Reading commuters: should more long distance GWR trains skip this station?

[HowardGWR]

Fortunately, the ONS has published commuter flow stats for Reading using 2011 Census data:
Follow this link and enter Reading as the local authority and Train as the travel mode:-
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/wu03uk/chart

That's very helpful, thanks, although not for how many are from other than Thames Valley (if you can count Swindon as TV nowadays!). It is the quantities of those from further west who may be changing at and arriving-at/departing-from Reading that could add light to the discussion. Thus is meant, those who would appreciate the u/s service to which Bletcheyite refers.

I am the sort of person who, once seated on the Lizzie at Canary Wharf or Bank, would not dream for a moment of getting out to change at Pad, as I would be busy with my nose in my tablet until we reached Reading.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I didn't realise that some new timetable South Wales trains would not stop at Reading, in addition to the two Bristols per hour, so all that's left to consider are the two Cotswold lines and the Westbury line. Perhaps they should have one of theirs be non-stop.

Certainly not the north or south Cotswold lines, each of which have a broadly hourly service (albeit with some North Cotswold extras in the peaks). A lot of people live in the Cotswolds and commute to Reading for work - I know several! - and reducing their service frequency to 1p2h would not be sensible. Skipping Reading on some Bristol services is much more sensible given the frequency of 4 trains per hour (2 via Parkway, 2 via Bath).

 

[HowardGWR]

Certainly not the north or south Cotswold lines, each of which have a broadly hourly service (albeit with some North Cotswold extras in the peaks). A lot of people live in the Cotswolds and commute to Reading for work - I know several! - and reducing their service frequency to 1p2h would not be sensible. Skipping Reading on some Bristol services is much more sensible given the frequency of 4 trains per hour (2 via Parkway, 2 via Bath).

Yes that's true and thus that pleads even more for the u/s method (not 'US' hopefully!).

 

[E16 Cyclist]

Well then, if the train refused to reverse back to Reading I would've just pulled it again at Reading West/ Tilehurst!

I love the way you say if like that’s actually a possibility

Also just for your information, new trains aren’t like HST’s and the driver can override the ‘emergency cord’ this is so the train doesn’t stop in a unsuitable place should it need to be evacuated and a flyover is one such place

 

[Peter Mugridge]

And then what? The train would have stopped over the flyover and then continued to Taunton where BTP would be waiting. Yeah great idea....

If it was non-stop to Taunton, wouldn't it go via the Berks and Hants instead of the flyover?

 

[MedwayValiant]

Would a possible solution be for certain peak time trains to call at Theale instead of Reading? If there was a decent connection with a Newbury short, then people travelling west from Reading / east to Reading wouldn't be massively inconvenienced by this, but the Reading to London commuters would not be on the train.

 

[Andrewlong]

Would a possible solution be for certain peak time trains to call at Theale instead of Reading? If there was a decent connection with a Newbury short, then people travelling west from Reading / east to Reading wouldn't be massively inconvenienced by this, but the Reading to London commuters would not be on the train.

Interesting but I can see two problems at least. Trains to Didcot, Swindon etc don't travel via Theale. And what about passengers at Reading who want to travel to the west country. Would you expect them to lug their baggage onto a train at reading to Theale and then again into West Country service?

 

[MedwayValiant]

Theale would be for trains for Taunton and beyond, for trains via Didcot read Pangbourne instead. (I've deliberately avoided Reading West and Tilehurst because they are sufficiently close to central Reading that the commuters might still use them.)

Of course, it wouldn't be ideal for passengers west from Reading (or east to Reading) to have to change trains, but they'd be on the right platform when they arrived at Theale / Pangbourne. It's better than not having the service, or - perhaps even worse - having the service but not being able to get on it.

 

[Richard Hall]

Didn't think Theale was wheelchair friendly and the platform isn't big enough for HSTs without leaving some carriages locked

 

[nickswift99]

Theale would be for trains for Taunton and beyond, for trains via Didcot read Pangbourne instead. (I've deliberately avoided Reading West and Tilehurst because they are sufficiently close to central Reading that the commuters might still use them.)

Of course, it wouldn't be ideal for passengers west from Reading (or east to Reading) to have to change trains, but they'd be on the right platform when they arrived at Theale / Pangbourne. It's better than not having the service, or - perhaps even worse - having the service but not being able to get on it.

Pangbourne doesn't have platforms on the main, only the relief. This would require high speed services to run on the relief all the way to/from Didcot. Like Theale, there's no disable access to all platforms either.

I have to say that I have enjoyed travelling on the 387s this week. When they've been running properly, the timings for the services means that there is little/no advantage changing at Reading in the peak and apart from the ironing board seats, I think they're better than the HSTs not least of which because seat occupancy tends to be lower. If services run fast PAD-RDG rather than stopping at Maidenhead and Twyford then I'd be quite happy just using these services and staying off the IETs.

 

[Bookd]

I believe it was mentioned earlier that Reading has a two way commuter flow.
Occasionally I take an early evening train from Feltham to Waterloo, and I will usually choose one that started from Windsor or Weybridge as I have a chance of a seat - those ex Reading are always full to standing.
I don't know if this also applies to journeys to Paddington but there seems to be a capacity issue - I think I saw that SWR intend to increase frequency which might help, but to the detriment of Weybridge.

 

[MarkyT]

I think some here really don't appreciate the importance of the superhub that is Reading. The town and other nearby settlements together form a very large employment centre that generates significant commuter and business travel and the station acts as an interchange for a vast area: the Thames Valley, large parts of Surrey and Hamphire as well the two largest of London's airports. Modern electric acceleration of the 80x series trains will allow calls to continue to be be made with the minimum of delay. The idea of missing out stops there for much of the longer distance service pattern is frankly ludicrous, it could risk seriously damaging the viability of the total operation, as there's no guarantee that a small decrease in journey time would attract sufficient new business to make up for the combined loss of the journeys between the west and Reading (and its connections) that would be thrown away by a significant and unattractive drop in frequency, and those seats 'sold again' to commuters and full price business travellers between Reading and London. The new fast trains to Bristol Temple Meads via Parkway can miss Reading viably as these don't dilute the existing level of service from Bristol / Chippenham /Swindon to Reading. I hadn't realised some of the South Wales services are also planned miss Reading. Are those that are planned to do so also additional trains on top of the two per hour today?

 

[MarkyT]

I believe it was mentioned earlier that Reading has a two way commuter flow.
I think I saw that SWR intend to increase frequency which might help, but to the detriment of Weybridge.

Yes I understand SWR Reading - Waterloo is due to go 4tph, 2 of which will run via Hounslow, which might push the Weybridges out of those paths.

 

[jimm]

The extra South Wales service is peak hours only.

GWR timetable structure plan as outlined in 2015:

Standard off-peak pattern: 2 tph London to Bristol via Bath and Chippenham, 2 tph London to Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway, 2 tph to South Wales via Bristol Parkway, 1 tph North Cotswolds and 1 tph South Cotswolds

In the peak the service will be structured slightly differently with a third Bristol TM service via Bath and a third South Wales service.

The off-peak two tph Bristol Temple Meads via Parkway and the peak extra to South Wales and the third Bristol TM via Bath peak service will all run non-stop though Reading.

 

[MarkyT]

The off-peak two tph Bristol Temple Meads via Parkway and the peak extra to South Wales and the third Bristol TM via Bath peak service will all run non-stop though Reading.

Excellent news. No established frequencies between the west and Reading will be diluted, while significant extra capacity will be provided. Good result all round and should help overcrowding at Reading.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes I understand SWR Reading - Waterloo is due to go 4tph, 2 of which will run via Hounslow, which might push the Weybridges out of those paths.

They aren’t running the extra Readings via Hounslow, it is the additional Windsors that will go that way. Weybridge will become a shuttle service from Virginia Water, as per the option proposed in the ITT. This isn’t news, it has been widely discussed in the various SWR threads.

 

[MarkyT]

They aren’t running the extra Readings via Hounslow, it is the additional Windsors that will go that way. Weybridge will become a shuttle service from Virginia Water, as per the option proposed in the ITT. This isn’t news, it has been widely discussed in the various SWR threads.

Thanks for the explanation. Probably drifting a bit OT for a GWR discussion about Reading anyway!

 

[SWTrainspottin]

Services should definitely call at Reading, not pass at all. What should happen is more services should be set as a drop off only. This means a service is scheduled to call there but will not be advertised on departure boards at Reading and will be classed as an arrival. I believe this already happens with some services (I know it definitely does with services coming from Paddington but I'm not sure about into Paddington), but what I say is this should happen with more of them. More services should definitely not skip Reading, no.

 

[coppercapped]

Services should definitely call at Reading, not pass at all. What should happen is more services should be set as a drop off only. This means a service is scheduled to call there but will not be advertised on departure boards at Reading and will be classed as an arrival. I believe this already happens with some services (I know it definitely does with services coming from Paddington but I'm not sure about into Paddington), but what I say is this should happen with more of them. More services should definitely not skip Reading, no.

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you writing about Up trains to London or Down trains from London? Stopping, semi-fast or non-stop trains?

Assuming that you are writing about the non-stop trains, which seems to exercise most people posting here, I have explained before why displaying them as 'set down only' won't work.

I'll try again... Fast trains to London use Platforms 10 and 11 at Reading - these are the two sides of an island. Any and all trains pausing there will continue to Paddington regardless of what you suggest is displayed on the departure boards. No train stopping there can or will return westwards without alterations to the track layout and signalling. If the displays convince some people not to board the first time this scheme is used, rest assured by the end of the second day the displays will be ignored and people will complain bitterly about the stupidity of the railways who are trying to fool them.

There are two semi-fast/stopping services per hour from Paddington which terminate at Reading; these are often shown on the Paddington departure boards as terminating at Twyford, but this simply is to avoid annoying those passengers who want to get to Reading, see 'Reading' as the train's destination, rush to the platform and then fume because they've boarded a stopper which takes the best part of an hour. From their first stop these trains are shown with 'Reading' as being the destination. In the near future these services will be run by Crossrail and won't go near the main train shed at Paddington at all - the problem will go away.

And why, for all that is holy, do you want to upset passengers at the second busiest station on the Western? It's not good for reputation or for business.

 

[SWTrainspottin]

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you writing about Up trains to London or Down trains from London? Stopping, semi-fast or non-stop trains?

Assuming that you are writing about the non-stop trains, which seems to exercise most people posting here, I have explained before why displaying them as 'set down only' won't work.

I'll try again... Fast trains to London use Platforms 10 and 11 at Reading - these are the two sides of an island. Any and all trains pausing there will continue to Paddington regardless of what you suggest is displayed on the departure boards. No train stopping there can or will return westwards without alterations to the track layout and signalling. If the displays convince some people not to board the first time this scheme is used, rest assured by the end of the second day the displays will be ignored and people will complain bitterly about the stupidity of the railways who are trying to fool them.

There are two semi-fast/stopping services per hour from Paddington which terminate at Reading; these are often shown on the Paddington departure boards as terminating at Twyford, but this simply is to avoid annoying those passengers who want to get to Reading, see 'Reading' as the train's destination, rush to the platform and then fume because they've boarded a stopper which takes the best part of an hour. From their first stop these trains are shown with 'Reading' as being the destination. In the near future these services will be run by Crossrail and won't go near the main train shed at Paddington at all - the problem will go away.

And why, for all that is holy, do you want to upset passengers at the second busiest station on the Western? It's not good for reputation or for business.

I was talking about up trains towards London and I am well that any trains that pause there are heading to Paddington regardless.. What my post was suggesting that fasts from destinations such as Bristol Temple Meads, Swansea, Cardiff Central, Plymouth and Penzance should be set down only at Reading and not advertised as a departure for Pad. If they do not work, then why do GWR continue doing it with majority of their expresses departing Paddington? Of course it works with especially new commuters.

 

[Hophead]

I was talking about up trains towards London and I am well that any trains that pause there are heading to Paddington regardless.. What my post was suggesting that fasts from destinations such as Bristol Temple Meads, Swansea, Cardiff Central, Plymouth and Penzance should be set down only at Reading and not advertised as a departure for Pad. If they do not work, then why do GWR continue doing it with majority of their expresses departing Paddington? Of course it works with especially new commuters.

What would be the point of this? If folk wish to board a busy train and stand for 20-odd minutes, why should they be stopped? Given the importance of Reading as an interchange, this seems preferable to sending 2/3 full trains onto Paddington, with the Reading passengers needlessly taking seats that could be occupied by those boarding at the likes of Maidenhead or Slough.

 

[takno]

I'll try again... Fast trains to London use Platforms 10 and 11 at Reading - these are the two sides of an island. Any and all trains pausing there will continue to Paddington regardless of what you suggest is displayed on the departure boards. No train stopping there can or will return westwards without alterations to the track layout and signalling. If the displays convince some people not to board the first time this scheme is used, rest assured by the end of the second day the displays will be ignored and people will complain bitterly about the stupidity of the railways who are trying to fool them.

The signalling does allow you to head towards Reading West from 10 and 11. Not that it's important in the grand scheme of things since that's obviously not what the trains are going to do.

 

[BestWestern]

To be fair, there are probably at least 500-1000 regular Reading commuters who are wealthy enough to either pull the cord themselves without worry - or to pay someone to pull it for them.

BTP enforcing the law and a friendly letter along the lines of "Find another way to get to work, you're banned" might address that particular issue...

 

[Andrewlong]

What would be the point of this? If folk wish to board a busy train and stand for 20-odd minutes, why should they be stopped? Given the importance of Reading as an interchange, this seems preferable to sending 2/3 full trains onto Paddington, with the Reading passengers needlessly taking seats that could be occupied by those boarding at the likes of Maidenhead or Slough.

Plus would you relax this 'no picking up' rules when pressure on seats is less such during school holidays, summer etc? If you wanted to stop passengers getting onto these trains from platforms 10/11, barriers at the top of the down escalators could be a solution but your hardened London bound commuter would soon smell a rat and you could get some confrontations pretty quickly especially if trains are delayed or cancelled. It's not worth the hassle appeasing long distance who will have found a seat anyway!

 

[GW43125]

In terms of the pick up only going into London, what about a VT-type "DO NOT BOARD" on the boards (as at Watford); and anyone caught getting on can be [str]shot by the gestapo[/str] fined heftily.

Alternatively, the greater anglia approach of just letting them bundle in and stand for the 20-25 minutes, though 25 minutes is a lot different from 8.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If infrastructure allowed it, and overcrowding between Paddington and Reading on long-distance services was a serious problem, then the pragmatic solution would probably be to run fast Reading-Paddington shuttles, timed to depart a few minutes before the most badly affected long-distance trains. Those would then naturally pick up the majority of Paddington-Reading commuters.

Unfortunately, I imagine infrastructure wouldn't allow those services without capacity improvements (and more trainsets )

 

[Kite159]

In the new timetable, there are now 3 trains in the evenings which skip Reading, 17:36 & 18:37 to Cheltenham & 19:12 to Bristol. Previously there was only one service which skipped calling in the evening (excluding any which are pick up only).

If you wanted to stop passengers getting onto these trains from platforms 10/11, barriers at the top of the down escalators could be a solution

There are already barriers for 10/11 at the overbridge level (if they are manned is a completely different matter) the only unbarriered platforms are 1, 5, 6, 7 & 8

 

[SWTrainspottin]

What would be the point of this? If folk wish to board a busy train and stand for 20-odd minutes, why should they be stopped? Given the importance of Reading as an interchange, this seems preferable to sending 2/3 full trains onto Paddington, with the Reading passengers needlessly taking seats that could be occupied by those boarding at the likes of Maidenhead or Slough.

They will not "wish" to board it though will they? It won't be advertised as a departure so theoretically most of the passengers wouldn't even know it was going to London.

 

[jimm]

They will not "wish" to board it though will they? It won't be advertised as a departure so theoretically most of the passengers wouldn't even know it was going to London.

It's not hard to work out where any train leaving Reading heading east is going to end up, whether it's up on a departure board or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would be the point of this? If folk wish to board a busy train and stand for 20-odd minutes, why should they be stopped? Given the importance of Reading as an interchange, this seems preferable to sending 2/3 full trains onto Paddington, with the Reading passengers needlessly taking seats that could be occupied by those boarding at the likes of Maidenhead or Slough.

It's more of an issue in the other direction, where they take seats of (and sometimes prevent boarding of) genuine long distance passengers. It can also be an issue of the comfort of long-distance passengers.

This is another case where the UK is well out of step with practice elsewhere.