Do restrictions apply on the use of public transport in Wales? Are leisure journeys allowed or not?

[AdamWW]

2m social distancing is still a requirement in Wales. While I am firmly of the opinion that social distancing cannot go on forever, we clearly still have too many infections to abandon it just now. Going back to buses and trains crowded as they were pre-covid would be madness at present. I know that there are a vocal minority that believes we should just get back to normal life, and let the virus do its worst, but fortunately that is not the majority view.

If the Welsh Govt just gave the green light for everyone to use public transport like they did pre-covid, then the crowding levels would almost certainly lead to increase in infection rates, and essential workers could get crowded out. The current system where people are discouraged from using public transport means that those who act responsibly and stick to the guidance aren't travelling, but there is no penalty for those who choose to ignore it. As a non-car owner, I feel that this is clearly unfair, discriminating against those without cars and who choose to do their public duty. But sometimes you just have to accept that life is not fair.

And let's be clear, this is purely guidance: people are being asked to act responsibly and do their public duty to reduce the rate of infections.

What is the alternative, to ensure that public transport usage doesn't go back to crowding levels that would allow the virus to spread rapidly again?

My local bus company is this week consulting on introducing pre-booking, which will be very restrictive. If too many people ignore the guidance, I suspect that this may become a reality.

As I understand it, 2 m is the law (where possible) for businesses in Wales, but specifically that doesn't apply to public transport.

But I'm with you, the time has not come to abandon all restrictions and no I wouldn't want to see trains and buses as crowded as before, and I haven't been calling for the Welsh Government to give a green light for everyone to use public transport. (I have a strong suspicion though that if they did given that so many people have been scared off most services would still be OK.)

What I have been asking for is a more nuanced approach, one that recognises that most trains are running round empty and a total ban on non-essential travel is overkill. My local train to town generally only had a handful of people on it off-peak in daytime pre-Covid. It can't be the only one. So saying that I can't use any train for a day out because it might overcrowd it for "key workers" is the easy answer but in my mind the wrong one.

Even if it takes reserving for short rail journeys, that's better than just saying you can't travel at all. And I think there are plenty of services that could just be thrown open to all-comers without consequence.

And you're right it's purely guidance, but why should people without cars have to choose between being stuck at home and actively going against government advice - and because of the blanket ban there's no way of them knowing which services they might be able to use without causing problems.

I would also like some acknowledgment of the impact this is having on the poor, the disabled, and those who thought they were doing the right thing by not building their lives round a car - especially given these are the people who supported the public transport system in the past and have helped ensure it exists now. They are all supposed to sit tightly at home, waiting for things to get better, and then when it's time all flood back to public transport. Assuming we still have public transport after this.

Plenty of people will have no choice. But as for the rest? The message seems to be learn to drive if you possibly can, get a car if you can, and give up on public transport. I don't see what moral authority the government will have in the future to try to get people out of their cars when they have shown that they are happy to abandon them so comprehensively.

Even if the government and operators acknowledged that they appreciate how unfair this is, and that it's very difficult to find a way of letting more people travel but are working on it, it would be something.

 

[mmh]

While I disagree vehemently with the Welsh Government's response, it's not correct to suggest that there's been different rules or guidance for travel by public vs private transport at any time during the mess. The difference is that private cars are not plastered with signs asking you to do anything, and over time as people have become frustrated and attitudes have changed to the threat and the response people have returned to driving regardless of what the Government advice may be. The various police forces, including the BTP, stopped enforcing the travel restrictions before they were lifted.

Trains and buses remain quiet for multiple reasons, which yes do include an uncertainty amongst the public over whether they are allowed to use them, but the main one will be that other than to travel to work, for distress shopping or to travel to England in the hope of some semi normality, there are very few reasons for leisure travel. Towns with closed shops, cafes, pubs and toilets make for an unappealing visit. If you're going to have to queue you may well prefer just to stay at home.

 

[AdamWW]

While I disagree vehemently with the Welsh Government's response, it's not correct to suggest that there's been different rules or guidance for travel by public vs private transport at any time during the mess. The difference is that private cars are not plastered with signs asking you to do anything, and over time as people have become frustrated and attitudes have changed to the threat and the response people have returned to driving regardless of what the Government advice may be. The various police forces, including the BTP, stopped enforcing the travel restrictions before they were lifted.

Trains and buses remain quiet for multiple reasons, which yes do include an uncertainty amongst the public over whether they are allowed to use them, but the main one will be that other than to travel to work, for distress shopping or to travel to England in the hope of some semi normality, there are very few reasons for leisure travel. Towns with closed shops, cafes, pubs and toilets make for an unappealing visit. If you're going to have to queue you may well prefer just to stay at home.

Sorry, at least in Wales I don't think that's true. I wish it was.

The current Welsh government "guidance", updated yesterday makes it very clear that public transport should not be used unless the journey is essential and you have no other way of travelling.

However I cannot see any mention of restrictions on car usage. Under car usage it doesn't even suggest walking or cycling, though there is a separate entry for that which says iyou should walk or cycle.

Now the government advice is a bit confusing and the information isn't all in one place so maybe I've missed something. But given that shops have re-opened along with some tourist facilities, and we can travel more than 5 miles, that would mean everyone is expected to walk or cycle to them and I don't think that's very likely.

Can you point me to any recent documents from the Welsh government saying that I shouldn't get in my car unless it's for the "essential" reasons listed below for public transport?

Here's what the guidance page says.

 

[mmh]

People not using public transport are also advised:

Before you travel, consider if your journey is really necessary. If you are travelling into another part of the United Kingdom bear in mind the rules which apply in those parts of the UK and the need to comply with regulations in Wales when you return to Wales.

Try to reduce your travel. If you need to travel, think carefully about the times, routes and ways you travel as this means we will all have more space to stay safe. This will ensure the transport network can keep running and allows people who need to make essential journeys to travel. You can reduce your travel by:

• working from home where possible
• shopping less frequently and shopping locally

 

[AdamWW]

People not using public transport are also advised:

I took that section to apply to public transport, given the placement under the comments about public transport and the reference to keeping the transport network running and people having "more space to stay safe"

The paragraph above must be for public transport, otherwise it bans people who are shielding from driving to medical appointments and those with symptoms to get to a drive-in test.

It's pretty clear to me it's listing permitted reasons to use public transport, and then saying that you should try to reduce travel even for those reasons.

But OK let's take this as applying to all travel.

It's still not the same as the public transport rules where there is a list of only four valid reasons to be on public transport, is it?

 

[AdamWW]

I took that section to apply to public transport, given the placement under the comments about public transport and the reference to keeping the transport network running and people having "more space to stay safe"

The paragraph above must be for public transport, otherwise it bans people who are shielding from driving to medical appointments and those with symptoms to get to a drive-in test.

It's pretty clear to me it's listing permitted reasons to use public transport, and then saying that you should try to reduce travel even for those reasons.

But OK let's take this as applying to all travel.

It's still not the same as the public transport rules where there is a list of only four valid reasons to be on public transport, is it?

Also:

From the Covid FAQ

For public transport you're referred to the guidelines which then say that you shouldn't be using public transport. There's no link to it for "Can I drive to the coast...."


Though I concede there is this:


But overall they are clearly giving very different messages on car and public transport usage.

Curious that "exercise" is one of the four valid reasons to be on a bus or train though.

 

[Pat Figg]

Curious that "exercise" is one of the four valid reasons to be on a bus or train though.

Yet I'm still getting emails from TfW that includes the message below. Received at 15.01 (the underlining is mine).

Please don?t enter a railway station or board a train if you are:
- Feeling unwell, particularly if you have actual or suspected symptoms of COVID-19 or are self-isolating.
- More than two people.
- Travelling for leisure: this includes exercise, recreational or social activities.

I don't drive and I'm desperate to get out of this valley for the first time in over 3 months. I want to get back on a train but the stress of knowing I shouldn't really be on it (apparently) is putting me off.

 

[AdamWW]

Yet I'm still getting emails from TfW that includes the message below. Received at 15.01 (the underlining is mine).

Please don?t enter a railway station or board a train if you are:
- Feeling unwell, particularly if you have actual or suspected symptoms of COVID-19 or are self-isolating.
- More than two people.
- Travelling for leisure: this includes exercise, recreational or social activities.

I don't drive and I'm desperate to get out of this valley for the first time in over 3 months. I want to get back on a train but the stress of knowing I shouldn't really be on it (apparently) is putting me off.

So not quite aligned with the government messaging then.

I'm sure I'm being unkind, but it comes across as if some people are taking delight in being able to turn passengers away.

And what on earth is the ban on more than two people boarding a train about? That one's new to me.

 

[Djgr]

2m social distancing is still a requirement in Wales. While I am firmly of the opinion that social distancing cannot go on forever, we clearly still have too many infections to abandon it just now. Going back to buses and trains crowded as they were pre-covid would be madness at present. I know that there are a vocal minority that believes we should just get back to normal life, and let the virus do its worst, but fortunately that is not the majority view.

If the Welsh Govt just gave the green light for everyone to use public transport like they did pre-covid, then the crowding levels would almost certainly lead to increase in infection rates, and essential workers could get crowded out. The current system where people are discouraged from using public transport means that those who act responsibly and stick to the guidance aren't travelling, but there is no penalty for those who choose to ignore it. As a non-car owner, I feel that this is clearly unfair, discriminating against those without cars and who choose to do their public duty. But sometimes you just have to accept that life is not fair.

And let's be clear, this is purely guidance: people are being asked to act responsibly and do their public duty to reduce the rate of infections.

What is the alternative, to ensure that public transport usage doesn't go back to crowding levels that would allow the virus to spread rapidly again?

My local bus company is this week consulting on introducing pre-booking, which will be very restrictive. If too many people ignore the guidance, I suspect that this may become a reality.

Current figures suggest around 800 infected for the whole of Wales. What would the figure need to drop to in order to relax social distancing? 80? 8? 0?

 

[AdamWW]

Current figures suggest around 800 infected for the whole of Wales. What would the figure need to drop to in order to relax social distancing? 80? 8? 0?

I'd say that the figure to relax social distancing is 800 as it's already happening.

So far as I can see, what's driving the pace of relaxation at the moment in Wales is not the desire to wait until there are zero cases, but to make changes slowly to reduce the risk that the numbers start rising rapidly again.

If you drop social distancing now and R goes up to its natural level again, it won't make much difference if the number is 8 or 80 because 8 will become 80 quite fast (under 2 weeks for a doubling time of 3 days) - though of course at these small numbers it's not as predictable as that.

Actually I'd have thought there is a good argument to not waiting till cases drop too much because then you'll never know what effect each relaxation is having because there are too few infected people to show you.

Of course if we could get it to absolutely zero and import no new cases, we could drop everything without consequences (e.g. New Zealand).

I'm not saying that measures should continue until we can get cases to zero because we almost certainly can't. I'm saying that what should be driving relaxation is not (just) infection levels, but whether we can keep it from spreading exponentially in other ways (track and trace, mass testing, vaccination, enough immunity, whatever).

 

[Bikeman78]

Yet I'm still getting emails from TfW that includes the message below. Received at 15.01 (the underlining is mine).

Please don?t enter a railway station or board a train if you are:
- Feeling unwell, particularly if you have actual or suspected symptoms of COVID-19 or are self-isolating.
- More than two people.
- Travelling for leisure: this includes exercise, recreational or social activities.

I don't drive and I'm desperate to get out of this valley for the first time in over 3 months. I want to get back on a train but the stress of knowing I shouldn't really be on it (apparently) is putting me off.

Just do it. Who's going to stop you? The guards aren't leaving the cab and the trains are virtually empty. So long as you have a ticket to get through the barriers, no one will question you.

 

[Belperpete]

Just do it. Who's going to stop you? The guards aren't leaving the cab and the trains are virtually empty. So long as you have a ticket to get through the barriers, no one will question you.

If everyone followed this advice, then the trains wouldn't be empty for long. You are only okay doing this provided most other people behave responsibly and don't do so.

My feeling is that they are deliberately dissuading people from returning to public transport, so that everyone doesn't pile on at once, like happened with the beaches. They are waiting to see how many start using public transport before relaxing the guidance, so that the pent-up demand is released gradually. If too many start travelling, then they won't relax the guidance, or worse they will introduce other measures, like compulsory pre-booking. My local bus company is already consulting about this.

 

[AdamWW]

If everyone followed this advice, then the trains wouldn't be empty for long. You are only okay doing this provided most other people behave responsibly and don't do so.

My feeling is that they are deliberately dissuading people from returning to public transport, so that everyone doesn't pile on at once, like happened with the beaches. They are waiting to see how many start using public transport before relaxing the guidance, so that the pent-up demand is released gradually. If too many start travelling, then they won't relax the guidance, or worse they will introduce other measures, like compulsory pre-booking. My local bus company is already consulting about this.

Sorry - I really can't agree. Yes the "if everyone did it argument" is often valid but I really don't think it is here.

Why do you think that if they said "Please use other forms of transport, but if it's your only option, you can now have a day out by train or even go on holiday" the trains would suddenly be overloaded?

Oh yes - on a hot weekend too many people tried to get on the trains to Barry (which I think were running at Sunday service levels).
TFW Rail think this justifies a complete blanket ban.

However...

In normal times, many trains ran at low occupancy levels.
That's without there being fewer things to travel to, and without people avoiding public transport if they have an alternative.
A lot of people are scared to go near public transport at the moment.

Do you really think that, for example, if they said leisure travel was permitted off-peak Monday to Friday the transport system would be overwhelmed?

And if it really was, they could row back on it quickly without much harm done, ideally just on the routes affected.

Or, if it's absolutely necessary, yes we could require pre-booking.

How on earth can the government ever go back to suggesting people should ditch their cars and rely on public transport when they've shown they feel no responsibilty to them when things get difficult?

How can a message of "Got a car? You can have a holiday this year. No car? Tough luck - you have to stay at home" be right when there is plenty of capacity?

And as for the argument that "You're putting key workers at risk". Yes, but only indirectly.

Infection levels are now very low. The current chances of becoming infected are very small.

The point of maintaining social distancing is to prevent them from rising again.

So yes a crowded train risks that - but so does people getting too close together in shops, parks and (soon in Wales) pubs and restaurants.

 

[Belperpete]

Of course if we could get it to absolutely zero and import no new cases, we could drop everything without consequences (e.g. New Zealand).

I'm not saying that measures should continue until we can get cases to zero because we almost certainly can't. I'm saying that what should be driving relaxation is not (just) infection levels, but whether we can keep it from spreading exponentially in other ways (track and trace, mass testing, vaccination, enough immunity, whatever).

The aim must be to get the number of cases to zero, so life can return to normal like New Zealand, Isle of Man, Asia after SARS, etc. If we accept that a given level of ongoing infections is acceptable, then we will never return to normal, and those countries who have achieved zero will never fully open their borders to us - we will become pariahs.

The immediate aim must be to get the numbers low enough so that schools can reopen normally in the autumn term, and parents return to work. Yes, there will inevitably be flare-ups, but the underlying level of infections must be low enough that they can be quickly contained. As you say, having effective antivirus measures in place will also be an important consideration.

The faster we release restrictions, the longer it will take us to get the numbers down.

 

[AdamWW]

The aim must be to get the number of cases to zero, so life can return to normal like New Zealand, Isle of Man, Asia after SARS, etc. If we accept that a given level of ongoing infections is acceptable, then we will never return to normal, and those countries who have achieved zero will never fully open their borders to us - we will become pariahs.

The immediate aim must be to get the numbers low enough so that schools can reopen normally in the autumn term, and parents return to work. Yes, there will inevitably be flare-ups, but the underlying level of infections must be low enough that they can be quickly contained. As you say, having effective antivirus measures in place will also be an important consideration.

The faster we release restrictions, the longer it will take us to get the numbers down.

Hmmm. It's not looking as if what would be required to drive infections to zero could really be tolerated by society or the economy. Like almost every other country we missed our chance.

A few places have managed it for now. So long as they keep very strict border control they can probably stay that way. But even places that had it at a very low level are seeing outbreaks.

I think you have it backwards.

The overwhelming majority of countries are likely to be living with - at best - low levels of infection for some time. Most of the world will be the "pariahs". The countries who have it at zero and keep it there are the ones with problems - they can't let people visit without onerous precautions. (And there goes the tourist industry). Some level of infections, and the need for some type of precautions, will be "normal" for a while for most of the world, so far as I can see.

This doesn't necessarily mean strict social distancing etc. for the forseeable future. But it might well mean high testing levels and local restrictions as required.

Could we build lots more labs and test everyone monthly? Or more frequently? Hugely expensive. But compared to the cost of the economy of locking everyone in their homes?

OK we're going off topic though so this should probably be continued elsewhere.

 

[yorkie]

If everyone followed this advice, then the trains wouldn't be empty for long. You are only okay doing this provided most other people behave responsibly and don't do so.

My feeling is that they are deliberately dissuading people from returning to public transport, so that everyone doesn't pile on at once, ...

No chance! The reality is many operators face financial ruin without substantial support.

Sorry but the dangers to the public transport industries are very real; I cannot allow such claims to go unchallenged.

 

[Belperpete]

Sorry - I really can't agree. Yes the "if everyone did it argument" is often valid but I really don't think it is here.
In normal times, many trains ran at low occupancy levels.
Do you really think that, for example, if they said leisure travel was permitted off-peak Monday to Friday the transport system would be overwhelmed?

Yes, I do. Saying that it is acceptable to use all public transport just because some trains used to run at low occupancy rates is ridiculous. What about all those trains and buses that didn't run at low occupancy rates? In rural areas, such as where I live, where the bus services are infrequent, many buses used to run very full for parts of the journey, even at off-peak times. Cambrian trains often run at very low levels along the coast, but standing after Welshpool, and for those parts of their journeys when carrying the schools. And there are very few Cambrian services that aren't at peak times at some point along their journey between Pwllheli and Birmingham. Trying to identify which bus and train services it would be acceptable to use would be difficult, to say the least. Should it be acceptable to use Cambrian trains for leisure? But not beyond Welshpool, not those used for the schools, and not at peak times? You would have to publish a timetable showing which parts of which services people could use. And of course as soon as TfW published such a list there would be the risk everybody headed for those services. In those parts that are both rural and in tourist areas, it doesn't take many tourists to quickly cause an infrequent service to become full and standing. The Sunday Traws Cymru could be half empty one week, and full and standing the next.

 

[Belperpete]

The reality is many operators face financial ruin without substantial support.

And in Wales, the Welsh government are providing financial support.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, I do. Saying that it is acceptable to use all public transport just because some trains used to run at low occupancy rates is ridiculous. What about all those trains and buses that didn't run at low occupancy rates? In rural areas, such as where I live, where the bus services are infrequent, many buses used to run very full for parts of the journey, even at off-peak times. Cambrian trains often run at very low levels along the coast, but standing after Welshpool, and for those parts of their journeys when carrying the schools. And there are very few Cambrian services that aren't at peak times at some point along their journey between Pwllheli and Birmingham. Trying to identify which bus and train services it would be acceptable to use would be difficult, to say the least. Should it be acceptable to use Cambrian trains for leisure? But not beyond Welshpool, not those used for the schools, and not at peak times? You would have to publish a timetable showing which parts of which services people could use. And of course as soon as TfW published such a list there would be the risk everybody headed for those services. In those parts that are both rural and in tourist areas, it doesn't take many tourists to quickly cause an infrequent service to become full and standing. The Sunday Traws Cymru could be half empty one week, and full and standing the next.

Three things:

1) Many people are petrified of using trains at present.
2) Many reasons to travel that used to exist aren't there or aren't allowed
3) Plenty of people on who used to use trains could have driven but chose not to.

I don't actually think it would be ridiculous to say it's acceptable to use all public transport at all times but that's not what I was suggesting.

I also don't buy your argument that because it might not work for infrequent services it can't be allowed at all.

Opening up involves risks. But apparently we can't take any risk to benefit the poor, disabled, or those who in the past chose not to live a car-based life.

Yes, it wouldn't be simple.

But I do not accept that a government thas has pushed the "don't have a car" line for decades should be allowed to just say "Oh it's too difficult now for us to work out how you could use public transport so could you just stay at home please until it's convenient for us to let you have a life again?"

 

[Belperpete]

Hmmm. It's not looking as if what would be required to drive infections to zero could really be tolerated by society or the economy. Like almost every other country we missed our chance.

A few places have managed it for now. So long as they keep very strict border control they can probably stay that way. But even places that had it at a very low level are seeing outbreaks.

I think you have it backwards.

The overwhelming majority of countries are likely to be living with - at best - low levels of infection for some time. Most of the world will be the "pariahs". The countries who have it at zero and keep it there are the ones with problems - they can't let people visit without onerous precautions. (And there goes the tourist industry). Some level of infections, and the need for some type of precautions, will be "normal" for a while for most of the world, so far as I can see.

This doesn't necessarily mean strict social distancing etc. for the forseeable future. But it might well mean high testing levels and local restrictions as required.

Could we build lots more labs and test everyone monthly? Or more frequently? Hugely expensive. But compared to the cost of the economy of locking everyone in their homes?

OK we're going off topic though so this should probably be continued elsewhere.

Sorry, but I don't accept this defeatist attitude that we will never get covid under control. The Asian countries achieved it with SARS, and got back to normal life, without a vaccine. The aim must be to achieve the same with covid, and get back to normal life. Like SARS, covid will never be entirely eliminated, but if we accept a situation where it is still propagating in the community then we will never return to normal life.

 

[Djgr]

Sorry, but I don't accept this defeatist attitude that we will never get covid under control. The Asian countries achieved it with SARS, and got back to normal life, without a vaccine. The aim must be to achieve the same with covid, and get back to normal life. Like SARS, covid will never be entirely eliminated, but if we accept a situation where it is still propagating in the community then we will never return to normal life.

Unfortunately if we wait for this to happen there will be no economy left and we will all be dead from starvation.

 

[mmh]

No chance! The reality is many operators face financial ruin without substantial support.

Sorry but the dangers to the public transport industries are very real; I cannot allow such claims to go unchallenged.

It's also reality in Wales that the implementation of distancing by TFW is surely unsustainable, financially and for the larger economy and society. I've just been on a 4 coach 158, of the 16 seats visible to me, only 3 including the one I was sat on did not have don't-sit-here signs. That's insanity.

 

[AdamWW]

Sorry, but I don't accept this defeatist attitude that we will never get covid under control. The Asian countries achieved it with SARS, and got back to normal life, without a vaccine. The aim must be to achieve the same with covid, and get back to normal life. Like SARS, covid will never be entirely eliminated, but if we accept a situation where it is still propagating in the community then we will never return to normal life.

SARS was far less contagious and was controlled before it spread round the planet.
Covid-19 behaves very differently.

I'm not sure we really disagree though, looking again at what you said. I am saying that I don't think it will work if we try to put everyone's life on hold until we get to zero cases, and even then it's going to come in from abroad unless we keep quarantining people coming into the country, but I don't think that's what you were suggesting.

Getting cases to zero is a worthy aim. But I think there is a limit to how much we should suffer trying to do it.

Anyway, R is never going to be exactly at 1 so either cases grow (which we don't want to happen) or they go down, in which case they are heading towards zero.

And to get back on topic...

It's also reality in Wales that the implementation of distancing by TFW is surely unsustainable, financially and for the larger economy and society. I've just been on a 4 coach 158, of the 16 seats visible to me, only 3 including the one I was sat on did not have don't-sit-here signs. That's insanity.

Some bus companies seem to be going to allowing almost 50% capacity.

That would be a good start for trains.

Of course that's 100% seated capacity...

 

[trainophile]

They are even telling us that our face coverings should be 3-layers (hard enough to breathe with two layers), and telling us what we should bring with us. I don't know of anyone who would leave their phone behind because they don't need it for "travel updates, tickets or contactless payments". It's like being back at school. Will they be inspecting our bags for illicit laptops?

Travel: coronavirus | Sub-topic | GOV.WALES

Foreign travel and returning home

gov.wales

The Welsh Government is following this advice and recommends people in Wales wear three-layer face coverings in situations where physical distancing is not possible. The most obvious example is public transport where more than 15% capacity is likely to mean that physical distancing is not possible.

What to take with you

• a plan for my journey
• contactless payment card
• phone (if needed for travel updates, tickets, contactless payments)
• tickets
• hand sanitiser
• essential medicines
• food and water
• tissues
• a face covering or more than one if your journey is a long one or you will be travelling back later

 

[AdamWW]

They are even telling us that our face coverings should be 3-layers (hard enough to breathe with two layers), and telling us what we should bring with us. I don't know of anyone who would leave their phone behind because they don't need it for "travel updates, tickets or contactless payments". It's like being back at school. Will they be inspecting our bags for illicit laptops?

Travel: coronavirus | Sub-topic | GOV.WALES

Foreign travel and returning home

gov.wales

It is a bit over the top, isn't it?

I'm afraid I was a very bad person and used a ticket machine for a journey this week (an essential one, of course). I suppose it is slightly riskier than using the self-service checkout in a supermarket because they probably get cleaned more often. But I made up for that by pressing the door open button with my elbow and that isn't even on the list.

(Actually I think they do tell you not to touch door buttons...)

I do find there is a strong tendancy when people write risk assessments to fill them with meaningless drivel like this.
It tends to go with the attitude that a risk assessment is a document to be written, filed, and then completely ignored.

If we really have to be reminded to take essential medicines in a document on travel guidance, something is very, very wrong with the world.

 

[Parallel]

Just had a quick look on Twitter and Transport for Wales Rail have been getting an absolute hammering, and I'm not surprised. The issue is Wales is past the "key workers" phase now but they are still advertising that their trains are for key workers only. Many non-key workers now need to use the train (or bus) to get to work but are being told to walk or cycle when possible. It also looks ridiculous that passengers can travel (theoretically) on GWR services for 'non essential' travel in Wales but not Transport for Wales. Why should passengers whose line isn't served by any other operator than TfW not be able to have the same travelling options, based just on geography?

The TfW network has had a fairly chronic stock shortage for years, so I wonder if they're using the virus as a way of preventing travel under social distancing guidelines as it would be easy for them to be overwhelmed fairly easily, as they only operate 2 and 3 car services over most of their network, when really it is largely down to capacity constraints. If they encouraged people back to their trains, it would be a social distancing nightmare which is why they want to keep it at the other extreme, but if they keep the message up, it will just be a black hole sucking up money. They're not really in a position to cut services to save money either seeing as a lot of their network runs with 1tph or less! They would probably get more support if they said 'Our trains only have limited capacity, please only travel if your journey is necessary at the current time' than 'trains are for key workers only due to social distancing' because other operators are in the same boat, yet have dropped this message. I feel like they need to accept some sort of responsibility, rather than being 'it's like this because of this'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The TfW network has had a fairly chronic stock shortage for years, so I wonder if they're using the virus as a way of preventing travel under social distancing guidelines as it would be easy for them to be overwhelmed fairly easily, as they only operate 2 and 3 car services over most of their network, when really it is largely down to capacity constraints.

Yes, I suspect it's why the likes of TfW and Northern persisted with the message. Avanti, with 260+m Pendolinos and the option for compulsory reservations, had a rather different option.

 

[Starmill]

To be clear, it would undoubtedly be unlawful for public transport users to have additional restrictions imposed on them, compared to owners of private vehicles. It would be a very clear case of discrimination.

This is an interesting claim, although whether further discussion of it falls within the scope of this thread is unlikely. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to set up a new dedicated thread to expand on this argument, which can then be referred to when this point comes up again in the future, rather than the current situation where this claim is made, which seems to some people to be in grave doubt, and then we get side-tracked into a discussion about it.

 

[williamn]

This is all interesting reading. I have two holidays booked in Wales for August, one near Fishguard and one near Betys-y-Coed. I live in London. Both holiday places are allowed to open. But my only means of transport is public transport. So, what to do? I am loathe to cancel. I think I shall take my chances as it seems from what I read that it is only 'advice' not to travel.

It is a shame the cost is inflated because advance tickets on TfW are no longer available.

As an aside I liked the messaging on South Eastern that you should only use their services 'if it is your only option'. That seemed fair.

 

[yorkie]

This is all interesting reading. I have two holidays booked in Wales for August, one near Fishguard and one near Betys-y-Coed. I live in London. Both holiday places are allowed to open. But my only means of transport is public transport. So, what to do? I am loathe to cancel. I think I shall take my chances as it seems from what I read that it is only 'advice' not to travel.

You could try tweeting TfW to seek clarification. I'd be interested to see their response.