Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is that true? Paddington to Reading trains just follow each other in cycle. If one has a problem at a station it may be there for half an hour and blocks the relief line for all the following services so it takes a while for the service to recover.
Where a failure happens at Paddington, the service will usually remain cancelled for a cycle or a spare unit will pick up the return working from Maidenhead. It does result in gaps in the service but I don't think they just close down. Clearly, as pointed out above, Hayes services are the first to be cancelled if there is a track issue but that is probably partly at Network Rail's behest, not TfL Rail.
GWR never had as many issues even though they ran a more complex timetable.
Communication is very poor as well, as there is no journey check facility and the website just says "good service"
TfL Rail do not give delay compensation for infrastructure faults either which is very poor
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
FWIW I do think they should either be running a proper turn-up-and-go service all the way out to Reading or they should provide facilities comparable to what you get on (say) the SWR lines into south-east London, which would include toilets. Pick a lane: either Maidenhead, Reading et al are integrated enough with London they get a turn-up-and-go TfL service, or they're not and what you're running here is an outer suburban commuter rail service, which should have facilities like toilets and comfortable medium-distance seating.
I'm sure the London Council Taxpayers would very much enjoy the additional fare revenue from those places outside London that will bring in more than having the services head that far west costs...
Have you travelled on one of these trains? The facing bay seating is perfectly comfortable, it's the same seat as used on many a suburban EMU (though it's not an ironing board).
Have you travelled on one of these trains? The facing bay seating is perfectly comfortable, it's the same seat as used on many a suburban EMU (though it's not an ironing board).
It is, but the 387 isn't a suburban unit in terms of the interior (GWR customers are rather lucky in that regard), it has a regional express interior which is in many ways superior to the 80x. For suburban units, compare it to a 165 or say a 350/2.
It is, but the 387 isn't a suburban unit in terms of the interior (GWR customers are rather lucky in that regard), it has a regional express interior which is in many ways superior to the 80x. For suburban units, compare it to a 165.
Have you travelled on one of these trains? The facing bay seating is perfectly comfortable, it's the same seat as used on many a suburban EMU (though it's not an ironing board).
Imo it compares unfavourably to 158/9s, 700s and 458s, to give three suburban examples. It's a shame because they look great from the outside (both livery and design).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Imo it compares unfavourably to 158/9s, 700s and 458s, to give three suburban examples. It's a shame because they look great from the outside (both livery and design).
158s and 159s are regional express DMUs, not suburban units. 700s are comparable, but other than the lack of toilets I'd take the 345 layout over the cramped 700 layout. 458s are in their current form fitted with a medium-long distance 2+2 interior, but I'd certainly take a 345 over the original 3+2 layout, or indeed any other 3+2 layout.
Yes because 165s have padding, a decent amount of seats and the ride quality is very smooth, and doesn't crash over bumps and break your spine like a 345.
Plus I'd rather have 2+3 than a tube style bench.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
FWIW I do think they should either be running a proper turn-up-and-go service all the way out to Reading or they should provide facilities comparable to what you get on (say) the SWR lines into south-east London, which would include toilets.
Yes because 165s have padding, a decent amount of seats and the ride quality is very smooth, and doesn't crash over bumps and break your spine like a 345.
Plus I'd rather have 2+3 than a tube style bench.
It would be interesting to know whether passengers travelling on the 2227 London Paddington to Reading stopping service (Covid-19 timetable) appreciate the opportunity to travel on a 2-car 165 rather than a 345 / 387. I would assume that most would prefer a 345.
Yes because 165s have padding, a decent amount of seats and the ride quality is very smooth, and doesn't crash over bumps and break your spine like a 345.
Plus I'd rather have 2+3 than a tube style bench.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We nearly had the 365s! My favourite rail journey was on one doing the Cambridge - Kings Cross express. Smashing units, IMO. GWR obviously didn't want a mixed fleet of incompatible units and the complexity of training drivers for 319s, 365s and 387s.
It would be interesting to know whether passengers travelling on the 2227 London Paddington to Reading stopping service (Covid-19 timetable) appreciate the opportunity to travel on a 2-car 165 rather than a 345 / 387. I would assume that most would prefer a 345.
I did this journey last week and was so surprised to see a 2 car sat at Paddington. It was rammed! Not the best experience in the world. Would have taken a 345 any day of the week.
Neither did the 306s that preceded them with no gangways between carriages or the closed compartment stock before that. You'd have a guard - indeed the 315s have a guard's compartment at each end - but that would be it.
FWIW I think the 345s should have been specced with a toilet or two. But a lack of toilets is not unusual on suburban stock in London- the 313s and 315s didn't have loos, the 455s don't have them, and nor do the more modern 376s.
GWR never had as many issues even though they ran a more complex timetable.
Communication is very poor as well, as there is no journey check facility and the website just says "good service"
TfL Rail do not give delay compensation for infrastructure faults either which is very poor
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
TfLs response to disruption is not great either and I will take this as a fairly new team managing the service. That TfL don't pay out for an infrastructure fault whereas GWR and would depend on you getting compensation if you got on the "wrong" train at somewhere like Hayes is a considerable anomaly that should be rectified. Again TfL Rail like to take the convenient bits of the underground & shun the inconvenient bits of running on Network Rail infrastructure.
I did this journey last week and was so surprised to see a 2 car sat at Paddington. It was rammed! Not the best experience in the world. Would have taken a 345 any day of the week.
Its the return set from the Greenford branch heading back to Reading for the depot. Could run it empty, but also an additional service.
Same with the 0354 service from Reading to Paddington!
I did this journey last week and was so surprised to see a 2 car sat at Paddington. It was rammed! Not the best experience in the world. Would have taken a 345 any day of the week.
I used to get the 22:21 from Paddington to Twyford which was also only 2 cars. It was busy yes, but only until Slough which was only 15 minutes. Much better than a long slog on a stopping 387 tbh.
The 165s are gradually moving West, I believe, to replace withdrawn Pacers. With the line fully live to Cardiff, you don't need diesels on any of that route.
The 165s are gradually moving West, I believe, to replace withdrawn Pacers. With the line fully live to Cardiff, you don't need diesels on any of that route.
The Greenford branch (as well as Marlow and Windsor) will have the 165s for the foreseeable future, including the 2227 from Paddington as it's basically an ECS to get the unit from Greenford to the depot at Reading.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Today there was a possession on the relief lines between Ealing and Paddington, so TfL Rail terminated their services at Ealing Broadway.
The only information was to use "local buses" or the underground without specifying which ones or anything about ticket acceptance.
In the past when this has occurred, GWR would run services through to Paddington on the fast lines, so stations such as Hayes, Iver, Langley still had direct services to Paddington, although at a slightly reduced frequency.
Or at least provide ticket acceptance on alternative services and give clearer information.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
