I see it is all so clear to me now:
Oh dear, a predictable response which singularly fails to see the wood for the trees.
Once again we have the idea expressed that unless everything improves – nothing has improved. It’s an idea that holds no water with any realist.
It’s also worthy of note the way that people will produce all sorts of spurious assertions without the slightest shred of evidence (and totally fail to produce it when challenged – hence no end of BR punctuality figures have ever materialised) – yet at the same time they will try and mealy-mouth the excellent research done by Passenger Focus – because it shows their views to be without substance.
Passenger Focus research is extremely well respected across the rail industry (and beyond). It’s the most authorative source of information on passenger’s views and trends. But it’s not the only research the railways relay on. All the TOCs commission their own research too (as does the DfT). There’s now a far far greater understanding of passenger needs and trends than there has ever been.
But sometimes this conflicts with enthusiasts ‘common knowledge’ or own personal experiences. Sadly, there’s a chauvinistic attitude on display sometimes which is to say – obviously all that research is wrong! – I’m not out of step with everybody else – they’re out of step with me!
Of course, the pragmatist will say ‘hmm, that’s interesting, maybe I’m missing something and in fact, all that research is right?’
Another blind side on display here is to ignore the majority view. Any reasonable person would accept the fact that, as the old saying goes) ‘you can’t please all of the people all of the time’ So, the pragmatic thing to do is try and please the majority.
This is exactly what the railways have been trying to do.
Complaints have been made here that the railways have got worse because some regional services have allegedly got worse (in in some cases they genuinely have).
So let’s look at the bigger picture. It’s an inconvertible truth that the majority of passenger journeys begin and end in London (70% in fact). Bearing this in mind it’s hardly surprising that timetable like the new WCML one favours trips to and from the capital rather than town to town. DfT rather than Virgin specified the timetable. Virgin may have done things differently but part of the DfT logic is that when you’ve spent all that money on modernising the line you have to be able to justify it with higher speeds. I have some sympathy with that view. And as others have pointed out, new LM services have been introduced to replace some of the town to town journeys which would have been made by Virgin before.
Another complaint is that Cross-country services have been cut back. But there’s no analysis of why this might be.
So let’s provide some.
Services like Liverpool – Stansted and Aberdeen-Penzance are operating nightmares. They pass through so many choke points that timekeeping is a real hostage to fortune. And how many people actually travel end to end on these trains? The reality is very few. There’s been a lot of research into XC by the DfT which established that the average length of journey on XC was 81 miles. Here’s the detail:
“There were around 20 million journeys on Virgin Cross Country (VXC) during 2005/6. The average journey was 81 miles, with c.50% of journeys at < 50 miles (c. 9.8 million passengers), c. 20% between 50-100 miles (c. 4.2 million passengers) and 20% of journey between 100-200 miles (c. 4 million passengers). Around 10% of the journeys are over 200 miles. Over the last 5 years, average journey length has decreased by 20 miles, suggesting there are fewer very long distance journeys with more short to
medium distance travellers.”
(Source: )
http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/news-and-publications/document-search/document.asp?dsid=863
So, why run long distance cross country services where passengers change repeatedly anyway and where delays are almost inevitable?
Perhaps instead of saying ‘but we’ve always done this’ we should be willing to learn from others.
Japanese railways are amongst the most punctual in the world. The reason for this is that they run point to point. They wouldn’t dream of running long rambling services because of the potential for late running. Instead they make sure connections work. This is something we’re finally learning. (despite what is alleged about connections never being held). Sadly there’s sometimes chauvinism from UK enthusiast who seem to think that because we invented the railways we have nothing to learn from anyone else.
Now, on to timekeeping and the complaint that some services have been slowed down, it’s absolutely true.
But here’s why. For years passengers have set out their top ten priorities for the railway they want. Punctuality and reliability are always in the top five (IIRC they are the top two). So, why run a timetable which isn’t reliable, but is based on one that’s been run for years?
SWT demonstrated how to do it. They redrew their timetable. It meant that some journeys took a few minutes longer, but the timetable was robust, reliable and deliverable. And passengers loved it. They didn’t care that it was a few minutes slower (after all, what’s the point of a faster time that you can’t deliver reliably).
Now, if these sort of initiative weren’t to passengers liking (along with the new trains, station improvements, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all) you would expect this to show in the Passenger Focus surveys. Now remember that they survey 10s of thousands of people every time (four times a year) – and they’re not the same people each time. The data goes back 11 years and allows a trend to be seen. Of course there’s individual blips (cock-ups on the WCML and leaf-fall or snow are great examples) but the statistical trend is firmly in one direction: UP.
Which is what seems to get the goat of some who want to believe that nothing is better, hence some of the dodgy assumptions and unwillingness to believe the evidence.
Of course, no-one (least of all me) is claiming that everything in the garden is rosy. Fares are certainly an issue and one of the biggest causes for complaint. But that’s an issue beyond the railways. It’s a political one. Everyone wants better railways, more trains, more investment and more reliability. But no-one wants to pay for it – either through taxes or the farebox. But someone has to...
Other EU countries citizens are more pragmatic and recognise this conundrum, so don’t complain about paying higher taxes and getting cheaper rail fares in return. Sadly, in this country, we want our cake and eat it.
I see its claimed that the railways can’t be doing well because “46% that dared in the Autumn 2008 beloved passenger focus survey to say they felt that their (sic) ticket wasn't value for money” It’s a classic negative quote of the glass half empty kind, because anyone can instantly spot that it means that 54% didn’t think the value for money was bad. In other words, the real majority!
It’s also another stunning example of a sound bite. That PF survey is an in depth analysis of passenger feeling. To try and reduce it to sound bites like that is not only silly; it really insults people’s intelligence. I suspect most people on here appreciate that nothing is that simple.
Sadly, some want to reduce what goes on in what is a remarkably complex industry (and all the social and political issues involved) into such black and white argument.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A Pendo is an improvement on a badly maintained mk2 which is what I meant. Whether a pendo is an improvement on a well maintained and well refurbished mk2 is open to debate. I would be interested as you are in Scotland if you have had any views if people prefer the mk2's over the 170's on the single fife circle train. I guess they like the extra seats, but may not be as keen about the longer dwell times.
Open to debate?
Only in your mind...
WC passengers have already voiced their opinions (yes, I know you can't bear that thought because the view expressed contradicts yours
).
Let's look at some of the reasons why.
Mk2s were a bit crap really (ask anyone who has had to look after them now that they're old). They're far noisier than a Pendolino, with far less reliable a/c and they're poorer riding. They're also slower and less reliable due to being loco hauled (MPC figures).
So try asking that question of passengers: Would you prefer an older, slower more noisy train with a poorer ride that is less relaible - or would you prefer a Pendolino?
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out what the reply would be...
I wish we did have 6 trains per hour, one train every 2 hours would be a dream. 
