How bad is TfL Rail?

[cactustwirly]

How much faster though? Would probably depend how much Crossrail empties out at Paddington, otherwise you might be better getting a seat at Maidenhead all the way through.

20 minutes or so if you're on the fast service.
Don't forget that most XR services will start at Paddington anyway

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is why I don't get the complaints about the standard of trains on here. Everyone doing a longish journey will have a choice of doing part of the journey on a more comfortable train with toilets and the cross-london element by Crossrail or tube, or getting a direct train that isn't currently a possibility. Everyone wins!

It's not dissimilar to where you have a bus route following a railway line - provided ticketing doesn't muck with that (which in London it doesn't really), you can choose if you prefer a slower, less comfortable but direct journey or a quicker, more comfortable connectional one.

 

[cactustwirly]

This is why I don't get the complaints about the standard of trains on here. Everyone doing a longish journey will have a choice of doing part of the journey on a more comfortable train with toilets and the cross-london element by Crossrail or tube, or getting a direct train that isn't currently a possibility. Everyone wins!

Don't forget I was talking about peak services, off peak and weekends are a different kettle of fish

 

[py_megapixel]

This is why I don't get the complaints about the standard of trains on here. Everyone doing a longish journey will have a choice of doing part of the journey on a more comfortable train with toilets and the cross-london element by Crossrail or tube, or getting a direct train that isn't currently a possibility. Everyone wins!

With the high frequencies there's also the option of getting off somewhere to use the toilet and getting the next train.

Though I'd prefer to have toilets, I think they were probably justified in forgoing them.

 

[cactustwirly]

With the high frequencies there's also the option of getting off somewhere to use the toilet and getting the next train.

Though I'd prefer to have toilets, I think they were probably justified in forgoing them.

It's not high frequency though so this isn't an option beyond Hayes and Harrington

 

[BayPaul]

It's not high frequency though so this isn't an option beyond Hayes and Harrington

Its only about 20 minutes from Maidenhead to Hayes &H though. For most people, it shouldn't be too impractical to 'cross their legs' for say 10 minutes (assuming they didn't need to go when they boarded), get off to go in H&H, and then board the next train.

 

[Non Multi]

This is why I don't get the complaints about the standard of trains on here. Everyone doing a longish journey will have a choice of doing part of the journey on a more comfortable train with toilets and the cross-london element by Crossrail or tube, or getting a direct train that isn't currently a possibility. Everyone wins!

It's Hobson's choice if you're at a station with only* the TfL Rail services calling.

*Where I am there's 2 late night and 2 early morning GWR services, and I think 1 westbound GWR peak call at Burnham.

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes I don't see how anyone could not think that?
I don't see many people using Crossrail from Maidenhead though, as it would be much faster to get GWR to Paddington and then change there.

People won't change at Paddington for services to Canary wharf from Maidenhead as the interchange penalty would be too great to make it a time saving. Where they will change however is Old Oak common when it's built.

 

[cactustwirly]

People won't change at Paddington for services to Canary wharf from Maidenhead as the interchange penalty would be too great to make it a time saving. Where they will change however is Old Oak common when it's built.

So it takes over 20 minutes to change at Paddington then?

 

[matt_world2004]

So it takes over 20 minutes to change at Paddington then?

Depends if the 10 minute interchange at Paddington is worth the inconvenience if your in a rush maybe but if your not your going to rather stay on the same train at old oak it's going to be a much shorter interchange.

 

[Starmill]

With the high frequencies there's also the option of getting off somewhere to use the toilet and getting the next train.

Though I'd prefer to have toilets, I think they were probably justified in forgoing them.

I'm not sure anyone argued for onboard toilets either. I think the tension results from the transfer of a very significant number of services which are run a notable distance outwith the boundary of Greater London, and the very high prices.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

Or perhaps you are forgetting that, as someone 100s of miles away in Yorkshire, you are just guessing what Amersham is like.

And perhaps those mentioning Amersham (like me) are doing so because they are very familiar with it and not just because it's part of TfL's empire a similar distance from Central London as Maidenhead and so a very apt equivalent to discuss when talking about TfL serving Maidenhead.

I think your attitude is pretty foul.

 

[Horizon22]

The control decisions that TfL/MTR make in the West are not great; very short notice changes and skipping stops and then issues with drivers. Now some of this is out of their hands due to an infrastructure problem anywhere between say Paddington and Slough - the first things to get binned are the Hayes shuttles. However 345s have an appalling fault rate (wonder what the MTIN is?) of GSMR faults, door issues - you name it which isn't helping. The turnarounds at Paddington for T4 (currently T5 services) also lead to problems as they are very tight.

Of course this has all been somewhat shoehorned in considering the delays to Crossrail and we can expect probably another 2 years of this. Hopefully the decision-making gets better. I guess as others have stated its most akin to a hybrid between the Met Line and Thameslink although TfL are insistent (in marketing at least) that it should run like a Tube, which it categorically isn't. I feel for some of the commuters in Berkshire who are putting up with something more unreliable and will rarely (if ever) see a 387 now.

 

[matt_world2004]

Even if the service to Paddington remained with gwR the peak loadings predicted before covid of 5 passengers per square metre on a 9 car class 345 between West Drayton and old oak common would have made providing toilets nearly impossible.

The loading density in the core is actually less than it would have been in the west

 

[Horizon22]

People won't change at Paddington for services to Canary wharf from Maidenhead as the interchange penalty would be too great to make it a time saving. Where they will change however is Old Oak common when it's built.

That's some way off - although the late Crossrail gets the sooner it gets! - but the entrance at the Southern side will allow pretty quick easy access off an IET. Although that probably only helps Slough not Maidenhead which doesn't have any usual long-distance calls (and probably has the most raw deal).

 

[Starmill]

Yup. Now the outer suburban tail is whinging that it can't wag the metro service dog...

Perhaps it ought not to have evolved into serving that sort of market significantly, then, without making any concessions to the needs of the new travellers it needed to add... It wasn't originally planned to!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

Re your last para, in an ideal world l'd agree. However, the London taxpayers (who l am one of) who are funding Crossrail in various ways are focused on services in and benefitting London, not the wider South East.

And yet over the development of the service, they've insisted on expansion of operations well outside the Greater London boundary.

 

[Horizon22]

Regarding Many TfL west station this census data (although now 10 years out of date) is very useful: https://commute.datashine.org.uk/

Maidenhead for instance has practically 0 going beyond the City. So lets say Liverpool St which should be a ~45min direct journey. Not unreasonable in metro terms but probably at the edge of what a commuter would want to take as an all stops service.

A fast GWR service (20 min) + change at Paddington (~10 min) + Crossrail to Liverpool St (10 min) is about the same time. Then the time-penalty of interchange is also included.

 

[si404]

I think your attitude is pretty foul.

Sorry, I tried to swallow the disgusting arrogance that I was addressing, but I couldn't, and ended up spitting that foul attitude right back where it came from.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

But Canary Wharf is (was!) a huge employment centre - why wouldn’t large numbers be commuting from Maidenhead way, and why wouldn’t that increase as those working in London now see the Wharf as easier to get to and therefore add it to places they are willing to work?

Oh sure, Maidenhead commuting to Central London and Docklands will increase, but Canary Wharf will always be a small percentage of Maidenhead traffic, and Maidenhead a tiny proportion of Canary Wharf traffic.

From the London 'how many people do your commute' stuff, Amersham (chosen as the closest tube station match to Maidenhead*, though obviously it's far from perfect) sees 1840 people going to zone 1 each day (using every Z1 station and adding them together, having 'fewer than 10' as an average of 5) and just 63 Amersham-Canary Wharf. A decent single station showing (joint 9th with KSXP), but small fry in the big picture - 3.4% of Z1's total from Amersham (which is barely over a full train in total).

St Pauls (which is guaranteed two changes and not that long a walk from Farringdon/Barbican) sees 85 travellers from Amersham/day (surprisingly, only Baker Street's 90 and Piccadilly Circus' 98 beat it!). That Canary Wharf is a (cross-platform) change from Amersham is pretty irrelevant here, judging by that.

*distance, journey time, frequency, not being in London's TTWA, so not as much commuting as one might think, etc, etc...

 

[Starmill]

Sorry, I tried to swallow the disgusting arrogance that I was addressing, but I couldn't, and ended up spitting that foul attitude right back where it came from.

Your claim was that Metropolitan line services were slightly more popular, in response to a point that 'many', which is generally understood to mean a significant proportion but not a majority, users of Amersham take Chiltern Railways services. I don't see a factual gap between the points, although I do note that there wasn't any mention from you of Chiltern until it was pointed out.

What's the point of discussion if you label someone you don't know as disgustingly arrogant in that circumstance?

 

[matt_world2004]

That's some way off - although the late Crossrail gets the sooner it gets! - but the entrance at the Southern side will allow pretty quick easy access off an IET. Although that probably only helps Slough not Maidenhead which doesn't have any usual long-distance calls (and probably has the most raw deal).

It's currently four years behind the launch of Crossrail. TfL rail will have ran into paddington mainline for a longer amount of time than it would serve paddington deep level without serving old oak common.

 

[Acton1991]

I find from my experience that those stations managed by GWR out west are receiving a lower level of customer services vs those managed by TfL.

For example, lack of hand sanitiser, difficult to find customer service staff throughout the day, lack of signage / information or any level of 'sprucing up' that the TfL managed stations have seen.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

And yet over the development of the service, they've insisted on expansion of operations well outside the Greater London boundary.

Hold on! The Mayor and/or TfL may have insisted on expanding to outside Greater London but London Council Tax payers have not!

 

[si404]

I don't see a factual gap between the points

The issue that provoked the 'foul attitude' wasn't the factual point (though it is wrong, and I would have been able to explain better why it was wrong had I not been distracted by the attitude of the post), but the superior and dismissive attitude of "Also those mentioning Amersham to London are forgetting <the irrelevant non sequitur of Chiltern trains>" that left a very foul taste in my mouth that I couldn't swallow and had to spit out.

Only I had mentioned Amersham - so why not mention me by name, or quote my post, or actually engage with what I said? Because this wasn't about the points I had made - other than to sweepingly rule them irrelevant them by ad hominem. It was an attack on me, on an irrelevant point, so as to be able to declare my inferiority and dismiss my points without engaging with them.

I hadn't forgotten Chiltern, just didn't feel the need to mention these trains that I use often and hear most nights - because it was totally and utterly irrelevant to the points being discussed.

I do note that there wasn't any mention from you of Chiltern until it was pointed out.

Given it was only brought up as a non sequitur to poison the well, why would I have brought up this irrelevant thing?

Even without GWR provides a similar service to Maidenhead (which I had mentioned at that point, because you didn't know it existed) that is even better in the peak than Chiltern's offering to Amersham vs the Met's, it's totally irrelevant as the journey I mentioned (Amersham-KXSP) is a journey where people will use the Met, not Chiltern.

What's the point of discussion if you label someone you don't know as disgustingly arrogant in that circumstance?

What's the point of discussion if, instead of discussing the points you've made, you get smeared as ignorant in order to avoid discussing the points you've made?

Hold on! The Mayor and/or TfL may have insisted on expanding to outside Greater London but London Council Tax payers have not!

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...

 

[Alteran Ancient]

One of my main criticisms of TfL Rail and this also applies to London Overground, is how they handle incidents and disruptions to service. Handling disruptions tends to be different per TOC, but for the most part, they usually try to run some kind of contingency or reduced service and cope with it as best as they can - things like diverting onto other lines, additional stops on other services, etc.

But from my experience, this doesn't seem to be how TfL Rail operates. As soon as something bad happens: No service. They slam the brakes on everything and don't even attempt to run a contingency or try to get people moving. This is more or less how the Underground operates, and it's one page from the Underground rule book that I wish they hadn't copied.

TfL seems to enjoy the "IKEA halo" effect - people inexplicably associate the brand with some kind of upgrade or benefit to service. I don't share this association.

 

[JonathanH]

But from my experience, this doesn't seem to be how TfL Rail operates. As soon as something bad happens: No service. They slam the brakes on everything and don't even attempt to run a contingency or try to get people moving. This is more or less how the Underground operates, and it's one page from the Underground rule book that I wish they hadn't copied.

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.

 

[matt_world2004]

When the core is opened service recovery will be better as there will be more flexibility with the service pattern. It should also improve with a universal fleet out west as well which will allow flexibility without skip stopping.

 

[saenkazak]

My subjective view is that TfL Rail gets you there but that's it. No 'extras' like on board toilets or friendly helpful staff. (I know stations have booking offices, etc.; I'm talking more an onboard presence).

From my experience TfL Rail do seem to be quite organised when it comes to staffing, much more than their predecessors over at NXEA. My local station is Goodmayes on the eastern section and it's always staffed. To my knowledge all the other stations are too, from first to last train. I've also often had very helpful revenue staff make sure I've got the right ticket from the machines in the past. And I do like their purple uniform(!) I also regularly see revenue teams on board checking oyster cards and a couple times I've seen contractual staff conducting surveys on board too.

 

[jumble]

Yes. This. And your analysis is rather good as to what those circumstances are.

As a further point, I would suggest that the Mets would be more popular off-peak than they are (as they were the first year of stopping everywhere) if there wasn't the 4 years of them getting overtaken by the following Chiltern training people to ignore the Met off-peak.

And I'm trying to think the last time I've seen someone use a toilet on a Turbo when travelling Amersham-Marylebone - which was the initial reason for Amersham/Chesham being brought in to this discussion: that these longer journeys than those involving Maidenhead have loos at stations but not on trains and no one bats an eyelid.
Only 2tph (the other 2tph are semi-fast, ie they skip 2 stops rather than the 6 that the fast trains skip). But the Chilterns have 2tph normal (I think some skip Rickmansworth as they are too long), and 2tph non-stop - the latter meaning the time differential over the Met is about the same as off-peak.

I know someone who commutes on the Met semi-fast both ways, to get to the Baker Street/Marylebone area. He chooses the slowest train as he can always get a good seat due to people not wanting it that badly at Amersham, and it starting in the evening from Baker Street. He could take a Chiltern back, but there's more competition for seats and it really isn't that long.

The number of skipped stations on fast and semi fast depends on if the Met is going north or south
( Wembley park is timetabled to not stop southbound but does northbound)
There are some Chilterns that are non stop Amersham to Marylebone taking as little as 32 minutes
As an aside northbound Harrow on the Hill non stoppers in the morning peak are labelled semi fast which does not make sense

 

[Deepgreen]

The thread title is leading the witness(es) m'lud.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Aug 2020 ==

The number of skipped stations on fast and semi fast depends on if the Met is going north or south
( Wembley park is timetabled to not stop southbound but does northbound)
There are some Chilterns that are non stop Amersham to Marylebone taking as little as 32 minutes
As an aside northbound Harrow on the Hill non stoppers in the morning peak are labelled semi fast which does not make sense

Well, if a train misses some stops made by others on the same route, "semi-fast" is not that bad a label!

 

[yorkie]

There's also, from beyond-zone 6, residual London terminals fares to Paddington that are cheaper than Z1 fares - should they go because they aren't 'tube rates'?

Probably; the cost of Maidenhead to Paddington off peak is £6.60, which is 40p more than "splitting" at West Drayton, so most people won't bother "splitting".

But the fare from Maidenhead to anywhere else in Zone 1 is £8.90, making it £2.70 cheaper to "split".

Or perhaps you are forgetting that, as someone 100s of miles away in Yorkshire, you are just guessing what Amersham is like.

Or perhaps I was brought up in Metroland and perhaps last month I met a group of other forum members in Amersham?

And perhaps those mentioning Amersham (like me) are doing so because they are very familiar with it and not just because it's part of TfL's empire a similar distance from Central London as Maidenhead and so a very apt equivalent to discuss when talking about TfL serving Maidenhead.

But Amersham is very much an outlier; it's not a justification for giving Maidenhead trains that are not suitable for a journey of that length into London.

Overall, at Amersham, the Met is slightly more popular...

I agree with @bramling's response to this, and to demonstrate this, I will point out that most of the members travelling from central London were keen to take Chiltern rather than the Met.

 

[Kilopylae]

It's not high frequency though so this isn't an option beyond Hayes and Harrington

I swear it's one train every fifteen minutes at peak times? That's pretty high-frequency if you ask me.