service to people who need to get from A - B so change is going to happen, get over it!

Regards

Adam

Yes there is, in my opinion. They are cramped, as a result of the sloping sides for the tilt. The seats are appallingly laid out - I don't think I've ever been in a train where so few seats line up with the windows (apart from that other Virgin horror, the Pendolino). The toilets stink half the time. The armrests are irritatingly narrow. At certain engine speeds they virbrate highly unpleasantly. They are incredibly noisy outside - far more so than an MTU HST at idle. They look - and feel - like a poor quality product - flimsy and built 'on the cheap'.

With regards to the railways being a business, of course they are! However, I love the industry in which these businesses operate, and so to see what NXEC are doing with the East Coast, for example, is almost heartbreaking - and I feel I really must moan about it, whether I should 'get over it' or not! :cry:

Having said that, I feel hugely encouraged by much of what goes on. Many new units, for example, are great, while XC's reintroduction of the HSTs (in a rather attractively refurbished form) is equally encouraging. High domestic rail and the future that this may hold is really quite exciting, and I can't fail to be rather taken with that most endearing of companies, WSMR - which is of course a product of privatisation.

 

[Failed Unit]

Once again you're ducking the issue. You stated that pax prefer Mk3s to Pendolinos'. It's clear they don't. Trying to suggest that WCML pax would prefer Mk4s is rather daft as its not a choice they have. Although I suspect if you said to them would you prefer a slower train to the one you have now - I know what the answer would be...

It is clear they don't? - and your proof is a passenger focus survey about if they find the seating area comfortable - not the direct questions :roll: So if someone rates the seating area on a pacer at 80% by your logic they are better than the mk4's or pendos? I have yet to hear anyone say the prefer the pendo to the Mk4. I used to work in Glasgow we travelled a lot on business (not to London as people preferred to fly). When we went to Leeds we used a mk4 set, when we went to Manchester we used a Pendo. We never took the voyagers due to the lower levels of service on board. Everyone prefered the Mk4. Not scientific I know but at least it is a direct comparison - the passenger focus survey is not!

Really?

Would you care to show exactly where PF say this? I'm looking at the latest NPS survey now, and when it comes to comfort (of the seating area - a good indicator of what people think about different vehicles) Virgin beat NXEC by 78% to 74% (something they have consistently done). And In the spring 2006 NPS both VWC and GNER tied on overall satisfaction at 90%, whilst in the Autumn 2007 survey Virgin beat GNER in overall satisfaction by 86% to 82%...

Your point about "asking some passengers which they prefer" is rather curious as that's exactly what PF do. 10's of thousands of them in fact - every year!

I fail to see how your statistics show that passengers would prefer to travel in a pendo over a mk4. They show the figures that are happy with the seating area, but maybe west coast passengers have lower standards than east coast passengers. Of course the east coast route still has some unrefurbished mk3 which are looking very tired, which may have lowered the score. I guess the virgin score has been exactly the same ever since the pendo's were introduced? I will explain the lowering of overall satisfaction on East Coast for 2007, GNER cut catering provision on many trains that year, it was reflected in the score simple.
The only way of knowing for sure which train passengers really prefer is to ask them direct. People don't make the same journeys, passenger focus don't ask if they prefer the journey they made to York or the one they made to Preston! How many times have Virgin beat GNER since the pendos came along, why the change the trains are the same since the pendo arrived!

Yet another classic misrepresentation, and a shining example of why your arguments can't be trusted. Look at the whole history of PF surveys since the old loco-hauled stock was replaced by Voyagers and you'll see that the figures (which have been collated over the years through interviewing thousands of people) show absolutely no such thing.

You are using subjective passenger focus statistics to discredit me What do they say about statistics? I can't say I have seen a passenger focus survey asking if people feel things are better or worse than they were under BR? No they go on year by year. People standards and expectations have lowered. 2000 was the low point of course things have improved since then. In 2009 on my route I would be happy to see a 2 coach train, in 1991 it was expected!

[/quote]
XC pax were more than happy to see the back of knackered Mk2's and un- reliable 47s. Will the reintroduction of HSTs help those figures? Yes probably, as one of the prime pax considerations is the ability to get a seat. But that doesn't mean the inference you have made is in any way accurate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
People are happy to see the mk2 back on other routes, for the reason you state they can get a seat. They are hauled by more reliable class 57's and class 67's now.

In other words, you have another agenda and fundamentalist approach which won't allow you to admit to any real improvements unless an impossible criteria is met.

So much for an informed discussion.

Personal insults don't make your point any stronger in an informed discussion. I will put it another way, I will say things are better than they have ever been when they are better than what they were under BR. The way of achieving this is having a co-ordinated network working together, not the fragmented network only concerned about its own franchise we have now. Why is wanting this a bad thing, why is getting it unachieveable?

The main basis of your arguement has been passenger focus surveys, yes opinion of one year to the next, but how can you compare the 2000 survey with the 2009 survey.

You say we should be happier because passenger focus claim the majority of people don't pay the highest fare on offer for each route. What your passenger focus figures don't show as I stated earlier, is the average fare between to points, surely if for example in 1996 then average person paid £90 for a walk-on ticket Between London and Newcastle, and in 2009 the average person paid £150 for a ticket then things have got worse, even if someone did pay £15 for the same ticket.

Lets go to timekeeping, in the last year of BR every single TOC had 90% of thier trains arriving "on-time", in 2009 we still haven't achieved that, of course things are better.

Train frequencies, yes they are better on some routes. They are worse on others. Some places have had direct trains to London restored, many places have had direct trains that have ran for many many years removed. So the railways are better because Leeds, Cardiff and Bristol have 1/2 hourly services, OK but what about all of us that have lost direct trains, we are very happy for the people of Leeds but don't feel things are better now then they ever have been.

Journey times? Better on the WCML worse on most other routes for point-to-point timings. The best time Edinburgh - London used to be 3:59 minutes, now it is 4:19. Again things better now then they have ever been?

Overcrowding, Can you really argue things are better now then they have ever been, try telling that to a Nottingham - Liverpool passenger or a London - Sheffield passenger on a 5-car 222!

Passenger focus surveys have value, but they can't be used on their own to show everything is perfect. The people that have lost thier direct trains may now be driving so will not be surveyed at all. As I said expectations have also lowered, we are now happy if we get a seat at all when we expected it a few years ago. If people want to believe things are getting better just because passenger focus say so that is thier choice. In the same way if people want to believe Gordon Brown is going to save the world just because the governments spin doctors say so. I have given many examples of why things are not better now then they have ever been, your passenger focus statistic do not change any of my examples. Remember what they say about statistics!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Passenger satisfaction at fares varies from TOC to TOC (from 37% to 71% in fact). Now that suggests that more than a few people are happy!

so things are better now then they have ever been for the 37% then on that TOC? I would say that the majority of people on that TOC are unhappy!

But as usual, the picture is a damn sight more complex than some people would try to make out. One of the wonderful aberrations is that the people who pay the least are also the least satisfied! (season ticket holders!).

Your point is? Season ticket holders don't pay the least, as you well know they are paying a lot more in terms of PPM then the cheapest AP holders. Season ticket holders represent 50% of all rail journeys, surely their views should be more important than the person that makes on rail journey per year? A season ticket holder is often paying more than £1000 per year to a TOC, how many people do that out of thier own pocket for the odd trip to London or the odd trip shopping?

Again if satisfaction in from season ticket holders is falling, which your precious passenger focus survey shows it is, this is not only a cause for concern but it more proof that UK railways are not better now then they have ever been as their most loyal customers are less happy. Why are they less happy, because they have just had above inflation price rise but see no improvement in service, basically to pay for jam tomorrow. At least when BR hit passengers hard it was after the improvements had come on stream. I am sure the season ticket holders would have been happier if they were paying more for an improved service - we are not however. Again take you EMT season ticket holder, we are paying more and don't even feature in the governments plans to increase capacity!
[/QUOTE]

 

[Snapper]

It is clear they don't? - and your proof is a passenger focus survey about if they find the seating area comfortable - not the direct questions :roll: So if someone rates the seating area on a pacer at 80% by your logic they are better than the mk4's or pendos? I have yet to hear anyone say the prefer the pendo to the Mk4. I used to work in Glasgow we travelled a lot on business (not to London as people preferred to fly). When we went to Leeds we used a mk4 set, when we went to Manchester we used a Pendo. We never took the voyagers due to the lower levels of service on board. Everyone prefered the Mk4. Not scientific I know but at least it is a direct comparison - the passenger focus survey is not!


I fail to see how your statistics show that passengers would prefer to travel in a pendo over a mk4. They show the figures that are happy with the seating area, but maybe west coast passengers have lower standards than east coast passengers.

Oh please - talk about grasping at straws! In a desperate attempt to defend the impossible we're expected to believe that the West Coast route is full of undiscerning Chav's whilst only blue-bloods travel East Coast!

Honestly! :roll:

The direct comparison you continue to ignore is that passengers on both types of train are asked exactly the same question.

You have claimed that the PF results show that pax prefer the East Coast stock. This is completely untrue - the results are their in black and white for anyone who cares to read them. Now, rather than admitting you misrepresented what PF said you come up with some fatuous excuse to try and justify that. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lets go to timekeeping, in the last year of BR every single TOC had 90% of thier trains arriving "on-time", in 2009 we still haven't achieved that, of course things are better.

Would you care to supply evidence to back up that assertion. Or do we need to take it with a pinch of salt the way be have had some of your other statements? I would dearly love to see you supply figures for the LTS lines and also Merseyrail!

As for the idea that we "still haven't achieved 90%" - wrong again. The current 2009 figure is 90.9%*. The 90% mark was broken back in 2008!

* http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9444

 

[Failed Unit]

Oh please - talk about grasping at straws! In a desperate attempt to defend the impossible we're expected to believe that the West Coast route is full of undiscerning Chav's whilst only blue-bloods travel East Coast!

Honestly! :roll:

The direct comparison you continue to ignore is that passengers on both types of train are asked exactly the same question.

Passengers on the WCML are used to mk2 / mk3 which Virgin did very little work on. Hence the Pendo's are an improvement on what they are used to. ECML passengers are used to the mk4 which was better in the first place then the mk2 / mk3 used on the WCML. Hence why passengers on ECML have higher base standards. As I said if an operator using pacers got 80% would you be saying that they would prefer a pacer to a mk4? Passenger focus have never asked the direct question, it is like me asking 100 people "are you satisfied with the taste of this pear?" and 100 different people "are you satisfield with the taste of this apple", then concluding that because 80% are satisfied with the taste of apple and only 74% are satisfied with the taste of the pear that apples taste better than pears.

You know as well as I do that statistics can be made to show exactly what you want them to and are always interpreted to suit the point of the person making the survey. I will not conceed this point until a direct question is asked.

Anyway if passengers prefer mk4's over pendo's doesn't really make much difference to the thread in question, the fact west coast passengers are happy is a positive thing.

Would you care to supply evidence to back up that assertion. Or do we need to take it with a pinch of salt the way be have had some of your other statements? I would dearly love to see you supply figures for the LTS lines and also Merseyrail!

As for the idea that we "still haven't achieved 90%" - wrong again. The current 2009 figure is 90.9%*. The 90% mark was broken back in 2008!

* http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9444

Funny Virgin West coast and Inter-City east coast are still well below 90%, so that is still not every single operator is above 90% is it. Which is still worse than 1996 which you can look up in archives. However you are demonstating perfectly my point, we have lowered are expectations. In BR days we expected all operators to be above 90% now we look at is as a reason to think things are perfect.

I don't know if the people on the sidelines are enjoying this or not, but this is where we I stop. If people only believe what passenger focus tell them fair enough, passenger focus have not and will not ask the question do you feel the network is better under BR, or even do you feel things have improved over the past 10 / 20 years. I have given many examples of why the things are not better than they have ever been - many of which you have chosen to ignore such as the loss to many people of direct trains it is OK as other places have increase frequencies. :roll: Or the fact most of us are paying more but that is OK as very few people pay the full fare :roll: (not that they under BR either). Look at Liverpool, removed from XC, still only hourly to London (although quicker), No direct trains to places like Nuneaton, Liecester, Stansted, Scotland and Wales (all lost). Worse overcrowding on the routes to the East Midlands. Still stuck with pacers. Do you think the people of Liverpool think that things are better than ever before.

I don't think either of us are going to change our views, I am not convinced by your passenger focus spin, you are not convinced by my real examples of people losing through journeys or paying more for slower journeys.

 

[me123]

Look at Liverpool, removed from XC, still only hourly to London (although quicker), No direct trains to places like Nuneaton, Liecester, Stansted, Scotland and Wales (all lost). Worse overcrowding on the routes to the East Midlands. Still stuck with pacers. Do you think the people of Liverpool think that things are better than ever before.

I can see that Liverpool has lost out. But let's look elsewhere. Dundee has now 2tph to Edinburgh, 1tph to Glasgow, 2tph to Aberdeen, and looks set to have another hourly service to both Arbroath and Glasgow. So this city's better off.

Glasgow has improved service frequencies on most routes, and more carriages as well. Recent improvements include a (nearly) hourly service direct to London, and future improvements will see a half hourly train to Kilmarnock, GARL, a fourth service to Edinburgh and improvements on two of the original lines. This city's better off, although we have as good as lost our Cross Country link.

I know these are both Scottish examples, but there are plenty throughout England I'm sure.

I think what's coming out here is that some places have suffered and some have thrived. The best steps to take now, in my opinion, are to find areas that haven't been well served (Liverpool's an obvious one) and start channelling investment there.

 

[Snapper]

Passengers on the WCML are used to mk2 / mk3 which Virgin did very little work on. Hence the Pendo's are an improvement on what they are used to. ECML passengers are used to the mk4 which was better in the first place then the mk2 / mk3 used on the WCML. Hence why passengers on ECML have higher base standards. As I said if an operator using pacers got 80% would you be saying that they would prefer a pacer to a mk4? Passenger focus have never asked the direct question, it is like me asking 100 people "are you satisfied with the taste of this pear?" and 100 different people "are you satisfield with the taste of this apple", then concluding that because 80% are satisfied with the taste of apple and only 74% are satisfied with the taste of the pear that apples taste better than pears.

You know as well as I do that statistics can be made to show exactly what you want them to and are always interpreted to suit the point of the person making the survey. I will not conceed this point until a direct question is asked.

Anyway if passengers prefer mk4's over pendo's doesn't really make much difference to the thread in question, the fact west coast passengers are happy is a positive thing.


Funny Virgin West coast and Inter-City east coast are still well below 90%, so that is still not every single operator is above 90% is it. Which is still worse than 1996 which you can look up in archives. However you are demonstating perfectly my point, we have lowered are expectations. In BR days we expected all operators to be above 90% now we look at is as a reason to think things are perfect.

Once again you refuse to supply any evidence to back up your assertions. And even worse, you then try and wriggle and move the goalposts. You told us that the railways still hadn't achieved 90% - which was untrue _ as I've shown. Now, to wriggle out of that you try and say - ah, but some are still under 90% - fine. So produce the figures for those routes in 1996 then - and don't forget the LTS and Merseyrail!

But I note that you didn't say that "You know as well as I do that statistics can be made to show exactly what you want them to" when you were producing (spurious) figures. But you're happy to hide behind that argument when the figures you produce are shown to tbe false. Talk about double-standards!

 

[Failed Unit]

I think what's coming out here is that some places have suffered and some have thrived. The best steps to take now, in my opinion, are to find areas that haven't been well served (Liverpool's an obvious one) and start channelling investment there.

Couldn't agree more, we in England look at Scotland and Wales with envy as they have a governments that are prepared to invest. Likewise the fact that the whole country has only one operator helps, look how difficult the proposed recast of the ECML is becoming because of the number of stakeholders involved.

It is only recently we had overcrowded services and useful trains rusting away in sidings (I guess we still have if you include the 442's that are not going back into service) so thing have improved from those days.

So may the thread title should be "UK Railways, better now then they have ever been (in some areas)" I suppose 20 years ago people were having the same kind of debates in the pub (but not about railways of course) when Mrs T said "You have never had it so good"

 

[Snapper]

Passengers on the WCML are used to mk2 / mk3 which Virgin did very little work on.

Totally and utterly wrong again.

Virgin spent a lot of money refurbishing the interiors of their Mk3s - as these pictures show:

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p5203971.html

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/p22721442.html

It's why John Farrow bought them for the Blue Pullman and Cargo D for their fleet.

The Mk 2 fleet was withdrawn as long ago as 2004 (nearly 5 years ago):

http://www.paulbigland.fotopic.net/c207224.html

And they were only used on the Euston - Wolves corridor. Many present WCML passengers will never have travelled on them, so to try and use them as an excuse is grasping even more desperately at straws. :roll:

The interiors weren't bad either

Besides which - I thought you claimed that pax prefferred older vehicles? So by your own logic VWCs satisfaction ratings should have gone DOWN after their withdrawal.

Only they haven't.

Once again - a case of wanting your cake and eating it.

 

[Failed Unit]

Once again you refuse to supply any evidence to back up your assertions. And even worse, you then try and wriggle and move the goalposts. You told us that the railways still hadn't achieved 90% - which was untrue _ as I've shown. Now, to wriggle out of that you try and say - ah, but some are still under 90% - fine. So produce the figures for those routes in 1996 then - and don't forget the LTS and Merseyrail!

Absolute nonsense, I have always said every single operator achieved above 90% under BR.

Below is a press release from National Express showing that it had matched BR - as I said our standards are lower now.

http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/nx1/media/news/sub_news/pr2008/2008-10-13/

I am currently googling the results for the 1996 for all operators, as I am on a slow connection this is taking longer than I had hoped, but they do exist, which I am sure will be very disappointing for you. This is bragging about a single month, not the entire year as well!

Oh I don't consider repadding seats as lots of work on old coaches either. Compare Virgins Mk3's with GNER's mk3's and it is clear to see which one had the money spent on them. Anyway enough - it we will never agree - if you think losing direct services and fragmentation is a good thing then I am glad you don't run the railways!

 

[Snapper]

Couldn't agree more, we in England look at Scotland and Wales with envy as they have a governments that are prepared to invest.

HSL 1 and St Pancras International.

Thameslink

Crossrail
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolute nonsense, I have always said every single operator achieved above 90% under BR.

Below is a press release from National Express showing that it had matched BR - as I said our standards are lower now.

http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/nx1/media/news/sub_news/pr2008/2008-10-13/

I am currently googling the results for the 1996 for all operators, as I am on a slow connection this is taking longer than I had hoped, but they do exist, which I am sure will be very disappointing for you.

Oh, I'm looking forward to seeing them I assure you...

 

[me123]

HSL 1 and St Pancras International.

Thameslink

Crossrail

There's been a debate recently that railway investments are based in the South East. And as you have pointed out, they have been. What's happening up North and in the South West? Very little as far as I'm aware.

I'm not saying that these aren't worthwhile investments, but Liverpool's (non-Merseyrail) rail service is abysmal and it wouldn't need much more to improve things in Merseyside.

 

[daccer]

The argument is difficult to quantify as the subject is so large - the railway network by its nature has always been a curates egg. it is no different today.

Taking an overall picture of course they are not better now than in the distant past. The days when every village had a station and the network covered the length and breadth of the nation and was the transport of choice for passenger and freight alike. We will never get back to that stage and we are more the poorer for the way the network was pruned with no attempt at taking a long term view or even securing assets for future use.

However compared to the recent past things are better. Money is the key (as always) and if you throw enough of it at something it will get better. And it has. The arguments about BR are spurious. It was operating in a market that was declining year on year and its only real criteria was to operate the system as cheaply as possible. Dont be under any illusions that BR did not carry fat as well. The operating practises were very restructive with 'jobs for life'. The use of assets was not great with locomotives a plenty standing with no work. it was a false economy. the run down of the network would have to be made up sometime - hence the massive expenditure since privatisation.

The system will never be perfect as politicians run it and we all know they could make a hash of anything. However money is now more freely available than for awhile and the public perception is better so things are better than the recent past but that for me is it.

 

[Snapper]

Absolute nonsense, I have always said every single operator achieved above 90% under BR.

Below is a press release from National Express showing that it had matched BR - as I said our standards are lower now.

http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/nx1/media/news/sub_news/pr2008/2008-10-13/

Interesting. NXEC are matching BR performance on a route that is vastly more crowded (in fact it's full according to the NR RUS), whilst the company itself is running twice as many trains as the BR shadow franchise did.

So much for lower standards...

 

[dojo]

...but Liverpool's (non-Merseyrail) rail service is abysmal and it wouldn't need much more to improve things in Merseyside.

I couldn't agree more; I remember my monthly journeys to Salisbury about 10 years ago being a breeze, direct from Lime Street on the Portsmouth service. Now, I can't get there without making two changes, usually via slow services (e.g. LIV to New Street, Bristol to Salisbury). Yeah, we have loads of services per hour to Manchester, which softens the blow a bit, but with no XC services it's still a bit of a joke.

XC should soooo (re)start Lime Street to Dover Priory/Portsmouth services. I can dream...

 

[Failed Unit]

Interesting. NXEC are matching BR performance on a route that is vastly more crowded (in fact it's full according to the NR RUS), whilst the company itself is running twice as many trains as the BR shadow franchise did.

So much for lower standards...

I see it is all so clear to me now:



I live in Newcastle I know have a slower and less reliable journey but that doens't matter as Leeds now has more trains. :roll:

I live in Liverpool, I used to be able to go direct to many places including Bristol but can't any more. That doesn't matter however as Manchester have a direct hourly service to Bristol!

I live in Stoke-On-Trent and I commute to Nottingham, I can't go direct anymore and the connections are poor on the new service. That doesn't matter however as Nottingham has now got 2 trains per hour to Birmingham.

I live in Leeds and travel a lot to Birmingham, most people pay less than the full open fare, but because I need to arrive by 9am I am forced for the full open return when previously the saver was valid, but that doesn't matter I can pay £5 to arrive at 22:30!

I live in Nuneaton I used to be able to travel direct to both Nottingham and Liverpool. I used to be able to use a fast service to London off peak in the good old days. All of these are gone but Birmingham has improved services.

I live in Market Rasen, I used to have 10 trains per day that connect well into mainline services at Newark, I now only have 6 trains per hour direct to Newark of which only 5 of them connect well with services to London, but Newark has lots more trains, maybe I will drive instead!

As all of the above examples are only covering the minority of passengers they don't matter as they passenger focus research says they are insignificant and moan too much. Along of course with the 46% that dared in the Autumn 2008 beloved passenger focus survey to say they felt that thier ticket wasn't value for money, they should really stop moaning and buy cheaper tickets or travel at cheaper times. The decline in satisfaction from passengers over the past 12 months from Virgin, EMT, ATW and London midland for punctuality and reliability shows thier passengers moan too much as well - taken from the same survey. The operators will hand out rose tinted specs to improve thier rating next time around.

Yep all is clear now, the railways are much better now then they have ever been because of improved frequency on a few IC routes that I don't use! Am I an idiot or what. :roll:

 

[me123]

I live in Market Rasen, I used to have 10 trains per day that connect well into mainline services at Newark, I now only have 6 trains per hour direct to Newark of which only 5 of them connect well with services to London, but Newark has lots more trains, maybe I will drive instead!

Actually, I think you'll find that's a significant improvement in services!

 

[Phoenix]

I live in Stoke-On-Trent and I commute to Nottingham, I can't go direct anymore and the connections are poor on the new service. That doesn't matter however as Nottingham has now got 2 trains per hour to Birmingham.

I live in Nuneaton I used to be able to travel direct to both Nottingham and Liverpool. I used to be able to use a fast service to London off peak in the good old days. All of these are gone but Birmingham has improved services.

With Stoke on Trent it hardly makes a difference as you have to pull into Derby for a few minutes and the Trains from Derby to Nottingham are quite frequent so they have hardly lost out it is basically trying to save money by sending the unit to Cardiff rather than stoke which would be almost pointless.

As for Nuneaton yes I will grant you things are not way to great there but you have neglected to mention the new LM services to Crewe which I believe is a plus isn't it.

Honestly I don't dabble with sums and figures as it does confuse and bore me but let's be honest here things have got worse but they have also got better and both sides of the argument need to be acknowledged before a decent opinion is formed because if you look at both the bad and good you can reflect and decide what needs to be done by comparison of whats being done on another more successful service.

I partly agree with but a partly disagree.

One problem I do have the idea that WCML users are used to bog standard so take it on the chin as they arnt stupid and do realize there are people having a better time on their trains but its a case of its not their service provider so they dont get their hopes up.

And I know this due to the current talk I have had with other commuters on my train to Derby regard XC and their lateness and lack of common sense on occasions.

 

[yorkie]

After reading a few threads on hear it has come to my attention that most people seem to dislike most modern trains, companies etc. When you take off the rose tinted specs you wll see that today the railways are better than they have ever been before, there is an excelent service on most routes (more than in BR days), clean stations & trains and since privatisation there has not been many times where there has not been new trains being built, now this raises the question WHY do so many people on hear have some kind of wiered hatred of anything post privitisation, Hears an examples of what I am trying to say,

You say people dislike trains and companies but then say that the service is better now. Well, true on all counts! Of course the service is better now - several times more money is put into the railways! But is the service several times better? In a few places, yes. In most, clearly not. Just because some people enjoy more frequent services, doesn't mean people don't have valid complaints.

HST, Alot of people on hear seem to drool whenever one is mentioned, I admit they are good trains but where they have been replaced there has been good reason, and the replacement has been a moden unit thats just as fast, clean and comfatable. OK in the case of the voyager they are a bit short of capacity but other than that there is nothing wrong with them!

Lets see where have HSTs been replaced...

CrossCountry - MISTAKE! Arriva brought them back! And Virgin didn't intend to replace them but they were overruled by the SRA apparently.

Great Western - MISTAKE! FGW are introducing more HSTs to displace the Adelantes.

Virgin West Coast - Debatable. In 2000, the Welsh Dragon departed Holyhead 0546 and arrived at Euston at 0945 on life-expired infrastructure unable to reach it's full potential. Yet today after £billions spent on the line, the equivalent unnamed downgraded service departed at 0553 and arrived at 0948. The introduction of Pendos + 57s proved to be a mistake and the Voyagers offer a lower standard. The service is more frequent now though.

Now as I have said railways are a business,

If they were just a business they may as well all be closed! The fact is that they are run by TOCs as a business but, at the end of the day, they are a public service. If the only purpose of a railway was to make money you'd have to close nearly all of them now. But if you applied that logic on the roads you'd also have to cease many bus trips and close all rural roads.

they prvide a service to people who need to get from A - B so change is going to happen, get over it!

And people have their opinions, get over it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Failed Unit and I have had a discussion regarding holding connecting trains before. From my own point of view, having missed connections myself, it is much better that one late train does not result in another which can then result in another. The vicious cycle has been pretty much erased.

Oh come on, you know it's not as simple as that!

Some TOCs despatch trains empty onto branch lines that would have no further impact on other services thus forcing dozens of passengers to have a lengthy wait.

I was pleasantly surprised on Great Western a couple of years ago when I saw a Falmouth train held at Truro. The train was virtually empty until the late running HST arrived, and then it was full! I don't know if this common sense still applies on FGW but I have heard it does not apply on other routes, but really there is no excuse for not holding it in a case like that. But well done to FGW on that occasion at least.