Non stopping at Bolton, then stopping

[Eagle]

So you get on at Manchester Airport heading home to Bolton with your all your luggage and hear this so you alight at Piccadilly to wait for a stopper to Bolton. If it was me I wouldn't be best pleased.

Was it announced at Manchester Airport as stopping at Bolton? If it was pick-up only it shouldn't have been (it would have said "calling at Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Chorley, Preston etc.").

If so then any passenger from Manchester Airport to Bolton wouldn't have gotten on this train, they would have taken the 16.03 to Southport right behind it, which did call at Bolton.

 

[umontu]

I'm sorry but if you announce you're not stopping at Bolton then do it's going to cause confusion, as it indeed did. If there's no staff about which after Bolton no staff were able to walk through the set, how do you know they didn't actually mean Chorley or Preston?

Imagine you didn't have a good grasp of English you could easily have gotten lost as a result.

 

[Eagle]

I'm sorry but if you announce you're not stopping at Bolton then do it's going to cause confusion, as it indeed did. If there's no staff about which after Bolton no staff were able to walk through the set, how do you know they didn't actually mean Chorley or Preston?

Imagine you didn't have a good grasp of English you could easily have gotten lost as a result.

Oh don't be ridiculous. Pick-up only stops happen all the time across the network and hardly anyone gets confused by them. Do you think that the hundreds of SWT trains a day that aren't announced as calling at Clapham Junction on the boards at Waterloo, which then stop at Clapham to pick up, result in lots of confused passengers alifhting early? No of course not.

This isn't a freak occurrence, it's standard practice on the railway.

 

[causton]

I'm sorry but if you announce you're not stopping at Bolton then do it's going to cause confusion, as it indeed did. If there's no staff about which after Bolton no staff were able to walk through the set, how do you know they didn't actually mean Chorley or Preston?

Imagine you didn't have a good grasp of English you could easily have gotten lost as a result.

Have you never called at a pick up only stop ever? Is this down to some bitter experience when you got off at Watford Junction on a Virgin train once or something because by the sounds of it the station was still announced clearly, so there's no need to be confused...

 

[IanD]

Was it announced at Manchester Airport as stopping at Bolton? If it was pick-up only it shouldn't have been (it would have said "calling at Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Chorley, Preston etc.").

If so then any passenger from Manchester Airport to Bolton wouldn't have gotten on this train, they would have taken the 16.03 to Southport right behind it, which did call at Bolton.

Don't know as I wasn't on it but it's not normally pick up only but may have been on this particular occasion. However, the fact that they were having to announce that it didn't stop at Bolton (but then did) would suggest it was showing on the boards and on train system.

 

[elarchibaldo]

I was stood at Manchester Piccadilly earlier on, and the 3vice6 1715 to Glasgow Central rolled in. There was a trainee guard onboard, and the guards says to her, "Announce the stations, but leave out Bolton."
I believe this tactic didn't work for emptying the train, as people aren't daft.

 

[Hellfire]

Uplift only is quite common. I had to get the 0700 Manchester to Euston this week due to the closure of the WCML.

Service is uplift only at Stockport. Lots got on, none got off. So it can be done.

Of course there will be he odd complaint but the system does work if properly managed

 

[IanD]

Uplift only is quite common. I had to get the 0700 Manchester to Euston this week due to the closure of the WCML.

Service is uplift only at Stockport. Lots got on, none got off. So it can be done.

Of course there will be he odd complaint but the system does work if properly managed

But that service is always scheduled to stop to pick up only so would not be shown to be calling at Stockport on the boards at Piccadilly.

 

[itsjamierawr]

As a regular user of this service I commend First Transpennine for this, the sheer number of people who use this between just Manchester and Bolton is high. To give an idea, sometimes at Platform 14 the number of people flood the entire island platform for a single 3 carriage 185. You are left with people fighting their way on board and cases piling up in the door areas. At Bolton the situation eases slightly as quite a few get off, Preston (where I alight unless the train continues to Blackpool North and stops at Kirkham) again.

If you've just come off a long flight or you're going all the way to Scotland, would you be happy with not only the usual load of passengers boarding but also the rest from Virgin? (and to their credit they are advising passengers at Preston to use their diverted SuperVoyager service to Birmingham via Stockport and change at Stockport for London services)

The vast majority of Manchester-Bolton services run fast from Salford Crescent onwards, it hardly extends the journey time for many by calling at Deansgate & Salford rather than running straight through these. There's the hourly TPX service to Blackpool North and the hourly Northern Rail Hazel Grove/Buxton - Preston (sometimes B'pool North/Barrow) with the same calling pattern to Bolton they can use. I hardly think one train an hour being pick up only at Bolton during this busy time will hurt things.

I say they do this all the time, and in fact I would be more than happy to oblige and use the Northern service (in fact, most of the time I do if it's during the evening)

 

[Darren R]

I'm sorry but when did lying to customers in any industry become perfectly acceptable? All this about making the train pick-up only at Bolton is rubbish and just an excuse. There is a problem with TPE long distance services being overcrowded with short distance passengers at peak times - that cannot be denied - but it is not down to TOCs or guards or Control or whoever to make the timetable changes unilaterally train by train or day by day. That decision is one to be resolved in a change to the public timetables and advertized in advance. This specific problem is soon to be resolved with the new timetable when TPE go via Wigan instead.

The 1600 service from Manchester Airport is NOT shown as pick up only at Bolton in the public timetable. Table 82 quite clearly shows arrival Bolton 1632 departure 1633. We can't have a situation where the xxxx departure stops on Thursday but not Friday, or if it's raining or there's an R in the month. That way doth madness lie! It either stops or it doesn't.

I know how busy this train gets on leaving Piccadilly. I catch it myself returning home if I am nearer Pic than Vic. I catch it as far as Bolton because it is the advertised connection at Bolton into the train following it from Victoria to Clitheroe. If I had attempted to board at Piccadilly only to be told it wasn't stopping at Bolton, I would have got off, caught the next one to Bolton, missed my connection and have to wait 35 minutes for the next.

No more than an inconvenience perhaps. But if I then looked at RTT and found that it had in fact called at Bolton and I had been delayed because I was lied to I would not be happy. In fact this little rant would be as nought in comparison to my reaction! My reaction would be several official complaints. And the first of those would be to FTPE.

I'm not about to start speculating on whose decision this was. But if - in similar circumstances - another (hypothetical) guard took it upon himself to make a similar announcement there is always the possibility of it resulting in delaying an arsey git like me who knows where to check and who to complain to!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a regular user of this service I commend First Transpennine for this, the sheer number of people who use this between just Manchester and Bolton is high. To give an idea, sometimes at Platform 14 the number of people flood the entire island platform for a single 3 carriage 185. You are left with people fighting their way on board and cases piling up in the door areas. At Bolton the situation eases slightly as quite a few get off, Preston (where I alight unless the train continues to Blackpool North and stops at Kirkham) again.

If you've just come off a long flight or you're going all the way to Scotland, would you be happy with not only the usual load of passengers boarding but also the rest from Virgin? (and to their credit they are advising passengers at Preston to use their diverted SuperVoyager service to Birmingham via Stockport and change at Stockport for London services)

The vast majority of Manchester-Bolton services run fast from Salford Crescent onwards, it hardly extends the journey time for many by calling at Deansgate & Salford rather than running straight through these. There's the hourly TPX service to Blackpool North and the hourly Northern Rail Hazel Grove/Buxton - Preston (sometimes B'pool North/Barrow) with the same calling pattern to Bolton they can use. I hardly think one train an hour being pick up only at Bolton during this busy time will hurt things.

I say they do this all the time, and in fact I would be more than happy to oblige and use the Northern service (in fact, most of the time I do if it's during the evening)

But that is not FTPE's unilateral decision to make. No-one can deny it's a problem with over-crowding between Manchester and Bolton. If that is to be resolved by making services either skip Bolton altogether or stop to pick-up only that has to be agreed by all and advertized in the public timetables. It's not TPE's decision to be made on the hoof.

And by the way, the point is that passengers were lied to. By all means actually do what was announced if operational circumstances genuinely demanded it. As a passenger I would curse silently and inwardly fume for a minute or two - but I would get over the inconvenience and I certainly wouldn't put in an official complaint about it.

But I would if I found out I'd been lied to and my journey delayed as a result.

 

[TTI]

Yesterday I had the unfortunate displeasure (formed by a set with no air con working in the passenger compartment..) of traveling on 1S75, the 1600 Manchester Airport to Edinburgh service run by Transpennine.

I boarded at Piccadilly and whilst waiting three separate announcements were made informing passengers that the train would not be stopping at Bolton, due to "The Engineering work"; one can only assume that meant the WCML work.

When boarding the train the guard announced again that the train was non stopping at Bolton and at Oxford Road he reiterated this again.

When we approached Bolton... The PA system kicked in announcing the train was stopping, followed by the guard announcing it and then the train stopping!

Many of the passengers were confused and were worried about whether the announcement was actually meant to say a different station.

I checked on Open Train Times, for a fellow passenger, and found the service still booked to stop at Bolton.

What the hell are TPE playing at?? Can anyone shed light on this?

Keep calm, now . . . . It was a planned 'ruse' to keep the Bolton passengers away from 1S75, but I knew it would pick up passengers a Bolton booked on 1S75 as it was shown as a "departure" only (ie, no "arriving" time shown) in live departures.

It was planned for Friday, as it is the worst day for 1S75 and is well known for very severe overcrowding even though it is a 6car and all staff/systems updated re:this.

The illusion of confusion and incompetence would have disappeared if the guard had announced (on approaching Bolton), "Ladies and Gentlemen - just an update - we will be stopping briefly at Bolton, after all, to pick up a few booked passengers - please bear this in mind if you are stood near the entrance doors"

I'm sorry but when did lying to customers in any industry become perfectly acceptable? All this about making the train pick-up only at Bolton is rubbish and just an excuse.

But that is not FTPE's unilateral decision to make. No-one can deny it's a problem with over-crowding between Manchester and Bolton. If that is to be resolved by making services either skip Bolton altogether or stop to pick-up only that has to be agreed by all and advertized in the public timetables. It's not TPE's decision to be made on the hoof.

Jeez . . . it was their decision to make.
Deleting stops on a service due to severe overcrowding happens.
Seen it done at Preston years ago when a northbound Virgin West Coast HST was "not now calling at Lancaster" cue literally hundreds of people/luggage abandon ship for the next one - & then the HST did (to pick up) because there was a Lancaster service behind with spare capacity.


Finally, I wish TPE would STOP selling cheap tickets on these extremely busy services as it's totally wrong when there's no capacity!!!

 

[umontu]

I'm sorry but when did lying to customers in any industry become perfectly acceptable? All this about making the train pick-up only at Bolton is rubbish and just an excuse. There is a problem with TPE long distance services being overcrowded with short distance passengers at peak times - that cannot be denied - but it is not down to TOCs or guards or Control or whoever to make the timetable changes unilaterally train by train or day by day. That decision is one to be resolved in a change to the public timetables and advertized in advance. This specific problem is soon to be resolved with the new timetable when TPE go via Wigan instead.

The 1600 service from Manchester Airport is NOT shown as pick up only at Bolton in the public timetable. Table 82 quite clearly shows arrival Bolton 1632 departure 1633. We can't have a situation where the xxxx departure stops on Thursday but not Friday, or if it's raining or there's an R in the month. That way doth madness lie! It either stops or it doesn't.

I know how busy this train gets on leaving Piccadilly. I catch it myself returning home if I am nearer Pic than Vic. I catch it as far as Bolton because it is the advertised connection at Bolton into the train following it from Victoria to Clitheroe. If I had attempted to board at Piccadilly only to be told it wasn't stopping at Bolton, I would have got off, caught the next one to Bolton, missed my connection and have to wait 35 minutes for the next.

No more than an inconvenience perhaps. But if I then looked at RTT and found that it had in fact called at Bolton and I had been delayed because I was lied to I would not be happy. In fact this little rant would be as nought in comparison to my reaction! My reaction would be several official complaints. And the first of those would be to FTPE.

I'm not about to start speculating on whose decision this was. But if - in similar circumstances - another (hypothetical) guard took it upon himself to make a similar announcement there is always the possibility of it resulting in delaying an arsey git like me who knows where to check and who to complain to!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But that is not FTPE's unilateral decision to make. No-one can deny it's a problem with over-crowding between Manchester and Bolton. If that is to be resolved by making services either skip Bolton altogether or stop to pick-up only that has to be agreed by all and advertized in the public timetables. It's not TPE's decision to be made on the hoof.

And by the way, the point is that passengers were lied to. By all means actually do what was announced if operational circumstances genuinely demanded it. As a passenger I would curse silently and inwardly fume for a minute or two - but I would get over the inconvenience and I certainly wouldn't put in an official complaint about it.

But I would if I found out I'd been lied to and my journey delayed as a result.

Darren hits the nail on the head exactly. It's being lied to.

TTI, I am calm, but if TPE have a problem with overcrowding on these trains they should put more trains in to service! Like I said at my work recently when a manager left on paternity leave. It's not like they had no warning. It's a privatised industry for a reason so they can invest and provide for the customer Yeh right...

 

[Darren R]

Darren hits the nail on the head exactly. It's being lied to.

Thank you!

TTI you're missing my point. If I am waiting at Piccadilly for this train (as I sometimes do) it is as an advertized connection at Bolton for an onward journey. Cheap tickets and the rest of it is irrelevant. It is an advertized call and an onward connection. I would have missed this and been lied to as the reason why. No customer is going to be happy at that!

 

[NI 271]

Going back some years (2004 in fact), I ecountered what was blatant lie about an Arriva Trains Wales service from Manchester Piccadilly to Cardiff Central on FA Cup Final day in May.

The early morning scheduled service, formed [I think] of a 2-car 158, was operating, but was advertised as running only as far as Crewe. ATW staff and police were insisting that passengers for Cardiff board one of two 'specials' instead.

Only when I insisted (because I know the reality of the situation) was I allowed to board the scheduled service (I held an advance ticket / reservation). If I hadn't insisted, then long distance ticket holders would have been denied boarding.

The service of course ran all the way to Cardiff. An utterly shameful situation.

I was on the special. You got out of jail by catching the scheduled one, special was stood nose to tail from Stockport, I'd been gutted like never before when I realised I'd left my cans at home, but by Crewe I was delighted I'd done so as it was simply impossible to move, never mind get to a toilet. Hundreds of people had to create makeshift 'toilets' out of cans, bottles, whatever was to hand. Scorching hot day as well, probably well over a hundred got off at Newport simply because they couldn't stand the heat/standing/inability to take a pìss any longer.

If you didn't get on at Picc/Deansgate, you were goosed. 2005 FA Cup final and 2006 League Cup Final day specials were much quieter, but ostensibly "dry" trains (thankfully them 750ml water bottles were perfect for replacing with a bottle of vodka, just taking a quick slug from them whilst walking towards police lines was enough to convince them it really was water in there).

 

[BestWestern]

Point taken but it's lying to customers.

And your suspicions would be correct.

Another way of putting it would be 'passenger flow control'. As others have said, you could beg and plead with people to wait five minutes for another train, and most of them would still pile on until the first service was packed. It's the 'passenger mentality', I'm afraid, we staff see it all the time. Thus, 'lying to customers' is the only way of achieving the aim in most cases. It's perfectly acceptable provided people are adequately transported to their intended destination without any significant disadvantage. If they have a reservation for the initial train however, then they should of course be allowed to board it.

 

[martybabes]

... It's perfectly acceptable provided people are adequately transported to their intended destination without any significant disadvantage. If they have a reservation for the initial train however, then they should of course be allowed to board it.

Since when has total dishonesty been an acceptable industry practice?

What about advertising tickets at one price and then, at the POS, charging more? Is that perfectly acceptable?

How about saying that trains leave on the hour when they actually leave at a quarter to the hour? Is that perfectly acceptable?

Next time you go to the petrol station and buy 6 gallons, how about if they charge you for 8 - is that perfectly acceptable?


If there is overcrowding on trains and this is well known to the TOC, it is up to them to address the problem properly and by legitimate methods. To deliberately deceive their customers is the ultimate insult to them.

 

[BestWestern]

Since when has total dishonesty been an acceptable industry practice?

What about advertising tickets at one price and then, at the POS, charging more? Is that perfectly acceptable?

How about saying that trains leave on the hour when they actually leave at a quarter to the hour? Is that perfectly acceptable?

Next time you go to the petrol station and buy 6 gallons, how about if they charge you for 8 - is that perfectly acceptable?


If there is overcrowding on trains and this is well known to the TOC, it is up to them to address the problem properly and by legitimate methods. To deliberately deceive their customers is the ultimate insult to them.

None of your examples are equivalent to what is being discussed here. Two of your examples are fraud, and one is unlikely to offer any advantage to anybody involved. What is being discussed is the practice of discouraging passengers travelling to one particular destination from boarding one particular train, because another more suitable service has been provided or is available for them. As has already been mentioned, if people were willing to adhere to a simple request to wait for said train the situation would be easier, but alas they are generally prone to forcing themselves aboard the train they have been asked not to join, as if it is the last one ever to go to their intended destination.

As I said, so long as everybody gets to their destination without unreasonable delay, it is perfectly acceptable. It's called crowd control, or common sense.

It is also worth noting that our railway as a whole suffers from a chronic shortage of rolling stock, generally through no fault of any TOC. By 'address the problem properly and by legitimate methods' I presume you are suggesting that most utopian of solutions, just run more trains ?! If only it were that simple.

 

[martybabes]

None of your examples are equivalent to what is being discussed here. Two of your examples are fraud, and one is unlikely to offer any advantage to anybody involved. What is being discussed is the practice of discouraging passengers travelling to one particular destination from boarding one particular train, because another more suitable service has been provided or is available for them. As has already been mentioned, if people were willing to adhere to a simple request to wait for said train the situation would be easier, but alas they are generally prone to forcing themselves aboard the train they have been asked not to join, as if it is the last one ever to go to their intended destination.

Maybe, but where do you draw the line? When does something become less dishonest so that it becomes acceptable. You have your opinion as to where the line is - my opinion may well be different.

As I said, so long as everybody gets to their destination without unreasonable delay, it is perfectly acceptable.

That seems to suggest delay is perfectly acceptable. When does a delay change from being reasonable to being unreasonable? I would suggest it may well depend on the reasons behind the passenger travelling. Just a slight delay in some circumstance could well be wholly unreasonable and therefore be totally unacceptable.

It's called...common sense.

You can call it that if you want - I call it a lie for that is plainly what it is.

 

[Starmill]

Uplift only is quite common. I had to get the 0700 Manchester to Euston this week due to the closure of the WCML.

Service is uplift only at Stockport. Lots got on, none got off. So it can be done.

Of course there will be he odd complaint but the system does work if properly managed

But this train is advertised:

London Euston 07:00

Calling at:
London Euston Only

Virgin Trains


Who's gonna take THAT risk?

 

[Tomnick]

If, for whatever reason, it appears inevitable that there is insufficient capacity on Train A, is it better to force a 5 minute delay onto passengers joining at the origin (by pushing them onto a following train) or force those wishing to join at intermediate stations (where the following train may be unable to call) to wait an hour or more? I accept that neither is ideal, but when it comes to this making decisions in the name of this sort of management of overcrowding, the former would be the lesser of the two evils.

 

[BestWestern]

Maybe, but where do you draw the line? When does something become less dishonest so that it becomes acceptable. You have your opinion as to where the line is - my opinion may well be different.

That seems to suggest delay is perfectly acceptable. When does a delay change from being reasonable to being unreasonable? I would suggest it may well depend on the reasons behind the passenger travelling. Just a slight delay in some circumstance could well be wholly unreasonable and therefore be totally unacceptable.

You can call it that if you want - I call it a lie for that is plainly what it is.

You are confusing the effective management of large crowds of passengers with some kind of conspiracy. I would 'draw the line' at anything other than the situation being discussed, and I really don't think that deliberately defrauding people is anywhere even close to the really rather trivial matter of trying to regulate passenger loadings.

You mention delays. Do you not think that delays occur when trains are crush loaded? I can assure you that they do, particularly when a large proportion of those on board are all travelling to the same point but others will be needing to alight elsewhere, as well as those people trying to board. This is precisely why such tactics are sometimes used, to prevent trains being needlessly delayed because people choose not to wait for another service.

You could make ten announcements to the effect that there will be another train shortly so please wait, and you would very probably have very little effect. If you advise those people however that they need to wait for a different service, they will. Crowded trains cause delays and present increased safety risks. Where there is a reasonable way of avoiding that situation, it should be taken.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I remember reading someone's account (probably on this forum somewhere) of a Down peak (fast) service out of London, booked to call at somewhere like East Croydon to pick up only. Perhaps inevitably, it was generally swamped with commuters travelling to East Croydon. They learnt their lesson when, one day, an additional unadvertised train was run, starting from East Croydon and shadowing the original train which was then able to omit its East Croydon stop altogether. I don't recall whether the hundreds of overcarried commuters had their fares excessed or not .

Can do better than that...Apparently one Friday they did something similar with the 1803 Paddington - Penzance, which is pick up only at Reading, and has Taunton as its first "open" call.

 

[snail]

you're missing my point. If I am waiting at Piccadilly for this train (as I sometimes do) it is as an advertized connection at Bolton for an onward journey. Cheap tickets and the rest of it is irrelevant. It is an advertized call and an onward connection. I would have missed this and been lied to as the reason why. No customer is going to be happy at that!

So what are you going to do when the next timetable omits Bolton from the advertised stops?

Are the TOCs lying to customers when they terminate services short for operational reasons, something that often happens on TPE to get trains in the right places for their return journey?

I have a simple solution for the overcrowding. I catch the Clitheroe service from Victoria and grab a seat on the TPE at Bolton when people like you get off.

Well, two solutions: Plan B would be (as posted upthread) for TPE not to sell cheap advance tickets on these trains to encourage people with flexibility to use off peak services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The whole point of the TPE takeover of the Manchester-Scotland services from Virgin was to avoid the duplication between Manchester and Preston.
What were semi-fast TPE Cumbria services were extended to Scotland, allowing the VT services to be withdrawn.
You can't then remove the underlying TPE service and boot Bolton passengers off.

It remains to be seen whether we go back to the old arrangement in due course with franchise remapping - I suspect not, because DfT like the reduced costs.

 

[Train jaune]

Going back to the original question about the Edinburgh trains. I find that overcrowding and confusion isn't helped by the fact that it seems like 50% of the seats on those trains are reserved but these phantom passengers never turn up. So we've dozens of people crowing the vestibules whilst the seats are empty till we're past Oxford Road

 

[IanD]

So what are you going to do when the next timetable omits Bolton from the advertised stops?

That would be OK as they wouldn't be lying. They'd be saying the trains don't stop at Bolton and then not stop them at Bolton. If they marked them as PU only then that would be OK too - but people in the know may take the chance and get on anyway as used to happen on Southern South Croydon service from Milton Keynes people would always get off at Wembley Central despite it being PU only. (Although in both cases the users of Bolton would be most cheesed off!)

Are the TOCs lying to customers when they terminate services short for operational reasons, something that often happens on TPE to get trains in the right places for their return journey?.

That would only be lying if they tipped everyone off but the carried on to the normal destination.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are the TOCs lying to customers when they terminate services short for operational reasons, something that often happens on TPE to get trains in the right places for their return journey?

I can add an example of this a few years ago when the train from Durham to Manchester Airport was short-terminated at Manchester Piccadilly, without any on-train announcement of this fact owing to a lack of liaison. There was a subsequent announcement stating "the next stop will be Huddersfield". One mad dash to exit the Class 185 then ensued..

To give them their due, First TPE wrote a most effusive letter of response to mine with a very pleasing amount of rail vouchers as recompense for the upset caused.

 

[sheff1]

As others have said, you could beg and plead with people to wait five minutes for another train, and most of them would still pile on until the first service was packed. It's the 'passenger mentality', I'm afraid, we staff see it all the time.

I'm not surprised it is the 'passenger mentality'.

I well recall standing at a station when we were advised not to board the next train because it was full and standing and another service with more room would be along five minutes behind. The first train arrived and, although pretty busy, was certainly in no way overcrowded. Many people boarded. I, and others, followed the advice and waited on the platform. As soon as the train departed the following train suddenly went from being on time to 20 mins late. The second train could not possibly have lost this time in the couple of minutes the first train was loading. To make matters worse, when the second train did finally arrive it was just as busy as the first one. So, having been lied to and delayed unecessarily that time, I will now board if it is possible to do so regardless af any announcements.

 

[Welshman]

I'm not surprised it is the 'passenger mentality'.

I well recall standing at a station when we were advised not to board the next train because it was full and standing and another service with more room would be along five minutes behind. The first train arrived and, although pretty busy, was certainly in no way overcrowded. Many people boarded. I, and others, followed the advice and waited on the platform. As soon as the train departed the following train suddenly went from being on time to 20 mins late. The second train could not possibly have lost this time in the couple of minutes the first train was loading. To make matters worse, when the second train did finally arrive it was just as busy as the first one. So, having been lied to and delayed unecessarily that time, I will now board if it is possible to do so regardless af any announcements.

Thus proving the old adage:-

A train in the platform is worth two in the timetable

 

[Darren R]

So what are you going to do when the next timetable omits Bolton from the advertised stops?

Well at a rough guess I would say I'd probably catch a different train. I'd probably catch the train that is shown as my connection at Bolton in the new timetable. If that is a little earlier than at present, then I'd know about it in advance.

Originally Posted by snail
Are the TOCs lying to customers when they terminate services short for operational reasons, something that often happens on TPE to get trains in the right places for their return journey?

No, of course not. If an announcement is made that a train is terminating at Preston and it terminates at Preston, I don't think many people would call that a lie. If an announcement is made that the train is not stopping at Bolton, and it stops at Bolton, I think that would be counted as a terminological inexactitude.

I know how over-crowded the TPE services get between Manchester and Bolton, I've experienced it many times. I understand the problem staff have, and every time I catch this service I wonder about how many poor sods there are on board heading much further and having to stand or even not able to get on at all because it's full of people like me only going a few miles on what should really be an 'inter-city' service. I try to avoid catching these trains whenever I can but sometimes it's unavoidable.

But the fault does not lie with passengers and their "mentality", and telling lies to them is not the short-term answer. Serious over-crowding on TPE services along the Bolton corridor is a known problem and has been for several years. It is known to FTPE, Network Rail and ORR. In fact it's such a problem that they might even be aware of it at the DfT. And I know it's not as simple as sticking an extra few carriages on.

But given that it is such a known problem and has been for several years, why didn't FTPE apply to make the peak services officially pick-up only calls at Bolton? It's a moot point now, of course. Soon the problem will be a thing of the past as TPE trains go electric and are diverted away from Bolton. (Which of course inconveniences Boltoners just as much as at present but in an entirely new way!) As I understand it, Network Rail plan to use the freed path for an extra 'local train for local people' as The League of Gentlemen might have put it. And I don't doubt for one minute that the 'new' service will be every bit as overcrowded!

Sorry for fixating on it, but I just don't agree with the casual lying to passengers, for all that I understand the reasons why. If it happens regularly then it's bound to backfire. If I had been on this train, on hearing the announcement I would have got off, caught the next train and missed my connection. It would have resulted in me getting home about 40 minutes later than I otherwise would. There are those who would respond by saying that is a 'reasonable delay' (not sure how those of you using that phrase define the word reasonable - no-one's said.) But that 40 minute delay would actually double my journey time. (And more importantly I'd miss The Simpsons! )

I then find out that I'd been lied to. I think most people would then be pretty miffed (or words of a similar meaning.)

Originally Posted by snail
I have a simple solution for the overcrowding. I catch the Clitheroe service from Victoria and grab a seat on the TPE at Bolton when people like you get off.

You would be most welcome to occupy my spot stood up in the corner if I am occupying your spot on the TPE! I would defend your right to do so - right up to the moment when it's decided it's too busy between Victoria and Bolton and we start to campaign to have it made pick-up only at Bolton! (Good luck getting a seat on it, by the way! )