To make it clear, my proposal is not to schedule trains not to call at Reading - I can see in fact that they should probably all call there. My proposal is to bar those travelling to/from Reading to/from Paddington (or connections via Reading) from using them by way of u/s restrictions, and providing a superior replacement (because of the higher chance of a seat) dedicated to their needs.
I don't understand why people object to this. I can understand infrastructure and rolling-stock-related objections (infrastructure and rolling-stock can be modified if it is cost-effective to do so), but it almost seems that Reading commuters will only be satisfied with an HST (or 800) with a seat, which they simply aren't going to be getting. Surely my proposal of a seat on an EMU is vastly superior.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
All the more reason to get Reading commuters off them onto a dedicated service more suited to their needs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think it will become commercially non-viable when Crossrail is a superior option for the vast majority of passengers, so will go away of its own volition. And there is no excuse to subsidise it, as Crossrail will be better use of the money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't at present but I have done (primarily against the flow). There are also enough people posting things to various bits of the Internet to see what is going on.
So some of the proposed EMUs would have to call there too. My proposal is for a 12-car EMU fast service that replaces all use of IC services east of Reading. So it would have to replace that as well.
I'm not clear where you think I'm proposing it using current rolling stock?
Nobody has yet explained why Reading is different from MK specifically in the context of the demand for travel between there and Paddington. In that context it is very similar. Other demand is not really relevant to the discussion.
How does that differ from the present HST service? Someone has identified one service that doesn't call at Reading but does call at those stations. Only one? How couldn't an EMU do that instead? Indeed, the service concerned basically *is* a dedicated one, so is part of my proposal in a way. That it presently uses an HST is neither here nor there.
FWIW MK actually has a larger commuter inflow than outflow (and the outflow is huge), though it is mostly by car. But the only flow that I am proposing to change is the commuter/local one. Other flows are not relevant.
Again of limited relevance, and the EMUs will serve people who want to do Padd-Reading-somewhere else.
Have you noticed the slight difference in the way the London termini are set out - it's quite easy to enforce ticket restrictions at Euston, as the platforms are accessed in pairs by ramps - a rather different matter from Paddington - or are you planning on putting up miles of fences to make each platform there a little compound all of its own? And I'd love to know what your plan for platform 1 at Paddington is... ticket inspectors posted at every train door, perhaps? That'll be cheap.
Why is it that people who don't live in the area or use these services are so obsessed with draconian measures against Reading commuters, who have no other option but to use HSTs at the moment, as that is the service on offer and the only high-capacity stock GWR possesses? Until the new GWR timetables are unveiled and the new rolling stock is in place we won't have a clear idea of what they propose to do anyway.
I have posted here far too many times to remember every time that the supposed Reading commuter 'problem' comes up saying that I am quite sure GWR will attempt to segregate the flows between Reading and London and on the longer-distance services
as best it can once electrification is in place - as it will then have the rolling stock available to do something, such as to offer fast/limited-stop 387s principally targeted at Reading passengers (but starting further west at Didcot and Newbury) with lots of seats available.
So please don't try to make out this is somehow 'your' idea. Even someone at GWR might have thought of something similar...
But.
I simply do not see the need for all these pick up/set down restrictions to keep Reading passengers off expresses that you, and others, seem obsessed with.
Reading passengers' key demand, for years, has been to have a seat. What type of train that seat is on is rather less of an issue - if it's a 387 doing the run reliably in 30 minutes, I suspect the overwhelming majority would be happy, but I don't see any need to get all heavy-handed and bar them from other services and tell them to wait for 15 minutes while two or three expresses with empty seats available set off towards London or towards Reading.
The DfT (and the local MPs) won't wear GWR barring passengers from IETs if this results in them running empty seats up and down between Paddington and Reading and produces overcrowded Class 387 services instead. The 800s have to be paid for and that is going to be done by filling as many of their seats for as much of the time as possible.
If there is room for 200 Maidenhead and Reading commuters to fit on the 17.49 to Worcester Shrub Hill, along with Oxford and Cotswold passengers, then what precisely is wrong with continuing to use those seats for that purpose once an IET replaces an HST? Or should long-distance passengers automatically be entitled to set up camp in a pair of seats, even if they have only paid for one? Remove those 200 Thames Valley passengers from that service and they have to be put on another train, which could well require another path, etc, etc.
What's different between Reading and MK? Oh, I don't know, how about the fact that lots of Virgin's long-distance services already sail straight past MK going flat out, which is quite a good way of segregating traffic - as opposed to the need for pretty much everything GWR runs to call at Reading for reasons already outlined above - and even if there are some more non-stops in future, there won't be that many, largely the third Bristol service per hour as far as I understand it.
