cjp
Member
sorry i missed the cut off time or I would also have pointed out
the poor or inadequate provision for cyclist.
the poor or inadequate provision for cyclist.
I am utterly astonished that anyone could think that GWR were "good" or "very good".
From Stephen Doughty MP: “Dear Rail UK Forums community, I’d like to thank you all for the time and effort you’ve taken to submit these thoughtful and interesting responses. Lots of you have drawn attention to some important issues with the GWR network, and have shared experiences which have helped shape my understanding in the build up to tomorrow’s debate.
Many of these reflect my own concerns and those of my constituents, and I will do my best to represent them in the time available for the debate. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and experiences on this topic."
You can watch the debate here: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/57c4f5de-cbe4-4ff6-a133-c08ccfecac78?in=09:29:58
I thought it was to gain Mr Doughty publicity and this it achieved.I'm struggling to understand what the reason for this engagement exercise was.
It's all Mr Hopwood's fault apparently.GWR boss out of touch with its problems, says Labour MP
- lack of any sort of apology to the customers for the appalling service provided. Mark Hopwood has been invisible (save for one - late - letter to the Cotswold Line Promotion Group, which had nothing to do with Lord Faulkner being President and Lord Adonis and David Cameron being vice-presidents of the CLPG) and his management team likewise haven't fronted up.
PS when will there be a debate to do with Northern & Trans Pennine Express in Parliament
SC 43090
Surely, a lot of the problems that we see today on the GWR result from the lack of investment during all the years that Labour were in power? It was pretty obvious years ago that the HST’s were coming to the end of their lifespan and that electrification would be the way ahead for the GWR main lines. The whole process of raising bridges and paving the way ahead for the electrification should have started much sooner - especially given that this work had to be done on a very busy working railway.
The MP for Worcester welcomed the building of Worcester Parkway. This should be all well and good for the north Cotswold line but I am concerned about the Cross Country Cardiff to Nottingham trains which will be the only services (hourly) calling at this new station on the route running north-south. These trains are usually only 2 or 3 coach 170’s and can hardly cope at present. So, this new station could be bad news for those who already use the service - especially those going to/from south Wales/ Gloucester on these direct trains. As well as the prospect of even more overcrowding, the service will also be slower due to having to make an extra stop. It is regrettable that south Wales & Gloucester does not have fast services going to Birmingham > Sheffield > York and Newcastle.
So the fact that the President of the CLPG (Lord Faulkner) is also President of the GWR Advisory Board is entirely irrelevant, is it? That "Hapless Hopwood" only bothered to communicate with the CLPG and has not apologised to the rest of his customers is not unconnected, in my view. If you want to believe otherwise and think the sun shines of Hopwood's backside then you are hopelessly naïve.You're quite right. The publication of that letter on the CLPG website had nothing to do with who the president and vice-presidents of the CLPG are - they had no part in the correspondence between Mark Hopwood and John Ellis, the chairman of the CLPG.
So the fact that the President of the CLPG (Lord Faulkner) is also President of the GWR Advisory Board is entirely irrelevant, is it? That "Hapless Hopwood" only bothered to communicate with the CLPG and has not apologised to the rest of his customers is not unconnected, in my view. If you want to believe otherwise and think the sun shines of Hopwood's backside then you are hopelessly naïve.
Stephen Doughty said:The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. The reality is that he has not answered a single question put to him today by Members from across the House and has not engaged with the issues in a serious way, instead simply glossing over them with statistics. He has not answered the serious concerns that have been put. This is very disappointing from the Minister and his Department, but it is what we have come to expect.
The report of the debate can be found on Hansard:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...03-A2E0-4C381A989A33/GWRAndNetworkPerformance
If you read the posts by the OP it would be abundantly clear that it was researchers who read and summarised the posts in this thread for the benefit of the MP. He himself did not read the thread nor was it ever claimed that he would.It was of course very nice of Mr Doughty to name check this forum, but reading the comments made here and his speech yesterday, I don't think he read any of them.
Would people who are unhappy with Turbos on the Portsmouth Cardiff route (I am one of those) be happy with 6.185s instead? ASDO or UDS could be used where needed? Would there be enough units? Would there be any issues with the weight of the 185s and SP differentials on the route? I know it’s about 99.9% unlikely, just speculating.
It is a difficult balance to get right on this route. Currently it’s good comfort but poor capacity, but soon to be poor comfort but good capacity. To be honest, the ideal stock for the route would probably be 5 car 158s or 5 car 175s, which would be possible from 2023 (possibly sooner). Unlikely to happen though.The Cardiff-Portsmouth route is plagued by a combination of:
- Heavy loadings all day
- Limited capacity for extra timetable paths
- Multiple commuter peaks
- Generally short platforms
Given that the standard-class seating capacity of a 3-car 185 is less than a 2-car 158, you’d need 6-car formations on everything. But then you’d be overlength by one car for Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Warminster and others. This is a route which desperately needs trains which make good use of internal space. The 185s are the polar opposite of this, and therefore the last thing we need.
If you read the posts by the OP it would be abundantly clear that it was researchers who read and summarised the posts in this thread for the benefit of the MP. He himself did not read the thread nor was it ever claimed that he would.
The Cardiff-Portsmouth route is plagued by a combination of:
- Heavy loadings all day
- Limited capacity for extra timetable paths
- Multiple commuter peaks
- Generally short platforms
Given that the standard-class seating capacity of a 3-car 185 is less than a 2-car 158, you’d need 6-car formations on everything. But then you’d be overlength by one car for Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Warminster and others. This is a route which desperately needs trains which make good use of internal space. The 185s are the polar opposite of this, and therefore the last thing we need.
Agree, but an inter-city service (which is what the cities on this route would like) would not stop at these places, except perhaps Trowbridge (County HQ there). I should be very interested in the proportion of total traffic that is only interested in stops at Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton, Portsmouth. Would that justify a two tier service with stoppers from Cardiff to Bristol, Bristol to Salisbury, and so on, connecting with the fasts? How much more inter-city traffic could be won from road if there was such an inter-city service?The Cardiff-Portsmouth route is plagued by a combination of:
- Heavy loadings all day
- Limited capacity for extra timetable paths
- Multiple commuter peaks
- Generally short platforms
Given that the standard-class seating capacity of a 3-car 185 is less than a 2-car 158, you’d need 6-car formations on everything. But then you’d be overlength by one car for Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Warminster and others. This is a route which desperately needs trains which make good use of internal space. The 185s are the polar opposite of this, and therefore the last thing we need.
Agree, but an inter-city service (which is what the cities on this route would like) would not stop at these places, except perhaps Trowbridge (County HQ there). I should be very interested in the proportion of total traffic that is only interested in stops at Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton, Portsmouth. Would that justify a two tier service with stoppers from Cardiff to Bristol, Bristol to Salisbury, and so on, connecting with the fasts? How much more inter-city traffic could be won from road if there was such an inter-city service?
GWR boss out of touch with its problems, says Labour MP
A rail company boss is "out of touch" with some of the problems faced by his firm, a Welsh Labour MP has claimed.
Stephen Doughty said Great Western Railway managing director Mark Hopwood had been "unwilling" to "get a grip on a litany of failures" in recent years.
GWR said its performance improved by more than 10% in the past six months.
Later, AMs backed Welsh ministers' call for more powers and funding over rail to be devolved to "deliver the railway the people of Wales deserve".
Cardiff South and Penarth MP Mr Doughty led a Westminster Hall debate on GWR's performance on Tuesday in which MPs criticised delays, overcrowding and ticket costs.
Train cancellations have more than doubled for some weekend and bank holiday services between Wales and England, figures have shown.
Mr Doughty said there had been "substantial problems" on the network over the past few years and that services were "not good enough".
"I'm sorry to say that the managing director of GWR Mark Hopwood appears fairly out of touch on some of the problems that are being faced and unwilling or unable to get a grip on a litany of failures over the last few years," he said.
Recent research shows passenger satisfaction with GWR has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade.
The report by independent transport user watchdog Transport Focus shows only 78% of rail users are satisfied - the lowest since 2007.
There are also twice as many delayed and cancelled trains as almost 10 years ago.
Newport East Labour MP Jessica Morden said she had raised the issues of overcrowding and reliability with Mr Hopwood and that he had been "attentive to these particular problems".
Bristol South MP Karin Smyth said: "Increasingly I'm seeing complaints from people using the network to commute to London, Chippenham, Bath etc.
"This feeling of who is responsible is upsetting people."
A Great Western Railway spokesman said: "Mr Doughty is right that performance last year was not good enough. Our customers have every right to be frustrated and we're really sorry to anyone affected.
"As a result, we worked with our partners across the industry to put a performance improvement plan in place.
"While there is still more to do, this has seen us move from delivering 72% of our trains between South Wales and Paddington on time six months ago (June 2018) to over 90% today (Dec/Jan 2019)."
'South-east bias'
Later, on Tuesday evening, assembly members backed the Welsh Government's submission to Keith Williams's review of the rail industry ordered by UK ministers last autumn.
Welsh Government Transport Minister Ken Skates, who will meet Mr Williams next week, said the current rail funding system was "broken".
"The model that's been adopted for infrastructure across Britain for many, many years has been biased towards the more intensely urbanised areas of the country and they, generally, lie in the south-east of England," said Mr Skates.
Calling for the "rail devolution settlement" to be brought "into the twenty-first century" he said Welsh ministers should be given "the powers and the funding we need to deliver the railway the people of Wales deserve".
But Conservative AM Russell George accused the minister of "rhetoric", when in reality UK ministers were "investing record amounts in Wales' railway infrastructure" including £5.7bn in "brand new InterCity express trains, which will cut journey times from south Wales to London by 15 minutes".