Standing on long rail journeys to be banned under Virgin Trains plan for airline-style fare

[The Ham]

And that's good customer service, is it? Not providing enough seats.

Or is this a boasting thing? You can stand from Yorkshire to London so we all should?

If only someone was proposing a new railway line so that there was a lot more capacity so that standing on a train wasn't needed.

I've done my share of standing on trains, I can assure you that I would rather do that than not travel (some very busy very hot services where the 12 coach train in front was cancelled and the service which was rubbing was 5 coaches and always had people standing on it).

With regards to business travel, I've been responsible for staff who have charge or rates to customers of £40-£80 per hour they would be very unhappy if we billed then for even 1 extra hour because they were sat in a pub waiting for their next train or we charged them for multiple tickets (even if it was cheaper). Likewise my boss wouldn't be very unhappy if they weren't earning the company money by then sitting in the pub rather than back in the office or the company were footing the bill for tickets which aren't needed.

Business meetings can overrun, clients may wish to talk to you about a new project or you may be asked to go somewhere else on your way back (I've even had the case where I was sent to the wrong place but could still use my ticket to get to the right place as it was on a permitted route, well other than a short extra return ticket as it wasn't exactly on the route) Likewise there could be a problem with another mode of travel, or it takes longer than expected (i.e. you just miss one service) or it takes longer to walk then expected (in one example there was a protest which meant that I opted to walk a different route rather than potentially get caught up in it). As such there's lots of reasons why you may not be able to get on the exact service you planned to get.

Business is now accepting of our happening with flights as:

• There's fewer flights to pick from
  
• A lot fewer journeys are made by flying
• The distances involved means that people are often out of the office for a full day anyway, so are costed accordingly

Remove that flexibility and business will abandon rail travel faster than rats from a sinking ship. If you can't use rail for business travel then you'll need a car, which means that you won't be commuting by train and you'll drive when going places for lesure purposes.

That's a lot of income from each person that impacts, in one year for me that could have been over £3,000 of ticket sales. Multiply that up by even 1,000 people and that's £3 million of lost income to the industry. However even then £3,000 in a year isn't a particularly high amount of ticket sales for someone who is commuting by rail, likewise it's likely to be a lot more than 1,000 people.

If we had trains able to carry 1,100 people seated and normally when they were busy they were carrying 800 people then I could see that with technology it could work, but if that's the case why bother?

 

[RLBH]

If you're a responsible parent you would have planned and booked your journey way in advance.

Granddad, in Birmingham, calls Dad, in Glasgow. Granny has taken ill, she's in intensive care but is getting worse. The doctors are saying she has hours left. The next three trains are all fully booked.

Once Dad eventually arrives - hopefully seeing his mother for the last time, though he'd have got there a hell of a lot quicker if he'd been allowed to stand on the first available train - he, together with Granddad and Auntie Sue, make the appropriate arrangements. For various reasons it's decided that Mum and the kids should stay in Glasgow rather than come to the funeral. After a stressful week or so, Dad wants to get home and see them as soon as possible. Unfortunately it's now the Friday before a Bank Holiday, so every train going north has been booked solid for months.

Sucks to be Dad, right? How dare his mother die at an inconvenient time and without giving three months' advance notice.

 

[Ianno87]

Are you a yoga teacher? Because that's a stretch!

If you're a responsible parent you would have planned and booked your journey way in advance.

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

 

[pt_mad]

Do they? The interior pictured looks like a low density regional express layout (which coincidentally is what it actually is).

Maybe you needed to post a picture of the Class 700 interior?

It was more the presence of the large seat grab bars and decent grab bars near saloon doors that I felt made standing look more fitting with the design than say a class 800 interior. A 700 would make the point if it wasn't for the ironing board seats although the 195 may have the same seats but with armrests I'm not sure?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was more the presence of the large seat grab bars and decent grab bars near saloon doors that I felt made standing look more fitting with the design than say a class 800 interior. A 700 would make the point if it wasn't for the ironing board seats although the 195 may have the same seats but with armrests I'm not sure?

Yes, the 195 has ironing boards, but with the thicker contoured base cushion, more legroom and armrests, which basically make it a completely different seat.

 

[initiation]

Other than my daily commute that would not be affected by any changes, for work I've done on average perhaps one intercity style journey every month. So not a huge user but modest. Bristol to London, Birmingham and further North.

On literally every occasion I have used the flexible return part as something has changed, either meeting finished early or late or we did something unplanned after. When charge out rates are three figure £ then flexibility is vital.

Having compulsory reservations would be a complete pain. I'm happy to stand to get home. If people don't want to then they have that choice already.

 

[whhistle]

As exemplified by my recent example on the 18.00 Kings Cross to Leeds, leaving full and standing - and me travelling to Leeds standing with a full fare ticket. Get to Stevenage and 50% of the passengers got out.

Apparently this used to be a pick-up only call, but not only was that changed recently but LNER then offered operator-only tickets a bit less than normal Any Operator ones to stiff Great Northern on the revenue. Obviously longer distance passengers not getting a seat on departure was considered irrelevant.

And this is why recruitment in such companies makes me sad.
They're all abou t"customer service" when that's not really the priority.
Dunno why they don't just face up to what they really want.

 

[jayah]

If only someone was proposing a new railway line so that there was a lot more capacity so that standing on a train wasn't needed.

I've done my share of standing on trains, I can assure you that I would rather do that than not travel (some very busy very hot services where the 12 coach train in front was cancelled and the service which was rubbing was 5 coaches and always had people standing on it).

With regards to business travel, I've been responsible for staff who have charge or rates to customers of £40-£80 per hour they would be very unhappy if we billed then for even 1 extra hour because they were sat in a pub waiting for their next train or we charged them for multiple tickets (even if it was cheaper). Likewise my boss wouldn't be very unhappy if they weren't earning the company money by then sitting in the pub rather than back in the office or the company were footing the bill for tickets which aren't needed.

Business meetings can overrun, clients may wish to talk to you about a new project or you may be asked to go somewhere else on your way back (I've even had the case where I was sent to the wrong place but could still use my ticket to get to the right place as it was on a permitted route, well other than a short extra return ticket as it wasn't exactly on the route) Likewise there could be a problem with another mode of travel, or it takes longer than expected (i.e. you just miss one service) or it takes longer to walk then expected (in one example there was a protest which meant that I opted to walk a different route rather than potentially get caught up in it). As such there's lots of reasons why you may not be able to get on the exact service you planned to get.

Business is now accepting of our happening with flights as:

• There's fewer flights to pick from
  
• A lot fewer journeys are made by flying
• The distances involved means that people are often out of the office for a full day anyway, so are costed accordingly

Remove that flexibility and business will abandon rail travel faster than rats from a sinking ship. If you can't use rail for business travel then you'll need a car, which means that you won't be commuting by train and you'll drive when going places for lesure purposes.

That's a lot of income from each person that impacts, in one year for me that could have been over £3,000 of ticket sales. Multiply that up by even 1,000 people and that's £3 million of lost income to the industry. However even then £3,000 in a year isn't a particularly high amount of ticket sales for someone who is commuting by rail, likewise it's likely to be a lot more than 1,000 people.

If we had trains able to carry 1,100 people seated and normally when they were busy they were carrying 800 people then I could see that with technology it could work, but if that's the case why bother?

The mandatory reservation works in France because for 250 mile distances car is less of an option. But the queuing and boarding times on TGVs with imperative of being on the right train, negate many of the benefits of High Speed Rail.

It is a shame that whatever we may think about HS2 they are choosing to implant the dead hand of aviation on a very flexible model of rail travel even if the classic lines manage to stay clear of it.

 

[al78]

If only someone was proposing a new railway line so that there was a lot more capacity so that standing on a train wasn't needed.

I've done my share of standing on trains, I can assure you that I would rather do that than not travel (some very busy very hot services where the 12 coach train in front was cancelled and the service which was rubbing was 5 coaches and always had people standing on it).

With regards to business travel, I've been responsible for staff who have charge or rates to customers of £40-£80 per hour they would be very unhappy if we billed then for even 1 extra hour because they were sat in a pub waiting for their next train or we charged them for multiple tickets (even if it was cheaper). Likewise my boss wouldn't be very unhappy if they weren't earning the company money by then sitting in the pub rather than back in the office or the company were footing the bill for tickets which aren't needed.

Business meetings can overrun, clients may wish to talk to you about a new project or you may be asked to go somewhere else on your way back (I've even had the case where I was sent to the wrong place but could still use my ticket to get to the right place as it was on a permitted route, well other than a short extra return ticket as it wasn't exactly on the route) Likewise there could be a problem with another mode of travel, or it takes longer than expected (i.e. you just miss one service) or it takes longer to walk then expected (in one example there was a protest which meant that I opted to walk a different route rather than potentially get caught up in it). As such there's lots of reasons why you may not be able to get on the exact service you planned to get.

Business is now accepting of our happening with flights as:

• There's fewer flights to pick from
  
• A lot fewer journeys are made by flying
• The distances involved means that people are often out of the office for a full day anyway, so are costed accordingly

Remove that flexibility and business will abandon rail travel faster than rats from a sinking ship. If you can't use rail for business travel then you'll need a car, which means that you won't be commuting by train and you'll drive when going places for lesure purposes.

That's a lot of income from each person that impacts, in one year for me that could have been over £3,000 of ticket sales. Multiply that up by even 1,000 people and that's £3 million of lost income to the industry. However even then £3,000 in a year isn't a particularly high amount of ticket sales for someone who is commuting by rail, likewise it's likely to be a lot more than 1,000 people.

If we had trains able to carry 1,100 people seated and normally when they were busy they were carrying 800 people then I could see that with technology it could work, but if that's the case why bother?

It is not just about financial cost, if bookings are compulsory, what happens when someone commits suicide and closes one of the main lines, no trains running for we don't know how long, take another route from X to Y, but oh dear, all trains between X and Y are full.

"Remove that flexibility and business will abandon rail travel faster than rats from a sinking ship."

Yes that is the idea, reduce overcrowding by reducing the utility to the point so that rail travel is viable to an ever smaller subset of the population. Minimal financial cost and difficulty for the rail company compared to increasing capacity, and the consequences are externalised onto others. A neo-liberal capitalists wet dream.

 

[PR1Berske]

Granddad, in Birmingham, calls Dad, in Glasgow. Granny has taken ill, she's in intensive care but is getting worse. The doctors are saying she has hours left. The next three trains are all fully booked.

Once Dad eventually arrives - hopefully seeing his mother for the last time, though he'd have got there a hell of a lot quicker if he'd been allowed to stand on the first available train - he, together with Granddad and Auntie Sue, make the appropriate arrangements. For various reasons it's decided that Mum and the kids should stay in Glasgow rather than come to the funeral. After a stressful week or so, Dad wants to get home and see them as soon as possible. Unfortunately it's now the Friday before a Bank Holiday, so every train going north has been booked solid for months.

Sucks to be Dad, right? How dare his mother die at an inconvenient time and without giving three months' advance notice.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Remove that flexibility and business will abandon rail travel faster than rats from a sinking ship."

So no businesspeople use rail in France, Italy, Spain, the USA and so on, then? No businesspeople use flights? Coaches?

Rubbish. If anything I am more likely to know timings for business travel than personal travel, and companies increasingly mandate the use of Advances to save money anyway.

 

[Roast Veg]

I, and I'm sure many people who travel long distance, may well know exactly when they plan to travel out to somewhere, but not when they might return - abandoning the flexibility of the standard return in favour of forcing me to buy-on-the-day is simply not acceptable.

I'm still not sitting backwards either, unless the staff would like me to be sick on their train.

 

[sprunt]

...
I want to see my kids before they go to sleep
...
have to catch a train in the morning to go to a last minute meeting.

I'm on your side in the debate over whether this is a good or bad idea, but your constant appeals to emotion and "I am a very important businessman" posturing aren't going to change anybody's mind.

 

[The Ham]

So no businesspeople use rail in France, Italy, Spain, the USA and so on, then? No businesspeople use flights? Coaches?

Rubbish. If anything I am more likely to know timings for business travel than personal travel, and companies increasingly mandate the use of Advances to save money anyway.

It was I which originally started that they would leave rail faster than rats leaving a sinking ship. As such I'll reply to your point.

I highlighted why business was more accepting of the restrictions on air travel, but mostly down to the fact that people are likely to be out off the office for the whole day already.

I'm not aware of people using coaches for business travel, however I would suggest that it's likely that with the cost of people's time coming into play that other modes would be used ahead of it if there's suitable alternatives. That's not to say that it doesn't happen.

I don't doubt that business would continue to use it, however there would be a LOT who didn't and that would hurt the bottom line of the rail industry, especially if individuals are being asked to drive and so need to have their own car which then removed them from the rail network for commuting.

 

[RLBH]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

No, it isn't. It's an example of one of many cases where someone might need to make a journey without the opportunity to plan ahead. The last minute meeting is another. Yet another might be the family car breaking down whilst on holiday and needing to get everyone home. They're all anecdotes, and we don't have any data - the proportion of people affected isn't zero, and it isn't all of them, but beyond that I doubt anyone has an answer.

I'm willing to bet that there are enough passengers for whom the ability to jump on a train - any train - going in the right direction is important, that losing their custom entirely would make a noticeable dent in the economics. You'd probably still get good loadings, because most people can plan ahead most of the time. But with margins in the passenger rail industry hovering in the low single digit percentages, all it needs is one in every thirty or so passengers to decide not to travel to make a major difference.

Even if the occasional passenger does succeed in getting reservations, it'll make changing on to a connecting train more stressful. At the moment, if the Leeds-Bristol train is late at Birmingham and you miss the Oxford connection, no big deal, just get on the one in half an hour. With mandatory reservations, passengers will worry that they won't be able to get on their connecting train. Yes, in practice rail operators would make some kind of arrangement for that kind of situation. But that's not where an infrequent passenger's mind will go first. That'll make them more likely to get the coach, fly or drive.

Rail travel's unique selling point is that it offers flexibility for those occasions when you can't plan ahead, or plans change. Remove that flexibility, and occasional passengers are more likely to choose other modes. The mode they're most likely to choose will be driving, because of the flexibility it offers. People really like flexibility. And once they have a flexible car at their disposal, good luck getting them back on the rails.

 

[Taunton]

It is a shame that whatever we may think about HS2 they are choosing to implant the dead hand of aviation on a very flexible model of rail travel even if the classic lines manage to stay clear of it.

One of the extreme ironies is that whenever there is disorganisation at Heathrow the domestic flights to Glasgow/Edinburgh etc are always the first to be cancelled, on the basis that unlike their other destinations passengers can be sent over to Kings Cross/Euston to get the train.

Without train reservations of course ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the extreme ironies is that whenever there is disorganisation at Heathrow the domestic flights to Glasgow/Edinburgh etc are always the first to be cancelled, on the basis that unlike their other destinations passengers can be sent over to Kings Cross/Euston to get the train.

Without train reservations of course ...

The railway, of course, does not exist as a personal travel insurance policy for the management of British Airways.

 

[6Gman]

And that's good customer service, is it? Not providing enough seats.

Or is this a boasting thing? You can stand from Yorkshire to London so we all should?

Of course it's not good customer service. Nor is it a boasting thing - I was just answering a question someone had asked.

But I was happier standing from Doncaster to London than being told to wait for the next train, or the one after that. (And maybe not getting home at all that evening ...)

 

[6Gman]

Are you a yoga teacher? Because that's a stretch!

If you haven't booked knowing that the service is compulsory booking, why haven't you? If you couldn't at short notice, let's explore options: an unreserved section, longer trains, extra services from different providers, the possibilities are endless.

"Smart timetabling ...?" Or perhaps building a new railway to ease congestion?

 

[Esker-pades]

Is it? Cramming a load of commuters onto an IC service at one end is quite a stressor for those who at that point want to e.g. gather their luggage for a quick exit. If anything, this type of standing is more negative than a few people in each vestibule because the train was slightly "overbooked" (as is the nature of most standing on VTWC other than the likes of the first off peak train of the evening; I can't recall the last time I didn't get a seat on VTWC).

"More acceptable" does not mean "acceptable". In a similar way, being more fragrant than a turd does not mean that the thing smells nice.

 

[Ianno87]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

OK: Another example. I've got a 2 year old, toilet training. I'd pay a marginal extra cost for a flexible ticket on the off change he throws a tantrum and/or ****s himself. Which, strangely enough, can't be predicted.

As a responsible parent, I'd miss my reserved train in needs be if I could make sure he was properly, ahem, sanitary. Including for the comfort of other passengers.

I'm guessing you don't have kids, so are in no experienced position to judge on what constitutes 'responsible' parenting?

 

[Esker-pades]

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

There have been various threads on here over the years of disabled children and adults who have had meltdowns and/or other problems and have required to travel earlier or later due to their disability. Some had been on advance tickets, which meant that they were denied travel and made the situation worse.

There still hasn't been a reasonable answer about short distance passengers on the long distance trains...

 

[Adsy125]

There have been various threads on here over the years of disabled children and adults who have had meltdowns and/or other problems and have required to travel earlier or later due to their disability. Some had been on advance tickets, which meant that they were denied travel and made the situation worse.

There still hasn't been a reasonable answer about short distance passengers on the long distance trains...

Nor where the line is drawn between short and long distance...

 

[Esker-pades]

Nor where the line is drawn between short and long distance...

Which is also a problem.

 

[PartyOperator]

The railway, of course, does not exist as a personal travel insurance policy for the management of British Airways.

The railway also doesn't exist to be enjoyable. It exists to move people and goods around, mostly people, and the vast majority of those people are not at all enthusiastic about railways. They use the railway because it gets them from where they are to where they want to be and it's quicker and/or more reliable than driving or flying. Mostly none of these are true which is why the majority of journeys are made by car and not by train.

The mark of success for any transport system is that it is used so much that it becomes unpleasant. The M25, the Tube and the various commuter lines into London are all extremely successful because they do what very large numbers of people want them to do. As a result, they're all horrible at peak times. This is a good thing. Adding more lanes to the M25 or more lines to the underground or more carriages to the trains into Waterloo will never lead to some utopia in which all traffic is free flowing and everyone gets a seat on the train - the number of travelers will just increase until they're all unpleasant enough to suppress further demand. Many UK railway servies are still quite enjoyable - this is because they are failing as a mode of transport. As rail enthusiasts, we should all hope that our favourite trains become overcrowded and uncomfortable as soon as possible.

The population of London increases by about 100,000 each year, which is about the number of people carried by a busy motorway in a day. You could build two new HS2s into London every decade or a new M1 every year and it would not be enough to allow these people to live outside of Greater London and commute in, assuming they wanted to. Just to give an idea of the numbers. With very high housing costs and very high demand to work there, any increase in transport capacity into London is likely to be swallowed up quickly.

Accepting this reality, a successful new railway from anywhere to London would not look anything like an aeroplane. It would look like a Tokyo commuter line running on time every day at 200% capacity with 3,000 passengers per train, almost all of those standing most of the way on their average hour-long commutes. It would be extremely unpleasant but it would be reliable and it would get millions of people in and out of our cities every day. Shinjuku station gets more travelers in a month than Waterloo does in a year. That's what a successful rail system looks like. Not a few hundred enthusiasts making an hour-long trip in comfortable seats. At 50 minutes journey time, HS2 between London and Birmingham should be mostly standing and it should be a nasty, cramped, sweaty, thoroughly uncomfortable experience. Fast, reliable and unpleasant. This should be the dream of anyone who wants to see rail succeed in the UK.

 

[PR1Berske]

At 50 minutes journey time, HS2 between London and Birmingham should be mostly standing and it should be a nasty, cramped, sweaty, thoroughly uncomfortable experience. Fast, reliable and unpleasant. This should be the dream of anyone who wants to see rail succeed in the UK.

This is absolute, complete, and idealist nonsense of the highest order.

Railways should offer top class customer service. Your ideal does not.
Railways should offer value for money. Your ideal does not.
Railways should be reactive to how passengers want to travel, not how businessmen want to dream. Your ideal does not.

"Uncomfortable" is why so many passenger feedback surveys put TOCs at the lower to single-figure percentage satisfaction scores. It is the target of the DfT, TOCs, and many passenger groups, for UK rail travel to be comfortable. That is how we should travel and what we should be campaigning for. Your ideal does not.

"Cramped" is why passengers in the North complain about Pacers, short-forming, lack of decent intercity options and inadequate timetables. Those of us in the regions demand better than outdated cattle-class. We want comfort and leg-room, we want freedom to move, we only ask for personal space. Your ideal does not.

"HS2...should be mostly standing..." is the most damning sentence against that damned project I have ever read. HS2 will cost something around £50-100bn. It will rip through countryside with no justification. It will destroy communities with no reason. It does not call at Birmingham without any justifiable excuse. And you suggest that passengers who pay anything from £200 to £500 a ticket should be satisfied with standing? HS2 should be luxury and the best ever experience on the railways ever dreamt of to justify its near-enough £100bn budget. Your ideal ignores all of that.

I cannot imagine how you can type such an horrific nightmarish vision of the railways: cramped, dangerous, over-booked, pricy, profit-led: what a scandal that would be.

 

[The Ham]

This is absolute, complete, and idealist nonsense of the highest order.

Railways should offer top class customer service. Your ideal does not.
Railways should offer value for money. Your ideal does not.
Railways should be reactive to how passengers want to travel, not how businessmen want to dream. Your ideal does not.

"Uncomfortable" is why so many passenger feedback surveys put TOCs at the lower to single-figure percentage satisfaction scores. It is the target of the DfT, TOCs, and many passenger groups, for UK rail travel to be comfortable. That is how we should travel and what we should be campaigning for. Your ideal does not.

"Cramped" is why passengers in the North complain about Pacers, short-forming, lack of decent intercity options and inadequate timetables. Those of us in the regions demand better than outdated cattle-class. We want comfort and leg-room, we want freedom to move, we only ask for personal space. Your ideal does not.

"HS2...should be mostly standing..." is the most damning sentence against that damned project I have ever read. HS2 will cost something around £50-100bn. It will rip through countryside with no justification. It will destroy communities with no reason. It does not call at Birmingham without any justifiable excuse. And you suggest that passengers who pay anything from £200 to £500 a ticket should be satisfied with standing? HS2 should be luxury and the best ever experience on the railways ever dreamt of to justify its near-enough £100bn budget. Your ideal ignores all of that.

I cannot imagine how you can type such an horrific nightmarish vision of the railways: cramped, dangerous, over-booked, pricy, profit-led: what a scandal that would be.

The best result for those opposed to HS2 is that the trains will be empty.

However remind me again what the predictions for the growth in rail passengers were for justifying HS2?

It was 2.5% a year. That means that between 2009 and 2026 (phase 1 opening year) it was expected that there would be growth of 52%.

However we've already seen growth 70% growth between London and the regions which benefit from HS2 phase 1, this compares to 3.2% growth a year to 2026 and we're still only about half way there.

As such, even before we're within touching distance of seeing journey time and capacity improvements we've smashed the amount of growth expected.

As such there's likely to be people wishing to use HS2 services, potentially even fairly early in its operation, who may well find that they struggle to find seats on certain services.

Will they complain, yes. Will they negatively impact the scores for passenger satisfaction, certainly. Will they stop using the railways, well on passed experience it's unlikely if anything more people will use it making the above worse but still more people will use it.

Why do they not use the railways when things are so bad, well mostly because the alternatives are worse. Standing on a train for 30 minutes to get to work is bad, but having to drive for three times that length of time with a lot of stop start traffic is worse.

Being delayed by signal faults, points failures, trespass incidents, etc look like turning up on time regularly compared to how unreliable driving is.

There's lots of people who complain about the NHS, but few stop using it. Why? For the same reasons it's too well used for its own good but the alternatives are worse.

Much as it will upset some on here there's likely to be a need for more HS lines as HS2 will see overcrowding much like the existing network. Not in 100 years time, but much sooner, maybe even discussions by the end of the 2030's.

 

[pt_mad]

What about double decker trains on the existing mainlines? Or would clearances not be suitable?

 

[VT 390]

What about double decker trains on the existing mainlines? Or would clearances not be suitable?

I think it was looked at a few years ago, but I am not sure, and most routes would not be suitable for them.
Is it to late though to have HS2 as a double decker railway on the routes just on High Speed lines though?

 

[The Ham]

I think it was looked at a few years ago, but I am not sure, and most routes would not be suitable for them.
Is it to late though to have HS2 as a double decker railway on the routes just on High Speed lines though?

There's a good case study into the difficulties of double decker trains in the Wessex RUS, basically the cost of changing all the over bridges makes it prohibitive.

Having said that, it could be that short sections beyond HS2 track are converted to allow double decker trains, especially if NR set their guidance so that any new bridge allows for it.