Is railway run for engineers or passengers, and who should advise disruption

[Snow1964]

There are upcoming engineering works near my local station, and the engineers have decided to close about 80% of the station car park ( few hundred pounds worth of parking spaces revenue will be lost)

Remaining car park was full by 08:00 and people have had to drive away again and abandon journey so GWR also losing passengers (and revenue)

They have even trapped in lots of cars already there when they erected the temporary fence.

GWR are not advertising disruption or car park full on their website.

Seems to me the fencing in cars and not advertising car park closure at Bradford-on-Avon is just showing the railways engineers don't give a stuff about passengers and income for the railways, am I being harsh, or do others think it is fair.

Clearly works need to happen, but this unadvertised blocking of passengers on day before when the passengers are trying to fit around the advertised days of closure seems wrong to me.

My question is, should GWR advertise car park full and should they have allowed the nearest day with trains running to blatantly stop passengers from trying to use railway

 

[james_the_xv]

My question is, should GWR advertise car park full and should they have allowed the nearest day with trains running to blatantly stop passengers from trying to use railway

Without front line track workers there wouldn't be a railway for passengers. While frustrating its the necessary price to pay for a well maintained safe railway. Why not contact GWR and ask them why they haven't issued a note saying the station car park will be disrupted? Seems like the logical solution to me.

 

[yorksrob]

It could have been an unexpected emergency - like a sink hole or something.

Otherwise, they should give due warning.

 

[thejuggler]

Assuming it isn't an emergency communicating the closure should have been the first job.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Seems to me the fencing in cars and not advertising car park closure at Bradford-on-Avon is just showing the railways engineers don't give a stuff about passengers and income for the railways, am I being harsh, or do others think it is fair.

A tad harsh. Presume that the engineering work is needed to keep the railway running in the Bradford-on-Avon area. Short term pain for long term gain, and all that?

GWR are not advertising disruption or car park full on their website.

Is this essentially the nub of the problem?

 

[Snow1964]

Is this essentially the nub of the problem?

It was the fact I overheard a car driver who couldn't get in, saying would have to drive instead, and not travel by rail again.

So it's about blatant disregard for passengers trying to travel today to avoid the weekend engineering works by having unadvertised extra disruption.

 

[uglymonkey]

Surely the railways are run for the benefit of the railways? Seems that way from a poor "user" anyway. ( said partly in jest)

 

[LAX54]

It was the fact I overheard a car driver who couldn't get in, saying would have to drive instead, and not travel by rail again.

So it's about blatant disregard for passengers trying to travel today to avoid the weekend engineering works by having unadvertised extra disruption.

Just scrap any major engineering, and wait until there is a crash, and possible fatalities, then they can go and fix it.
The Railway is maintained for the benefit of the passengers, its obvious, so a car park is reduced for a few weeks to enable to this to happen, it's life these things happen, or of course just park all the vehicles on the approach road, and any portacabins on the pavement

 

[The Puddock]

Negotiating the part-closure of the car park between Network Rail and GWR will have been done in the early planning stages of the job. They don’t just turn up one day with all the plant and equipment and a few Heras fencing panels. If GWR hasn’t communicated the closure to its customers then the blame for that lies squarely on them.

 

[DelW]

There are upcoming engineering works near my local station, and the engineers have decided to close about 80% of the station car park ( few hundred pounds worth of parking spaces revenue will be lost)

Remaining car park was full by 08:00 and people have had to drive away again and abandon journey so GWR also losing passengers (and revenue)

GWR won't care at all, because they don't lose any revenue - the DfT (and hence taxpayers) are the one who lose the income. GWR will get get their cost+ management fee regardless, as long as they run the trains they're told to run.

One of the reasons the railways are now so careless of passenger satisfaction is that there's no financial incentive for TOCs to do any more than the bare minimum (if they can even be bothered with that in some cases). The current model is the worst of all worlds, privatised profits with no risk, and zero accountability.

 

[Ken X]

Having had the pleasure of arranging this sort of work the window of access is often limited and the variables such as weather, unexpected discoveries etc make it imperative that the guys hit the ground running.

I would, therefore, agree with the client that the facilities such as toilets, drying rooms, generators, offices, storeroom, canteen and materials yard be up and running before the start of the operation.

Having agreed a suitable site and dates with the client I would expect them to manage their operations appropriately to minimise the impact of my teams presence. There should be a similar arrangement at the end of the job to remove said facilities and make good any damage.

Any complaints would be politely directed to the client whose site we were on.

 

[Horizon22]

Looks like the car park is managed by Wiltshire council not GWR? In which case complaints should go that way?

It’s one of those weird situations where people will identify the closure with the train company even though it’s technically not their responsibility. Depends how much local discussion there was between council & TOC.

 

[The exile]

It was the fact I overheard a car driver who couldn't get in, saying would have to drive instead, and not travel by rail again.

Presumably their reaction would have been the same if the (whole) car-park was full or closed due to an emergency? It is bad that/if this wasn’t well publicised in advance - but that publicity is probably not going to reach occasional users in advance anyway. Anyway, if his/her “never again” is anything like mine usually is, s/he’ll be back within the week!

 

[peter166]

This notice appears on the GWR website under Engineering Works 17Feb - 23 Feb 2024

Saturday and Sunday - All weekend, buses will replace trains between Bath Spa and Westbury. A revised rail service will run between Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa.

 

[skyhigh]

It was the fact I overheard a car driver who couldn't get in, saying would have to drive instead, and not travel by rail again.

If someone was never going to travel by train again due to a single instance of being unable to find a space in the car park, they can't have been very frequent rail users anyway. What would they have done if they turned up and the car park was simply full?

It's a bit like refusing to ever drive a car again because you stopped at a petrol station and they were out of unleaded.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There are upcoming engineering works near my local station, and the engineers have decided to close about 80% of the station car park ( few hundred pounds worth of parking spaces revenue will be lost)

Remaining car park was full by 08:00 and people have had to drive away again and abandon journey so GWR also losing passengers (and revenue)

They have even trapped in lots of cars already there when they erected the temporary fence.

GWR are not advertising disruption or car park full on their website.

Seems to me the fencing in cars and not advertising car park closure at Bradford-on-Avon is just showing the railways engineers don't give a stuff about passengers and income for the railways, am I being harsh, or do others think it is fair.

Clearly works need to happen, but this unadvertised blocking of passengers on day before when the passengers are trying to fit around the advertised days of closure seems wrong to me.

My question is, should GWR advertise car park full and should they have allowed the nearest day with trains running to blatantly stop passengers from trying to use railway

Yes, I think you are being a bit harsh.

Closing part of the car park, for a temporary period, in order to get a job done is an inconvenience not the end of the world. Fine tuning of my view would depend on factors such as whether sufficient consultation took place, how much advance notice was given and what on site notices were displayed. Also whether insufficient, about right, or too much of the car park was blocked off.

Blocking cars in behind the fence does appear inconsiderate but it depends upon what arrangements there are for people to remove their cars. Is there an orange clad person stood by a gate smiling and waving people out? Have those cars been left in place despite a clear request to remove all vehicles by a certain time?

What does the remainder of the white road sign say in picture two? SRSA SAC (something)arking. Parking or no parking and who or what is SRAS SAC.

 

[matthewjohnson]

It's not clear what they're run for but judging by the comments on here from those within the industry, it certainly isn't for passengers!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

What does the remainder of the white road sign say in picture two? SRSA SAC (something)arking. Parking or no parking and who or what is SRAS SAC.

SRAS = South Rail Systems Alliance. (Track renewals) SAC = Site Access Control(ler)?
Arking = Parking, presumably!

 

[The exile]

Negotiating the part-closure of the car park between Network Rail and GWR will have been done in the early planning stages of the job. They don’t just turn up one day with all the plant and equipment and a few Heras fencing panels. If GWR hasn’t communicated the closure to its customers then the blame for that lies squarely on them.

IIRC - it’s a council owned and ooerated car park that just happens to be next to the railway station, so GWR may not have been involved at all.

 

[twpsaesneg]

There are upcoming engineering works near my local station, and the engineers have decided to close about 80% of the station car park ( few hundred pounds worth of parking spaces revenue will be lost)

Remaining car park was full by 08:00 and people have had to drive away again and abandon journey so GWR also losing passengers (and revenue)

They have even trapped in lots of cars already there when they erected the temporary fence.

GWR are not advertising disruption or car park full on their website.

Seems to me the fencing in cars and not advertising car park closure at Bradford-on-Avon is just showing the railways engineers don't give a stuff about passengers and income for the railways, am I being harsh, or do others think it is fair.

Clearly works need to happen, but this unadvertised blocking of passengers on day before when the passengers are trying to fit around the advertised days of closure seems wrong to me.

My question is, should GWR advertise car park full and should they have allowed the nearest day with trains running to blatantly stop passengers from trying to use railway

It doesn't work like this, the contractors don't just decide to rock up and close anything.

A requirement for a compound will have been established and Network Rail, the station operator and the car park operator will have all negotiated as to the best way (or least worst way) to facilitate a compound area. This will be used for various things including machine delivery / storage, materials, lay out, fuel etc.

This is not my particular area of the country, but looking at various sources there doesn't seem to be any other easy access to the railway nearby away from the town centre.

Ultimately the final decision on granting permission for the compound area would be with the car park operator, which in this case would appear to be the local authority. Both them and the TOC would then bear the responsibility of advertising the temporary closure. Setting up in advance of the actual rail closure is necessary to ensure all of the kit is in place in time for the actual works, otherwise crucial working time is lost.

IIRC - it’s a council owned and ooerated car park that just happens to be next to the railway station, so GWR may not have been involved at all.

I'd be incredibly surprised if GWR were not involved as the station operator. They may have been told and not put 2 and 2 together and realised that the compound in the car park would affect their passengers though!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

SRAS = South Rail Systems Alliance. (Track renewals) SAC = Site Access Control(ler)?
Arking = Parking, presumably!

View attachment 152488

Yes, I wondered if there was a space for 'no p' in front of the 'arking'.

IIRC - it’s a council owned and ooerated car park that just happens to be next to the railway station, so GWR may not have been involved at all.

The National Rail Enquiries website confirms this on the station facilities page:

Operator​

Local Council

As does the council parking page, Zone A short stay and Zone B long stay.

 

[Snow1964]

This notice appears on the GWR website under Engineering Works 17Feb - 23 Feb 2024

Saturday and Sunday - All weekend, buses will replace trains between Bath Spa and Westbury. A revised rail service will run between Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa.

The point is they didn't add those travelling on Friday (and possibly Monday too) won't be able to park at the station.

Bear in mind the open part of car park is short term for adjacent health centre, no spaces are open for rail users (unless they return within 2 hours).

Clearly setting up a comp has been deemed more important than Friday rail users, and GWR has accepted that. Oddly while back were saying trains are empty on Friday, so seems discouraging Friday rail use.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The point is they didn't add those travelling on Friday (and possibly Monday too) won't be able to park at the station.

Bear in mind the open part of car park is short term for adjacent health centre, no spaces are open for rail users (unless they return within 2 hours).

Clearly setting up a comp has been deemed more important than Friday rail users, and GWR has accepted that. Oddly while back were saying trains are empty on Friday, so seems discouraging Friday rail use.

Yes, setting up a compound may actually be more important, today, than someone being able to park at the station, today. That's how life is. Perhaps the cricket club were approached but weren't keen on having their square churned up! Sometimes we are inconvenienced for 'the greater good' (the greater good).

 

[Craig1122]

GWR won't care at all, because they don't lose any revenue - the DfT (and hence taxpayers) are the one who lose the income. GWR will get get their cost+ management fee regardless, as long as they run the trains they're told to run.

One of the reasons the railways are now so careless of passenger satisfaction is that there's no financial incentive for TOCs to do any more than the bare minimum (if they can even be bothered with that in some cases). The current model is the worst of all worlds, privatised profits with no risk, and zero accountability.

And this is the root of many things people complain about here.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

I suspect the works will start just after midnight, the staff will arrive on site a couple of hours prior for briefings etc etc. Normally the welfare units will be delivered during normal hours and then set up ready for the works. Again the site will be cleared during normal working hours which will be on Monday.

 

[superkopite]

A business that cared about its customers and revenue would have implanted a shuttle bus for the workers to nearby locations where they can park without hindering passengers

 

[infobleep]

The issue is simply that people were not informed of the car park closure.

Now clearly the council will be aware as Network Rail can't just take over the car park when it isn't an emergency.

So the only issue is a communications one and that on the face of it, it rests with the council.

It would also be helpful if engineering work posters contained details like the loss of car parking spaces. That would require coordination with the council and Network Rail of course.

A business that cared about its customers and revenue would have implanted a shuttle bus for the workers to nearby locations where they can park without hindering passengers

What about on site toilets? Do the bus them for those too?

 

[Class 170101]

At times in my view, it does feel a bit like the railway is run by the Engineers in the way they block the railway and sometimes they do it in a way that suits themselves rather than for the benefit of the passengers.

 

[The Planner]

At times in my view, it does feel a bit like the railway is run by the Engineers in the way they block the railway and sometimes they do it in a way that suits themselves rather than for the benefit of the passengers.

Id love to find a TOC/FOC that doesnt interrogate NR on any plans and just says yes.

 

[mcmad]

At times in my view, it does feel a bit like the railway is run by the Engineers in the way they block the railway and sometimes they do it in a way that suits themselves rather than for the benefit of the passengers.

yes, because I'm sure all the 'engineers' love working all weekend