Guardian does Daily Mail style article on Reading services

[Greenback]

You mean like TPE's "Early Bird" season tickets? I could see that working, although they would have to have more reasonable restrictions.

I'm not overly familiar with the TPE offer, but it seems similar.

I was just going to suggest that - it is probably the next step, but again all this does is spread out the demand a bit further. If patronage keeps on increasing as it has been, then these services will become overcrowded and we'll be in the same situation all over again.

Good solution for the short term but we need to plan long term as well.

If demand exceeds capacity then it seems sensible to try and manage demand better. If that means using pricing to try and divert some passengers to quieter services, then it might be worth doing.

That said, I ams till not in favour of it. It adds further complications to the fares system, is difficult and probably costly to police, and doe slittle to solve the udnerlying problem of lack of capacity. It's a bit like papering voer the cracks in my book.

It's one of those things that sounds good on paper.

However, if
number of season ticket holders who regularly travel on service > number of seats on trains
then you have a problem where some season ticket holders will never get a seat, unless a season ticket holder normally travelling on that service isn't travelling.

That is then the second problem the annual ticket holders will get 4-5 weeks holiday then there will be regularly reserved seats not taken, which will, as happens at present, lead to non-reservation holders taking their chances in a non-occupied reserved seat in the hope that the reservee doesn't turn up.

I agree, it would be a shambles. The biggest obstacle is that I can't see commuters wanting to spend time reserving seats in the first place, I don;t think the suggestionw as that people coule reserve the same seat for a year (or other set period), it was more that the facility exists for those moaning that they have to stand to reserve a seat if they want to.

I doubt it, not many people want to go to Paddington. I'm sure it would be possible to encourage people to change at Reading for central stations too, which would free up some seats on the fasts.

I agree. I feel that many of the commuters would be happy to take a direct Crossrail train to Central London as long as their overall journey time wasn't much longer overall. With having to change to the Underground at present, I don't think it would be.

 

[NSEFAN]

With the additional platforms, I don't think it's too unrealistic.

For anyone who is interested, this track plan is how Reading should look after completion. (Link orignally posted on WNXX)

I am somewhat suprised that the north and south facing bays (formerly platforms 6 and 7 IIRC) are being taken out, but then there will be 4 platforms on the both the main and relief, so I guess it will all balance out.

 

[cle]

Population control in Berkshire, because the trains are too full?! Not sure people would go for that!

I think one idea is to add 4tph fast trains to Crossrail.
So Reading - fast - Paddington and into Crossrail.

Effectively makes Reading a Londno interchange station. You could have plenty of shuttles connecting into Crossrail fasts, in addition to direct trains to Paddington for one-seat rides, and people could choose.

 

[Greenback]

For anyone who is interested, this track plan is how Reading should look after completion. (Link orignally posted on WNXX)

I am somewhat suprised that the north and south facing bays (formerly platforms 6 and 7 IIRC) are being taken out, but then there will be 4 platforms on the both the main and relief, so I guess it will all balance out.

There will be greater capacity and greater flexibility. There were only 4 through platforms udner the old layout (4, 5, 8 and 9), whereas there will be 9 when it is all finished, not to mention the additional platform for the Gatwick/Waterloo lines.

 

[Nym]

For anyone who is interested, this track plan is how Reading should look after completion. (Link orignally posted on WNXX)

I am somewhat suprised that the north and south facing bays (formerly platforms 6 and 7 IIRC) are being taken out, but then there will be 4 platforms on the both the main and relief, so I guess it will all balance out.

So, from that I can see that you could terminate Crossrail services on the releif platforms 13 and 14 without any conflicts.

Does anyone else here see the possible sense in actually extending Crossrail to Oxford? (Don't know the timetable on that branch well enough to come up with what services) Or would it be better to keep a solid 4tph terminating at Reading 13/14.

Since current service levels are indicating:

2tph West Drayton
4tph Airport
4tph Maidenhead

With only Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway seeing all tph calling.

If 6 track could be provided between Airport Junction and the tunnel portal, Heathrow Express could continue to use 'Releif Paddington' lines and Crossrail use it's own lines from here, for Heathrow Connect & XRail services. As well as any additional stuff running into Paddington.

So we could see something like...

4tph Reading (Twyford, Maidenhead, Hayes, Ealing Broadway)
4tph Maidenhead (Calling at more intermediates)
2tph West Drayton (Is this needed with 8tph anyway?)
4tph Airport (Heathrow Connect)

And push some services onto Chiltern? Greenford Branch (It's on the right side)? WCML Tring / DCs?

I'm reckoning if you run on the relief lines fast you'd loose 10mins or so over an HST.

If you're running 12tph up that way on a two track railway 4tph Reading, 4tph Maidenhead, 4tph Airport, with each 4tph running semi fast after it's picked up the next stopper (that should depart right behind it)

So say...

4tph Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Hayes & Harlington, Ealing Broadway, Paddington etc.
4tph Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, Hayes & Harlington, Ealing Broadway, Paddington
4tph Heathrow T4, Heathrow C, Hayes & Harlington, Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway, Acton Main Line, Paddington

And if you want to be really clever, you could possibly integrate Heathrow Express into this too, on the relief lines, flighted alongside the Reading or Maidenhead services, giving 16tph between Hayes and Paddington. Leaves 4min headway between them so might slow down the Heathrow Express too much to be honest, 12tph with slows flighting is reasonably possible, but it still leaves somewhere to find 12tph to go to, WCML and Chiltern could take both at 6tph each, maybe?

The reason why I'd put standardised calling patterns on btw, is that pax would KNOW where their service calls, so the're jumping onto the Maidenhead service at Bond St because they know it always calls at Taplow, or something along them lines.

 

[cle]

Yeah I think something like that is fine.

The 2tph to West Drayton could easily terminate at Slough instead, which is already equipped.

That would mean less Reading trains would need to stop at Iver and Langley.

I would have:
6tph Heathrow T5
4tph Heathrow T4 (if possible with the single line section)
4tph Slough
4tph Reading

with 6tph going up WCML - arbitrarily 2tph Watford, 2tph Tring, 2tph MK.

Money saved with no terminating required at West Drayton or Maidenhead.

Calling patterns who knows. I don't like T4 having to take all the stoppers, they should be mixed and skip stopped to ensure consistent journeys. This will be needed to slow down Heathrow Express trains for pathing anyway.

But all trains would call at Ealing Broadway and Hayes. Most at Southall.
All at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford along there too.

 

[Nym]

I'm looking at aerial photos now, looks like it would need modification to Airport Junction, but it doesn't seem impossible to fit 6 track between Airport Junction and the Tunnel Portal, meaning the outer services and heathrow express could run on their own lines and not call at intermediate stations to Hayes & Harlington.

Asside from a viaduct or two, yes, I'm looking at you Hanwell!

But if we where to re-model so that the fasts run independant of everything (as they currently do anyway) and have Airport Junction land either in the centre of or the sides of the relief lines, and give the releif lines, where space is available and timetabling dictates it to be sensible, long loops or slows for stopping services between Hayes and Airport, with fasts not calling, and overtaking where possible. Either way, if you want Reading pax, you need to run fast from Maidenhead or Slough.

 

[scandal]

What surprised/amused/disappointed me was the repeated quotes complaining that "it wouldn't be so bad if we could see where the money is going"... erm... what about the £700m building site you get trains from every day? Or the additional capacity announced in November? Or the proposed electrification of the GWML with considerably more seats? Even Crossrail is likely to have an impact.

Reading is constantly reported in the media because of the large number of creative classes in the Thames Valley area commuting to London, however I agree with your points regarding improvements are coming.

I think the main gripe with many is that while the fare payer is contributing £6.5bn, (roughly 2/3s of costs compared to 1/2 a few years ago) to the British Railway System it still isn't breaking even, indeed ATOC (Jan 3, 2012) suggest that the railways are currently subsidised to the tune of £10.5bn a year. These costs are unsustainable and the rail industry when it has more passengers than ever on a smaller network, using less rolling stock and is using its assets more intensely needs to work to drive these costs down and improve efficiency before McNulty does.

An interesting comparison perhaps for some that based on British Rail's subsidy requirements of 1993 (the last full year of operation) the level of subsidy required in 2011 levels would be £5.1bn* delivering the taxpayer a profit of £1.4bn to reinvest or reduce fares.

*http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-committee/how-fair-are-the-fares-annex.pdf (June 2004 figures adjusted for inflation)

 

[Flamingo]

The problem with commuters between Reading and London is that everybody gets into the carriage closest to the steps at Reading (E), and closest to the concourse at Paddington (again E), then stand, blocking the aisles and doors complaining the train is too crowded. There may be 80 empty seats in coaches A and B, but they are basically too lazy to walk along the platform, and in too much of a rush to wait for the next train (which may be only three minutes behind, or even pulling up on the platform beside us).

A lot of the "problems" that the commuters from Reading complain of are of their own making. Sorry if that offends anybody, but I walk through the trains every day doing the headcounts and looking at the distribution of passengers (and taking abuse from the ones who I kick out of First Class vestibules into the supposedly "overcrowded" STD class). We run a turn up and travel railway, if anyone wants a guaranteed seat, make reservation or catch a National Express bus from Reading to London.

 

[All Line Rover]

If demand exceeds capacity then it seems sensible to try and manage demand better. If that means using pricing to try and divert some passengers to quieter services, then it might be worth doing.

That said, I ams till not in favour of it. It adds further complications to the fares system, is difficult and probably costly to police, and doe slittle to solve the udnerlying problem of lack of capacity. It's a bit like papering voer the cracks in my book.

Demand-pricing with Season Tickets is not that complicated. TPE's "Early Bird" seasons have the following restriction: "Services to ARRIVE at its destination before 0730 and services to DEPART between 1000 and 1600 or after 1830."

As long as Guards know the restrictions (which wouldn't be hard to enforce with only one "special season ticket" in existence) I doubt there would be problems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with commuters between Reading and London is that everybody gets into the carriage closest to the steps at Reading (E), and closest to the concourse at Paddington (again E), then stand, blocking the aisles and doors complaining the train is too crowded. There may be 80 empty seats in coaches A and B, but they are basically too lazy to walk along the platform, and in too much of a rush to wait for the next train (which may be only three minutes behind, or even pulling up on the platform beside us).

A lot of the "problems" that the commuters from Reading complain of are of their own making. Sorry if that offends anybody, but I walk through the trains every day doing the headcounts and looking at the distribution of passengers (and taking abuse from the ones who I kick out of First Class vestibules into the supposedly "overcrowded" STD class). We run a turn up and travel railway, if anyone wants a guaranteed seat, make reservation or catch a National Express bus from Reading to London.

Just like on the London Underground. It's particularly annoying at stations such as Shepherd's Bush, where the entrance is at one end of the platform and people refuse to move down.

 

[142094]

If demand exceeds capacity then it seems sensible to try and manage demand better. If that means using pricing to try and divert some passengers to quieter services, then it might be worth doing.

That said, I ams till not in favour of it. It adds further complications to the fares system, is difficult and probably costly to police, and doe slittle to solve the udnerlying problem of lack of capacity. It's a bit like papering voer the cracks in my book.

I agree - it is what I'd call a 'soft' option (being much easier to introduce than say extra carriages or longer platforms), but in the end capacity problems will not go away soon.

In many cases it is not a railway-specific problem, but more of the fact that the 9-5 working routine is too rigid and perhaps we should be looking at flexi-time working, working at home etc. instead (of course this cannot in anyway mitigate 100% of the demand but would go a good way of reducing it at peak hours).

 

[Flamingo]

Extra carriages and longer platforms need to be paid for. In the case of FGW, with HST's they have implications across the whole country, not just the first 30-40 miles of the trip.

Tickets are priced to encourage passengers to use off-peak trains. The ANYTIME fare is the basic fare (which is why it is what is charged in the case of any irregularities such as missing railcards or a UPFN being issued). Off-peak fares are the discounted fares.

Most people think that the premium is for using a Peak train, whereas it is more accurate to think of it as having a discount for using an off-peak train.

And don't get me started on season tickets, which are by far the cheapest, and undercut the cheapest off-peak fares for a peak journey.

 

[Greenback]

Demand-pricing with Season Tickets is not that complicated. TPE's "Early Bird" seasons have the following restriction: "Services to ARRIVE at its destination before 0730 and services to DEPART between 1000 and 1600 or after 1830."

As long as Guards know the restrictions (which wouldn't be hard to enforce with only one "special season ticket" in existence) I doubt there would be problems.

What I proposed was a mixture of the TPE type of time restriction and allowing passengers of the cheaper tickets to use the slower trains. It would be like FCC Only or LM only seasons, but run by the same operator. When Thames Trains ran the slow trains it would have been much easier to introduce.

I agree - it is what I'd call a 'soft' option (being much easier to introduce than say extra carriages or longer platforms), but in the end capacity problems will not go away soon.

In many cases it is not a railway-specific problem, but more of the fact that the 9-5 working routine is too rigid and perhaps we should be looking at flexi-time working, working at home etc. instead (of course this cannot in anyway mitigate 100% of the demand but would go a good way of reducing it at peak hours).

Flexi time is more prevalent now than it used to be, but I agree that too many businesses are fixed upon the 9-5 routine.

Extra carriages and longer platforms need to be paid for. In the case of FGW, with HST's they have implications across the whole country, not just the first 30-40 miles of the trip.

Tickets are priced to encourage passengers to use off-peak trains. The ANYTIME fare is the basic fare (which is why it is what is charged in the case of any irregularities such as missing railcards or a UPFN being issued). Off-peak fares are the discounted fares.

Most people think that the premium is for using a Peak train, whereas it is more accurate to think of it as having a discount for using an off-peak train.

And don't get me started on season tickets, which are by far the cheapest, and undercut the cheapest off-peak fares for a peak journey.

Season tickets offer very good discounts on paying the daily fare, as I have said before in various threads on here! Unfortunately, it is politically unacceptable (as the government have discovered) to push up season ticket fares by large amounts in order to redress any imbalance. It was, of course, political to cap seasons in the first place; I am sure that some Reading to London seasons actually fell during my time in the ticket office.

So I think we are stuck with what we have at the moment. I believe that the problem of commuting putting huge additional strain on capapcity has many causes, not least of which is the desire to live 'in the country'. In addition, the ridiculous cost of land and housing in London probably has something to do with it - I know from personal experience how the housing market in Reading was inflated artificially by the numbers of people moving in to the town during the mid and late 1990's.

 

[YorkshireRider]

The problem with commuters between Reading and London is that everybody gets into the carriage closest to the steps at Reading (E), and closest to the concourse at Paddington (again E), then stand, blocking the aisles and doors complaining the train is too crowded. There may be 80 empty seats in coaches A and B, but they are basically too lazy to walk along the platform

Very similar to the bird brains of Peterbrough then, but who then seem to find the energy to walk through first class just before arrival. I thankfully no longer work trains which stop at Peterbrough (best roster ive ever had!)

 

[jon0844]

I really don't think someone buying an annual ticket should be given a hard time. Even though you get a lot of time free, including weekends, by the time you factor in your annual leave (30 days in my case now, plus holidays), sickness and the fact that you probably won't go back into town every weekend just because it's free - you are actually paying a bit more than a simple divide by 365 calculation would show.

Even for a monthly ticket, the same applies. Only when I was getting weekly tickets could I try and be careful to time leave around renewals, to effectively not renew for a few days here, a week or two there. But that's a lot of hassle.

Encouraging people to work flexible hours is a good idea, and being able to work from home is also great - except the railway has no real way to cope with that. If I could work from home 2 days a week, what ticket would I get? I'd almost certainly have to get a season that means the ticket simply wasn't used and I was paying anyway (the only advantage being that someone else can get a seat easier perhaps).

Flexible season tickets may be the answer, but I think the real solution may come from smartcards becoming smarter when rolled out beyond London. One day, you could perhaps have a ticket that can introduce a discount on a sliding scale based on your overall usage. So, you start by paying full price but the price paid at the end of the year would be equivalent to the season ticket price, or part thereof based on any days you didn't actually travel.

If there had been something like that when I was in my old job, I would have worked a damn sight harder to convince the company to consider letting me work from home 2-3 days a week (and perhaps all week during our press deadlines). I am sure many others would too.

 

[Rational Plan]

The current has ruled out extra two tracks between Paddington and Airport Junction. There will be some freight sidings joined together to form a fifth track for a large percentage of the route between Slough and Southhall.

It's clear through the RUS that plans are moving far ahead of the original crossrail plan.

Reading remodelling and electrification sees the end of Maidenhead as terminus. The RUS talks about extending crossrail services westwards to Slough via a new western connection from Terminal 5. Recent press reports suggest that this idea has moved up the agenda quite quickly, especially after the failure of the airtrack scheme. Reports talk of an early 2020's completion date.

What currently looks like happening is 10 crossrail trains via the West coast mainline, 10 per hour via the airport, with 4 going terminating at Staines and 4 rejoining the Great Western at Langley.

The 4 remaining slots would stay on the main line. heathrow Express would be retired and integrated into crossrail. Services would be a mixture of different skip stop patterns to maintain speeds.

This has to be satisfy airport user groups about transit times, a non stop service may still be possible in off peak.

The 4 extra fast trains would be for express commuter trains to Reading.

I did not originally understand how they expected BAA to give up Heathrow express, but I read that they lose monopoly rights on the route in 2023 (terms granted when they paid for the line). Hopefully by then we can also lose the airport ticket surcharge and integrate it into the Travelcard. If that happened expect to see a big decline in Piccadilly use.

 

[jon0844]

Have a look on the net about the fiasco regarding the Arlanda Express in Sweden, where they did a deal that allowed the fares to be increased far beyond what the Government expected or wanted!

 

[NSEFAN]

I really don't think someone buying an annual ticket should be given a hard time. Even though you get a lot of time free, including weekends, by the time you factor in your annual leave (30 days in my case now, plus holidays), sickness and the fact that you probably won't go back into town every weekend just because it's free - you are actually paying a bit more than a simple divide by 365 calculation would show.

Even for a monthly ticket, the same applies. Only when I was getting weekly tickets could I try and be careful to time leave around renewals, to effectively not renew for a few days here, a week or two there. But that's a lot of hassle.

You are absolutely correct on this point. For simplicity, let's say that the season ticket is not going to be used for 5 weeks of the year (30 days holiday plus some extra days). With no travel on weekends, the ticket is used for 47 * 5 = 235 days per year. That means a £4000 season ticket would cost £17 per day. A dumb /364 calculation would show the cost as just over £10, which is getting close to half the price!

I've never needed to use a season ticket, but I imagine that anyone with a few brains would take days off into consideration. Of course if you're a crank then having a season ticket might be equally useful on your days off!

Encouraging people to work flexible hours is a good idea, and being able to work from home is also great - except the railway has no real way to cope with that. If I could work from home 2 days a week, what ticket would I get? I'd almost certainly have to get a season that means the ticket simply wasn't used and I was paying anyway (the only advantage being that someone else can get a seat easier perhaps).

Flexible season tickets may be the answer, but I think the real solution may come from smartcards becoming smarter when rolled out beyond London. One day, you could perhaps have a ticket that can introduce a discount on a sliding scale based on your overall usage. So, you start by paying full price but the price paid at the end of the year would be equivalent to the season ticket price, or part thereof based on any days you didn't actually travel.

Chiltern do (or did) a Carnet ticket which was a book of anytime returns at a reduced price (12 for the price of 10 IIRC). I think other TOCs have similar schemes.

Rewarding passengers for taking quieter trains is already done with advance fares, so if we want to encourage flexible hours then the fare system you mentioned could be very helpful in this.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I really don't think someone buying an annual ticket should be given a hard time. Even though you get a lot of time free, including weekends, by the time you factor in your annual leave (30 days in my case now, plus holidays), sickness and the fact that you probably won't go back into town every weekend just because it's free - you are actually paying a bit more than a simple divide by 365 calculation would show.

The ticket allows 363 days of travel a year. It's not the railway's fault if the passenger chooses not to use them! In the same way that if I buy a sandwich, it's not Marks and Spencers fault if I don't eat half of it.

 

[Barn]

The ticket allows 363 days of travel a year. It's not the railway's fault if the passenger chooses not to use them! In the same way that if I buy a sandwich, it's not Marks and Spencers fault if I don't eat half of it.

You've fallen into the trap we were constantly warned about at law school: concentrating on the rules and not seeing the commercial realities.

A better food-based analogy is this. Imagine a hotel with a £20 all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet that has 200 items on the buffet counter. That hotel is not offering breakfasts at 10p per item simply because technically the rules allow people to eat however much they want. Rather, it is offering breakfasts at about £2.50 per item because the reality is that most people take about 8 items.

 

[jon0844]

The ticket allows 363 days of travel a year. It's not the railway's fault if the passenger chooses not to use them! In the same way that if I buy a sandwich, it's not Marks and Spencers fault if I don't eat half of it.

Of course - and the season ticket also means less hassle than buying daily/weekly/monthly tickets.

However, while I might work out the daily price to see how much I am saving - the fact is, most people wouldn't buy a ticket on a day they weren't travelling anywhere.

Should I have used the train every weekend? Should I have gone into London, back out and back in again - on the basis that I can travel as many times as I want in a day, compared to having a normal return which can be used once in each direction (thus, technically, the season is even cheaper still!).

All I am saying is that the season ticket isn't as good as it seems, so commuters that shell out a lot of money (I doubt many have their employer paying either) shouldn't be shot down. I assume you would also say that these people didn't HAVE to buy a season ticket, or travel at all, if they find it uncomfortable (at least in cases where it's not as simple as waiting for another train a few minutes behind, which is their fault!).

 

[Greenback]

I really don't think someone buying an annual ticket should be given a hard time. Even though you get a lot of time free, including weekends, by the time you factor in your annual leave (30 days in my case now, plus holidays), sickness and the fact that you probably won't go back into town every weekend just because it's free - you are actually paying a bit more than a simple divide by 365 calculation would show.

Variable discounts are offered, which means that, with people's usage also being variable, we can only generalise about whether seasont ickets are too cheap compared to walk up fares - or perhaps it's just that walk up fares are far too high?

Even for a monthly ticket, the same applies. Only when I was getting weekly tickets could I try and be careful to time leave around renewals, to effectively not renew for a few days here, a week or two there. But that's a lot of hassle.

It is a lot of hassle, and it's something I've never done until this year. But it does seem to be worth it, even if it;s only because i know my blokcs of annual leave already this time, so I can plan my tickets around it. Even then, I don't think there's much difference in my case to be honest.

You are absolutely correct on this point. For simplicity, let's say that the season ticket is not going to be used for 5 weeks of the year (30 days holiday plus some extra days). With no travel on weekends, the ticket is used for 47 * 5 = 235 days per year. That means a £4000 season ticket would cost £17 per day. A dumb /364 calculation would show the cost as just over £10, which is getting close to half the price!

I've never needed to use a season ticket, but I imagine that anyone with a few brains would take days off into consideration. Of course if you're a crank then having a season ticket might be equally useful on your days off!

I've used a season ticket for years, and in my case it is ridiculoulsy cheap, which is probably why I think the discounts, in many cases, are far too high.

My annual season, if I bought one today would be £592. Say I don't include 35 days for leave and bank holidays, and take out 104 days for weekends. That leaves 226 or 227 days of use, which works out as around £2.10 a day.

If I had bought an annual to start on 1 Jan, it would have cost £2.00 per day exactly based on the above figures. This compares with a current day return of £5.10. So I am paying a lot less than half the daily fare, even allowing for time off.

In my case it is even better value, because I do use the ticket on days I am not working, when I might go to Swansea for a drink, some shopping, the cinema or a meal out. It also saves me roughly £4.00 if I go to Cardiff. I also occasionally use it twice in a day, when I return home from work and go out again!

Chiltern do (or did) a Carnet ticket which was a book of anytime returns at a reduced price (12 for the price of 10 IIRC). I think other TOCs have similar schemes.

Rewarding passengers for taking quieter trains is already done with advance fares, so if we want to encourage flexible hours then the fare system you mentioned could be very helpful in this.

Carnet tickets are very good, but it's interesting how they don;t offer the same level of discount as the vast majority of season tickets do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All I am saying is that the season ticket isn't as good as it seems, so commuters that shell out a lot of money (I doubt many have their employer paying either) shouldn't be shot down. I assume you would also say that these people didn't HAVE to buy a season ticket, or travel at all, if they find it uncomfortable (at least in cases where it's not as simple as waiting for another train a few minutes behind, which is their fault!).

I think that my season is even better value than it appears! I accept that in the former NSE area fares are a lot higher, but that also applies to the daily tickets.

Maybe I am just an extremely rare example of a happy commuter!

 

[jon0844]

Besides the cost, I was a pretty happy commuter too! I am sure there are actually a lot of people who don't have much cause to complain.

In fact, my problems came down to poor information provision when things went wrong and one certain RPI!!

No complaints about getting a seat (or not getting one), the state of the rolling stock etc.

 

[northwichcat]

I accept that in the former NSE area fares are a lot higher, but that also applies to the daily tickets.

It depends what journey you're making when you compare NSE to the rest of the UK. For season tickets and regulated fares the NSE area is higher on average but for a lot of non-London journeys it's similar to a non-PTE fare on most non-NSE routes.

NSE journeys generally have off-peak singles, while some areas like the Northern area don't meaning if you're making a single journey at off-peak times in the NSE area your fare is cheap in comparison to other parts of the country - although I accept the people making these journeys aren't the ones complaining about high fares.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you want objective reporting The Telegraph, FT and Economist are the best places by far.

You missed off The Independent. It's as neutral as The Telegraph is but isn't inclined to the right.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You missed off The Independent. It's as neutral as The Telegraph is but isn't inclined to the right.

Never in a million year is the Independent neutral, it's a Left as the Guardian in parts.

 

[northwichcat]

Never in a million year is the Independent neutral, it's a Left as the Guardian in parts.

I didn't say it was neutral - I said it was as neutral as the right wing pro-Conservative Telegraph.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I didn't say it was neutral - I said it was as neutral as the right wing pro-Conservative Telegraph.

I would put the Telegraph in the same bracket as the Times - Rightist, but nowhere near as far over as the Independent is to the Left.

 

[swt_passenger]

NSE journeys generally have off-peak singles...

Not so - they are subject to a similar (but not exactly the same) sort of minimum distance rule to offpeak returns. There was a thread started a couple of days ago about this:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57941

On the SWML out of Waterloo I believe they are not available as far as Farnborough - so around 35 miles...

 

[northwichcat]

Not so - they are subject to a similar (but not exactly the same) sort of minimum distance rule to offpeak returns. There was a thread started a couple of days ago about this:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57941

I was meaning on almost every local journey in the North of England that has an Off Peak Day Return ticket, the cheapest available single is an Anytime Day Single, whether the distance is 3 miles, 10 miles, 25 miles or 35 miles.

 

[Flamingo]

I was being ranted at by a passenger (not a season-ticket holder, so I guess not a regular commuter) yesterday, on a busy train from Reading. He sounded like a Daily mail headline writer (6%, never get a seat, profiteering TOC, renationalise the railways, blah blah blah), and then came out with the total beauty;

"...and anyway, what is the money being spent on - I cant see a single thing for it!"

Given that Reading station is the largest project ongoing in the system, and has been a building site with trains running through it for well over a year now, I just wonder what exactly do we have to do for some people :roll:.

When advised to write to customer services if he felt that strongly, he said that there was no point, and seemed quite annoyed when I told him his letter would be acknowledged and considered by Passenger Focus, but complaining to me about it was definitely a waste of his time as it would not go any further.