TV Alert: Monday 1 June 20:00 Dispatches 'Trains: Are You Paying Too Much?'

[NSEFAN]

Yet again the TV producers have compiled a completely irrelevant programme that supposedly misses the point. For a programme entitled "are you paying too much" - why did they spend half the programme talking about delays and overcrowding?

Perhaps they mean to argue that train tickets should be cheaper to compensate for the "cattle truck" conditions that the passengers have to put up with?* **

* Conveniently forgetting that cattle don't force themselves onto a train.

** Also forgetting that if fares were lower then the crush would be even worse!

 

[SWTH]

Nothing less than FGW middle and higher management deserve.

Except for the fact that it's frontline staff who are bearing the brunt of it. Also, I'm interested by your idea that FGW deserves to have misleading films made about its operations?

 

[trainophile]

It occurs to me that on most of these type of programmes they mention the massive increase in passengers over recent years, but still criticise the TOCs for not being able to provide the same level of service that we generally expected and received before the boom in numbers became so evident.

It's like complaining when a small cottage hospital cannot cope with a six vehicle pile-up. Of course rail travellers have increased in number over a period of time and not all at once, but unless a lot more money is put into the infrastructure and rolling stock, how are they supposed to accommodate such a vast increase in the sheer numbers needing to be transported?

I think it's unfair to make out that the TOCs could and should do better, without consideration of the factors standing in their way.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It occurs to me that on most of these type of programmes they mention the massive increase in passengers over recent years, but still criticise the TOCs for not being able to provide the same level of service that we generally expected and received before the boom in numbers became so evident.

It's like complaining when a small cottage hospital cannot cope with a six vehicle pile-up. Of course rail travellers have increased in number over a period of time and not all at once, but unless a lot more money is put into the infrastructure and rolling stock, how are they supposed to accommodate such a vast increase in the sheer numbers needing to be transported?

I think it's unfair to make out that the TOCs could and should do better, without consideration of the factors standing in their way.

The biggest issue IMO is that some franchises were specifically let on a "no growth" set of terms. Obviously totally bonkers when passenger numbers are growing!

 

[trainophile]

The biggest issue IMO is that some franchises were specifically let on a "no growth" set of terms. Obviously totally bonkers when passenger numbers are growing!

Population growth alone would obviously increase passenger numbers, even without the baby boomers retiring with more leisure time, and the general greater popularity of rail travel compared with the alternatives. Whoever failed to consider all these factors must have had their head in the sand.

 

[bnm]

Except for the fact that it's frontline staff who are bearing the brunt of it. Also, I'm interested by your idea that FGW deserves to have misleading films made about its operations?

Why not? What's good for the goose...

 

[Comstock]

Would a London to Reading express coach (road coach) be worth considering as a means to reduce overcrowding on the rail line? Going non-stop and taking advantage of the bus lanes in London it could make reasonable time and free up valuable space for longer distance travellers. It would obviously have to be priced cheaper than the train.

Forgive me if that is a stupid suggestion, or if such a thing already exists and doesn't really help.

 

[Flamingo]

What a disappointment! Ugh. FGW have so many dirty tricks up their sleeve and the programme didn't mention a one of them, just criticised them implicitly for doing exactly what they are supposed to.

I'm curious, what tricks do FGW have up their sleeve? Would you care to expand further?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nothing less than FGW middle and higher management deserve.

Again, I'm curious. Would you like to expand on this?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would a London to Reading express coach (road coach) be worth considering as a means to reduce overcrowding on the rail line? Going non-stop and taking advantage of the bus lanes in London it could make reasonable time and free up valuable space for longer distance travellers. It would obviously have to be priced cheaper than the train.

Forgive me if that is a stupid suggestion, or if such a thing already exists and doesn't really help.

The bus starts at £25, and takes from 1hr 15 min to 2hr 15 min. http://www.goeuro.co.uk/buses_from_reading_to_london

Train takes 25 to 35 minutes, and starts from £18.10 return http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/RDG/PAD/today/2030/dep/today/2200/dep

 

[Busaholic]

Train takes 25 to 35 minutes, and starts from £18.10 return http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/RDG/PAD/today/2030/dep/today/2200/dep

I'm sure most Reading commuters are unaware that when they get Crossrail they will have to trade speed for getting a seat i.e. all trains will be stopping all stations as things are presently planned, although I predict semi-fast peak services within a year or eighteen months. Can't be done? We'll see!

 

[SWTH]

Why not? What's good for the goose...

Sorry, that doesn't in any way explain why FGW (or any other TOC for that matter) deserve to have what are standard practices that are in no way 'secret' or illegal dressed up as something it isn't by a ****-poor effort by a TV company to fill half an hour of the schedule.

Working Timetable: Been around and in use on UK railways almost since the railways were invented. Nothing sinister, nothing underhand, they're even publically available.
Selling the cheapest ticket: By and large, the ticket the customer gets is the appropriate one for their journey. In some cases, the price can be reduced by splitting or by buying two singles. Since neither Star nor Avantix give these alternatives it is ludicrous to suggest that revenue staff should be aware of every possibile alternative to save a few quid.
Capacity: What the program utterly failed to explain was the process by which capacity (i.e. the carriages/stock allocated to the TOC) is controlled largely by the DfT. They also failed to explain that Crossrail will bring far more capacity to the party.

The public in general have little idea of how the railway works. Anyone unfamiliar with the railways, having watched that program, would come away with the impression that the railway exists solely to make people late and rip them off.

I will repeat the question; Why does FGW (or any other TOC) deserve to have misleading programs made about its operations?

 

[Comstock]

I'
The bus starts at £25, and takes from 1hr 15 min to 2hr 15 min. http://www.goeuro.co.uk/buses_from_reading_to_london

Ouch, that is longer than I thought.

 

[infobleep]

Yet again the TV producers have compiled a completely irrelevant programme that supposedly misses the point. For a programme entitled "are you paying too much" - why did they spend half the programme talking about delays and overcrowding?

They had the potential with the thing on different TVMs charging different rates; but chose an example that most people probably can't relate to, and when the Toc was asked to give a statement, they just read it out without actually challenging it.

It sounds like Great Western in this case had done pretty much everything by the book. It's a shame that they couldn't have gone after the Tocs that have staff who routinely give out incorrect information; or point out the cases where customers have been mislead about their ticket validities.

It seems to be common place practice amongst journalists to read out a statement and not challenge it. Such a wasted opportunity when they do that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It occurs to me that on most of these type of programmes they mention the massive increase in passengers over recent years, but still criticise the TOCs for not being able to provide the same level of service that we generally expected and received before the boom in numbers became so evident.

It's like complaining when a small cottage hospital cannot cope with a six vehicle pile-up. Of course rail travellers have increased in number over a period of time and not all at once, but unless a lot more money is put into the infrastructure and rolling stock, how are they supposed to accommodate such a vast increase in the sheer numbers needing to be transported?

I think it's unfair to make out that the TOCs could and should do better, without consideration of the factors standing in their way.

If they can provide X number of rolling stock of y number of passengers, you'd hope if the number y passengers increased, they would be able to afford to get more rolling stock to cover the increase whilst still making a profit. This assume the increase is enough to justify additional carriages

This also assumes their is path space for the additional carriages. I'm talking about train lengthening to start with, rather than additional services.

Additional rolling stock is being produced so that is actually happening at the moment. One does wonder if it should have happened sooner than this but I don't know if the additional numbers of passengers vers cost of doing it made sense sooner.

I missed the programme and was going to watch it. Looks like I don't need to bother. Shame really as they could have made a good program on rail ticketing but clearly this isn't it.

 

[trainophile]

Excellent post #40 SWTH.

Yours too, infobleep. I wonder whether FGW were able to defend their corner before the final programme was in the can. They must be disappointed at the slant that predominated, and the strong implication that they are in some way under-performing.

It's unrealistic to make a programme about ticketing that majors on only one TOC anyway. So many journeys are complicated and involve more than one operator. I know in theory all ticket clerks should be able to offer all variations of routes at the cheapest prices, but they are only human!

I thought it was a bit disjointed the way they suddenly switched from FGW's confusing tickets to the lass in a wheelchair who travels to university on a totally different part of the network (and I can't even remember whose trains she was on - Northern?).

It was the sort of production you might expect from the Daily Express team!

 

[infobleep]

Excellent post #40 SWTH.

Yours too, infobleep. I wonder whether FGW were able to defend their corner before the final programme was in the can. They must be disappointed at the slant that predominated, and the strong implication that they are in some way under-performing.

It's unrealistic to make a programme about ticketing that majors on only one TOC anyway. So many journeys are complicated and involve more than one operator. I know in theory all ticket clerks should be able to offer all variations of routes at the cheapest prices, but they are only human!

I thought it was a bit disjointed the way they suddenly switched from FGW's confusing tickets to the lass in a wheelchair who travels to university on a totally different part of the network (and I can't even remember whose trains she was on - Northern?).

It was the sort of production you might expect from the Daily Express team!

I've watched some good Dispatches programmes in the past but may be if I knew a bit more about the subject I might think otherwise.

Could FGW complain to Ofcom? Would it cause more harm reputation and publicity wise if they did?

I speak as someone whose read bnm's ticketing issues with FGW and think such problems should not occur. I also sometimes think they should rename the company First Late Western in honour of the North Downs Line punctuality at times.

However despite all of that a program should be fair and not make a mountain out of a moll hill. It only does harm to the issues that really matter as they get forgotten whilst the ones that don't matter get the coverage.

 

[bnm]

It sounds like Great Western in this case had done pretty much everything by the book. It's a shame that they couldn't have gone after the Tocs that have staff who routinely give out incorrect information; or point out the cases where customers have been mislead about their ticket validities.

Like err... First Great Western?

 

[SWTH]

I am sure most regular people on this forum have read about your issues at Paddington.

As you appear to have missed my question a second time, here it is again: Why does FGW (or any other TOC) deserve to have misleading programs made about its operations?

Please answer this question, and justify your comments. Not some ridiculous one line response like Whats good for the goose.... , actually explain why the three points I outlined in my previous post deserve coverage that not only fails to actually help the travelling public understand the railway, but actively creates more issues for the frontline staff to deal with, further reducing their time and ability to deal with genuine queries/ticket sales.

 

[pemma]

Yet again the TV producers have compiled a completely irrelevant programme that supposedly misses the point. For a programme entitled "are you paying too much" - why did they spend half the programme talking about delays and overcrowding?

I don't know about you but I think if a low quality service is provided (no seats, late trains etc.) then higher prices are less justifiable than one where the majority of trains are on time and there's plenty of seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As you appear to have missed my question a second time, here it is again: Why does FGW (or any other TOC) deserve to have misleading programs made about its operations?

What was actually misleading about it?

Do FGW not have different public and working timetables?

Do FGW staff actually tell you about split ticketing even if you don't ask?

Do FGW staff training new revenue staff not contradict themselves even though the hidden recording showed otherwise?

Is it always possible for station staff to get through to control in Swindon during disruption?

Are the claims about the additional number of seats FGW have provided and will provide in the future not correct?

Are there not a significant number of overcrowded services serving Paddington at peak times?

I can't think of any more claims about FGW made in the program.

 

[SWTH]

What was actually misleading about it?

Do FGW not have different public and working timetables?

Do FGW staff actually tell you about split ticketing even if you don't ask?

Do FGW staff training new revenue staff not contradict themselves even though the hidden recording showed otherwise?

Is it always possible for station staff to get through to control in Swindon during disruption?

Are the claims about the additional number of seats FGW have provided and will provide in the future not correct?

Are there not a significant number of overcrowded services serving Paddington at peak times?

I can't think of any more claims about FGW made in the program.

See post #40, the main issues I have with the program are in that post. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I will expand further here;

Working timetables: the program made them out to be some sort of secret timetable designed purely to get around being liable for delay figures. Not true - WTTs are far from secret and are publically available. They are used across the whole of NR, not just FGW, and are essential to the running of the railway. They contain far more information, and given plenty of customers already find the public timetables hard to understand, why confuse the issue by only printing the WTT? They are also publically available via NR should one require them.

Split ticketing: It is totally unreasonable to expect revenue staff to know about all the options to split a ticket. As I have already said, neither Star nor Avantix are capable of offering split options - any split has to be done manually and separately for each stage. The program implies that all revenue staff are aware of the options and simply won't sell them. If a passenger wants to split a ticket, then most revenue staff will do so without fuss.

FGW Trainer 'Contradiction': the trainer made a mistake and corrected himself. I presume you have never made such mistakes? I know I have, mainly because I'm human and therefore fallible.

Ringing Control: I cannot give an opinion on this issue, however you will note that I haven't mentioned it in previous posts.

Seating capacity & overcrowding: The program did not explain sufficiently what is being done to address the issue, nor did they cover why there is an issue with providing adequate capacity, or why its not a simple case of phoning Bombardier/Siemens/Hitachi/etc and ordering extra carriages.

The program also gave the impression these issues are largely down to FGW, not problems faced by every operator on the network.

In short, it was badly researched and badly explained, and it was presented in a manner that gave false impressions designed to induce anger among rail passengers.

Please explain how that is not misleading.

 

[pemma]

Working timetables: the program made them out to be some sort of secret timetable designed purely to get around being liable for delay figures. Not true - WTTs are far from secret and are publically available.

Yes they're publicly available but not in places the majority of rail users would be aware of so to most they are a secret, also no operator has to add in recovery time to the public timetable. In the case of ATW they have some ECS paths to move their terminating trains out of platform 13 at Piccadilly which require the train to leave before the arrival time in the public timetable.

I thought the FGW employee who admitted they do it also said all other operators do it, making it clear that it wasn't just FGW who do it.

Split ticketing: It is totally unreasonable to expect revenue staff to know about all the options to split a ticket. As I have already said, neither Star nor Avantix are capable of offering split options - any split has to be done manually and separately for each stage. The program implies that all revenue staff are aware of the options and simply won't sell them. If a passenger wants to split a ticket, then most revenue staff will do so without fuss.

The program also made clear FGW said they can't sell split tickets unless requested because DfT tell them they can't. Yet DfT denied this.

FGW Trainer 'Contradiction': the trainer made a mistake and corrected himself. I presume you have never made such mistakes? I know I have, mainly because I'm human and therefore fallible.

Or did he? He didn't say that what he said earlier when talking about a specific flow was wrong, which would probably give most people on the course the impression that they can't sell two singles for the specific route he told them they can't but it's OK for other routes.

Seating capacity & overcrowding: The program did not explain sufficiently what is being done to address the issue, nor did they cover why there is an issue with providing adequate capacity, or why its not a simple case of phoning Bombardier/Siemens/Hitachi/etc and ordering extra carriages.

There was a mention of DfT authorising additional carriages which you might have missed. It's unrealistic to expect a 30 minute program to go in to the level of detail you seem to want. Remember Dispatches would have assumed most viewers would have Joe Average's level of rail knowledge.

The program also gave the impression these issues are largely down to FGW, not problems faced by every operator on the network.

Other than saying FGW performed badly in a Transport Focus survey and they had focused on FGW for this program I'm not really sure why you feel FGW has been victimised. OK it would have been better to look at training to be a Northern RPI and focused on TPE for overcrowding and at LM ticket offices for ticket sales but it probably would have got too confusing for some viewers to feature one of the worst operators for each area.

 

[SWTH]

I think the point you have missed by a country mile is that all of the quotes from staff in the program were used selectively, i.e without context. You have fallen into the trap set by the producers, in so far as you are taking the statements used at face value, whilst forgetting that the program isn't aimed at the likes of you or I, people who have some knowledge beyond Joe Public of how the railway works. Look at it from a no-knowledge perspective, and suddenly it is rather different.

Something I would like clarified: the WTT exists for many reasons, not least of which is to help the railway run as smoothly as possible. Whilst I am all for openness, why should passengers need to know about it? The important part for them is the public departure time. Most of the travelling public couldn't care less about anything other than the departure time, which is why public timetables exist.

 

[bnm]

As you appear to have missed my question a second time, here it is again: Why does FGW (or any other TOC) deserve to have misleading programs made about its operations?

Please answer this question, and justify your comments.

It's a polite request to answer the question to which I'll politely decline. jcollins has said pretty much all I would have said.

 

[infobleep]

I think the point you have missed by a country mile is that all of the quotes from staff in the program were used selectively, i.e without context. You have fallen into the trap set by the producers, in so far as you are taking the statements used at face value, whilst forgetting that the program isn't aimed at the likes of you or I, people who have some knowledge beyond Joe Public of how the railway works. Look at it from a no-knowledge perspective, and suddenly it is rather different.

Something I would like clarified: the WTT exists for many reasons, not least of which is to help the railway run as smoothly as possible. Whilst I am all for openness, why should passengers need to know about it? The important part for them is the public departure time. Most of the travelling public couldn't care less about anything other than the departure time, which is why public timetables exist.

The only thing is that some guards use to and may still announce the WTT arrival time. After a while of heating this as a regular commuter, a commuter might think that is the actual arrival time but it isn't.

I can see why they night make some departure times later at a terminus, in the WTT. This is probably due to passenger numbers in peak rush hour and people boarding at the last minute.

As for arrival times. At a guess may be this is to encourage staff to make an effort to get to get to the destination on time. Although saying that I can't believe staff don't do that regardless of what the arrival time is. There will be a sound reason for it though.

If it wasn't to avoid being fined, some companies would need to allow more than a 2 minute difference, especially in peak rush hour. Southern services into Victoria sprints to mind.

 

[yorkie]

I can see why they night make some departure times later at a terminus, in the WTT. This is probably due to passenger numbers in peak rush hour and people boarding at the last minute.

That's completely different, wasn't mentioned in the programme and has been discussed in various other threads.

As for arrival times. At a guess may be this is to encourage staff to make an effort to get to get to the destination on time. Although saying that I can't believe staff don't do that regardless of what the arrival time is. There will be a sound reason for it though.

You're contradicting yourself there. I do not think the existence of additional padding results in any extra effort to make a train on time; how could it? The priority is on safety first and within the constraints of what's safe, staff will be doing their best to make up time regardless.

If it wasn't to avoid being fined, some companies would need to allow more than a 2 minute difference, especially in peak rush hour. Southern services into Victoria sprints to mind.

Many do allow more than 2 minutes extra. Two minutes is small compared to some.

 

[Flamingo]

It's a polite request to answer the question to which I'll politely decline. jcollins has said pretty much all I would have said.

And his post was full of "conspiracy theory" suppositions and half- truths, so by extension your reply would have been the same?

 

[pemma]

I think the point you have missed by a country mile is that all of the quotes from staff in the program were used selectively, i.e without context. You have fallen into the trap set by the producers, in so far as you are taking the statements used at face value, whilst forgetting that the program isn't aimed at the likes of you or I, people who have some knowledge beyond Joe Public of how the railway works. Look at it from a no-knowledge perspective, and suddenly it is rather different.

FGW were asked about practices both secretly and publicly and on more than one occasion defended themselves by saying something along the lines of "We just do the same as the other operators." Is that really the right approach to take if you value your customers? To me that sounds like the type of approach you might take if you know there's no viable alternative to your service for most people.

Something I would like clarified: the WTT exists for many reasons, not least of which is to help the railway run as smoothly as possible. Whilst I am all for openness, why should passengers need to know about it? The important part for them is the public departure time. Most of the travelling public couldn't care less about anything other than the departure time, which is why public timetables exist.

Yes the WTT is important but the question isn't whether it should exist or whether the public should have access to 2 timetables (which as you say would cause confusion) it's whether the public timetable should have a later arrival time just to artificially improve punctuality figures.

Later arrival times in the public timetable could actually put passengers off travelling by train. Say you're going from A to B on one service and B to C on another service. Both services are hourly in frequency and there's no alternative route and the minimum connection time for the station at B is 10 minutes. If the first service has a WTT arrival of xx:33 and the second service has a WTT departure of xx:45 then it's possible to make a connection. However, the public timetable shows the first service arriving at xx:37 so journey planners say the journey will take 1 hour longer in total than it should need to - that's enough difference to put people off travelling by train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And his post was full of "conspiracy theory" suppositions and half- truths, so by extension your reply would have been the same?

Which exactly are half-truths?

Maybe this one:

The program also made clear FGW said they can't sell split tickets unless requested because DfT tell them they can't. Yet DfT denied this.

Which then mean you're saying either FGW or DfT are a bunch of liars if it's only half true?

 

[Flamingo]

FGW were asked about practices both secretly and publicly and on more than one occasion defended themselves by saying something along the lines of "We just do the same as the other operators." Is that really the right approach to take if you value your customers? To me that sounds like the type of approach you might take if you know there's no viable alternative to your service for most people.



Yes the WTT is important but the question isn't whether it should exist or whether the public should have access to 2 timetables (which as you say would cause confusion) it's whether the public timetable should have a later arrival time just to artificially improve punctuality figures.

Later arrival times in the public timetable could actually put passengers off travelling by train. Say you're going from A to B on one service and B to C on another service. Both services are hourly in frequency and there's no alternative route and the minimum connection time for the station at B is 10 minutes. If the first service has a WTT arrival of xx:33 and the second service has a WTT departure of xx:45 then it's possible to make a connection. However, the public timetable shows the first service arriving at xx:37 so journey planners say the journey will take 1 hour longer in total than it should need to - that's enough difference to put people off travelling by train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Which exactly are half-truths?

Maybe this one:



Which then mean you're saying either FGW or DfT are a bunch of liars?

Well, maybe all the claptrap you are sprouting about the WTT to begin with. But as you and bnm are both convinced that there is a big conspiracy in FGW to deceive the innocent travelling public, there is no point in answering your posts in detail, that has already been done and is a waste of bandwidth to continue to do so. A fresh shipment of tin-foil hats would be of more use.

 

[pemma]

Well, maybe all the claptrap you are sprouting about the WTT to begin with. But as you and bnm are both convinced that there is a big conspiracy in FGW to deceive the innocent travelling public, there is no point in answering your posts in detail, that has already been done and is a waste of bandwidth to continue to do so. A fresh shipment of tin-foil hats would be of more use.

Now I've said FGW do the same as other operators and the program made that crystal clear as well (I watched it in the past 24 hours so I've probably can remember it better than the people who first contributed to this thread on Monday or Tuesday.)

As you seem to strongly object to me posting that TOCs have a later arrival time at the final station in the public timetable than the working timetable to improve punctuality can you explain the actual reason. Then maybe then I'll begin to understand why the FGW staff member being secretly recorded said that was the case, even though it's actually a half truth in your opinion. If you can't explain it then I'll accept retraction of your earlier statement.

 

[bnm]

But as you and bnm are both convinced that there is a big conspiracy in FGW to deceive the innocent travelling public, there is no point in answering your posts in detail, that has already been done and is a waste of bandwidth to continue to do so. A fresh shipment of tin-foil hats would be of more use.

Wind your neck in. :roll:

Where have I said there is a conspiracy to deceive?

 

[Flamingo]

Wind your neck in. :roll:

Where have I said there is a conspiracy to deceive?

Where have you replied, other than to agree with the other conspiracy theorist?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now I've said FGW do the same as other operators and the program made that crystal clear as well (I watched it in the past 24 hours so I've probably can remember it better than the people who first contributed to this thread on Monday or Tuesday.)

As you seem to strongly object to me posting that TOCs have a later arrival time at the final station in the public timetable than the working timetable to improve punctuality can you explain the actual reason. Then maybe then I'll begin to understand why the FGW staff member being secretly recorded said that was the case, even though it's actually a half truth in your opinion. If you can't explain it then I'll accept retraction of your earlier statement.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-tinfoil-hat.html

 

[bnm]

Where have you replied, other than to agree with the other conspiracy theorist?

Ok. Where has jcollins said that FGW are conspiring to deceive? You mention supposition also. Seems to be entirely on your part. Have that drink and relax.

Or try some of my medication. I have pills for my mental health conditions including for disordered thought which can be characterised as paranoid tendencies.

Or don't paint those disagreeing with you as suffering from some sort of mental health condition.

Or, if they are, don't use it negate their point of view.