All reserved seats?

[PaulCheffus]

18 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The reason the TGV has 'obligatory reservation' policy is simply they didn't want folk standing in the isles of a 150mph train - such folk increase station dell times, make internal movement within the train a pain and a sudden deceleration which would send folk flying. It IS NOT a profit making device for SNCF as such or an attempting to 'ape' the airlines business model, etc.

 

Hi

 

Until they go on strike and then you have hundreds of people crowded into the only TGV from Nice to Paris (June 2016)

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Just because Coventry has 4 platforms doesn't necessarily mean it  has much spare capacity to terminate stuff - it and Birmingham international are the only two places fast trains can overtake slower ones on the busy double track route between Rugby and Birmingham New Street.

 

This is why there are plans for an additional short bay platform to be installed on the north side for an enhanced Coventry - Nuneaton service as it keeps said trains out of the main station.

 

I didn't say it had the capacity, just that it was signalled for such movements.

 

Logic says that the Nuneaton - Coventry service should be combined with the Coventry Leamington service to make a through train (It would need to cross all tracks though!)

Edited April 25, 2019 by melmerby

[Zomboid]

4 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Logic says that the Nuneaton - Coventry service should be combined with the Coventry Leamington service to make a through train

Which would be harder work to path as it has to cross the main lines on the flat and also not get in the way on the single line to Leamington.

 

In terms of providing a useful service it would seem to make sense.

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, Zomboid said:

Which would be harder work to path as it has to cross the main lines on the flat and also not get in the way on the single line to Leamington.

 

In terms of providing a useful service it would seem to make sense.

Loks like we crossed posts as I had just edited it!

The mooted second platform at Kenilworth would be useful to allow passing trains, although there is a passing loop north of the platform

[hayfield]

I think there are two things at play with this announcement and it applies to long distance travel not commuting

 

On every other form of transport there are rules which covers overcrowding, mainly for safety reasons somehow the railways have dodged this, which is totally wrong.

 

Long distance travel is expensive I think everyone who buys a ticked deserves a seat, standing or sitting in a gangway is both dangerous and inconvenient to those who have seats, as it stops them easily accessing the toilets or buffet. I have been to Italy by train twice before and going again this year, it is a pleasurable experience as we can sit down and view the countryside and easily access the toilets of buffet. One of the best parts of the holiday, a free for all would make it unbearable, as it is Eurostar is the least comfortable part of the journey, owing to the cramped conditions of the carriages

[phil-b259]

27 minutes ago, hayfield said:

I think there are two things at play with this announcement and it applies to long distance travel not commuting

 

On every other form of transport there are rules which covers overcrowding, mainly for safety reasons somehow the railways have dodged this, which is totally wrong.

 

Long distance travel is expensive I think everyone who buys a ticked deserves a seat, standing or sitting in a gangway is both dangerous and inconvenient to those who have seats, as it stops them easily accessing the toilets or buffet. I have been to Italy by train twice before and going again this year, it is a pleasurable experience as we can sit down and view the countryside and easily access the toilets of buffet. One of the best parts of the holiday, a free for all would make it unbearable, as it is Eurostar is the least comfortable part of the journey, owing to the cramped conditions of the carriages

 

Standing on trains is NOT dangerous! Just consider for a moment other transport modes - because the restrictions on standing have sod all to do with passenger comfort and everything to do with safety factors which simply DO NOT apply to trains

 

Aircraft:-

 

Every person is required to be provided with a life jacket etc so its unfeasible to simply let an unknown quantity of folk on board.

Severe turbulence can easily result in significant injury to those not strapped into a seat - and because we cannot control the weather it can strike at any time.

If the aircraft crashes then peoples bodies do not usually end up intact! - thus accurate records of exactly who was on board are vital.

 

Ships:-

 

Every passenger must be provided with a lifejacket and a place on a lifeboat or similar. Again uncontrolled numbers are unfeasible if this is to be met

Where a ship is sinking / needs evacuating passengers cannot simply jump into the see and hang around to be rescued unless the sea is warm, the people know how to float unaided etc!

Recovering bodies from the bottom of the sea is difficult - so as with aircraft, if the worst does happen it is essential that the passenger lists are accurate.

 

Long distance coaches:-

 

We make people wear seatbelts in cars, vans, lorries etc to prevent severe injury due to a crash. On the uncontrolled road network the chances of being involved in such an incident are pretty high. As such standing passengers are not allowed (but we do allow passengers to get up and use an on board toilet if fitted).

 

Local buses:-

 

Generally travelling at slow speeds, making frequent stops so the risk of death is reduced significantly compared to coaches

 

Trains:-

 

While fast moving, the infrastructure is totally controlled - note, we might control aircraft movements to avoid collisions but we cannot control turbulence or prevent water from sinking ships!

We have a thing called a signalling system to prevent crashes, Steel wheels do not suffer from blowouts while being land based means that evacuation is usually not constrained by time (e.g. a sinking ship) nor impossible because you are several hundred feet up in the air. Out of ALL the transport modes in existence, when you analysis the statistics in terms of incidents versus passenger journeys made, rail consistently comes out way safer than all other modes even though said other modes might well prevent standing!

 

 

[hayfield]

Phil

 

I accept that rail travel is probably the safest form of travel, but as I said long distance travel is expensive and not having a seat is extremely uncomfortable We as a family went to York from Kings Cross without seats and back again, never again. seats are provided for passenger comfort, carriages without seats are called cattle trucks. Granted modern stock is far more smooth but passengers who block up gangways are not only an in-conveyance but a safety hazarded. 

 

Train operators on long distance travel should only sell enough tickets for the number of seated passengers the train carries. 

 

I know its rare but there are train accidents, even if its a train pulling up quickly standing passengers can still be thrown about

 

As for commuter trains I like many more have had to suffer many uncomfortable journeys packed in like sardines and thrown about the carriage, thankfully they were 20 mins in duration. Glad those days are over

[Wickham Green]

10 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Phil

 

...... carriages without seats are called cattle trucks. .........

Certain modern carriages WITH so-called seats are no better than cattle trucks.

[woodenhead]

13 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Phil

 

I accept that rail travel is probably the safest form of travel, but as I said long distance travel is expensive and not having a seat is extremely uncomfortable We as a family went to York from Kings Cross without seats and back again, never again. seats are provided for passenger comfort, carriages without seats are called cattle trucks. Granted modern stock is far more smooth but passengers who block up gangways are not only an in-conveyance but a safety hazarded. 

 

Train operators on long distance travel should only sell enough tickets for the number of seated passengers the train carries. 

 

But you can book seats if you choose to, that is the beauty of the current model, you can book seats on a particular train and subject to there not being complete a**eholes occupying them when you get on you are assured of them for your journey.  However, you can also with the correct ticket just walk on any train permitted and choose to stand or hopefully get one of the few unreserved seats on popular trains.

 

If I am going somewhere on business I prefer to know I can jump on any train back than have to wait for a particular train if my meeting(s) finish early.  A lot of people travelling out of London do this, what Virgin are proposing goes right against that and forces you to pick a train and stick to it.  They may label it as being customer beneficial but the truth is in their other statement which effectively read as  'why do we have to run almost empty trains?'.

 

What they want to do is run full trains and cancel those that don't meet some criteria alluding to some airline style system - but do airlines actually cancel services because of lack of seat sales - I am not so sure as they will lose landing slots, airlines work to timetables just like trains do, if one leg of a flight is cancelled then the plane isn't in position for the next flight.

Edited April 25, 2019 by woodenhead
spelling

[hayfield]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

But you can book seats if you choose to, that is the beauty of the current model, you can book seats on a particular train and subject to there not being complete a**eholes occupying them when you get on your are assured of them for your journey.  However, you can also with the correct ticket just walk on any train permitted and choose to stand or hopefully get one of the few unreserved seats on popular trains.

 

If I am going somewhere on business I prefer to know I can jump on any train back than have to wait for a particular train if my meeting(s) finish early.  A lot of people travelling out of London do this, what Virgin are proposing goes right against that and forces you to pick a train and stick to it.  They may label it as being customer beneficial but the truth is in their other statement which effectively read as  'why do we have to run almost empty trains?'.

 

What they want to do is run full trains and cancel those that don't meet some criteria alluding to some airline style system - but do airlines actually cancel services because of lack of seat sales - I am not so sure as they will lose landing slots, airlines work to timetables just like trains do, if one leg of a flight is cancelled then the plane isn't in position for the next flight.

 

As on plane travel or ferries, if there is room change your ticket to the earlier train. I can understand you predicament and would expect the system to be flexible enough if there is space, and from what I understand earlier trains may well have space if its outside peak time, releasing your booking to someone else 

[hayfield]

8 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Certain modern carriages WITH so-called seats are no better than cattle trucks.

 

 

I am now an infrequent train traveller, I have been very impressed with modern stock, far better than when I was commuting. But for long distance travel whats wrong with a pre booked ticket, even if it was only boufgt a few mins earlier ? 

[caradoc]

As we know Virgin's long distance services double up as commuter/stopping trains for part of their journey; For example the Euston/Glasgow or Edinburgh trains, long distance in anyone's book, also stop at Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New St, Sandwell & Dudley and Wolverhampton, all roughly 10 minutes running time apart ! I don't know of any airlines that operate services on the same basis, and there is no realistic cway of controlling passenger numbers so that everyone is guaranteed a seat in those circumstances. As has already been said, if travelling a long way reserve a seat; It is free, and with some tickets (eg advance) it is part of the package anyway.

[ejstubbs]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

I think there are two things at play with this announcement

 

At the risk of becoming repetitive: it's not an "announcement", it's an idea that has been submitted to the Williams review.  No-one is likely to start enforcing such rules any time soon.

[woodenhead]

Maybe what TOCs could do is better signpost the level of reserved seating on trains - I know they show currently the best coaches but it's not the most clear indicator and requires a bit of effort to translate.

 

What is they had an expected loading indicator against trains, something like 97% of standard class is reserved on the 1900 to Manchester but the 1920 is 75% loaded.  That would give people a better indication of which train they are more likely to find a seat on.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

As we know Virgin's long distance services double up as commuter/stopping trains for part of their journey; For example the Euston/Glasgow or Edinburgh trains, long distance in anyone's book, also stop at Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New St, Sandwell & Dudley and Wolverhampton, all roughly 10 minutes running time apart ! I don't know of any airlines that operate services on the same basis, and there is no realistic cway of controlling passenger numbers so that everyone is guaranteed a seat in those circumstances.

And anybody with a Network West Midlands train ticket for the journey can use them.

[47137]

As I remember things, when Virgin began their railway operations they tried to give things an "airline" feel. They made station announcements of the train "now boarding" in the style of an aircraft. They arranged for "airline style" seating. They stopped standard class passengers eating breakfast in the first class dining area. They tried to apply their aircraft operations model (or at least its marketing) to trains.

Trying for reservations-only is taking this to its logical conclusion. All responsibility for catching the booked train goes to the passenger. It is one thing to arrive at an airport an hour before departure.  If Virgin expect this for their trains, and you are arriving across London, your total journey time becomes daft - you might as well fly or indeed drive.

 

- Richard.

Edited April 26, 2019 by 47137
Correction

[jjb1970]

I don't think we can blame Virgin for airline style seating, the WCML Mk.3 coaches were reconfigured with airline seating by BR Inter City long before privatisation, ditto HST Mk.3s.

[96701]

Virgin certainly tried to call First "Business" and branded the Voyagers that way when they were introduced. It didn't last long because people with tickets marked First started asking where First was being as how they could only see "Business". 

[phil-b259]

17 hours ago, hayfield said:

Phil

 

I accept that rail travel is probably the safest form of travel, but as I said long distance travel is expensive and not having a seat is extremely uncomfortable We as a family went to York from Kings Cross without seats and back again, never again. seats are provided for passenger comfort, carriages without seats are called cattle trucks. Granted modern stock is far more smooth but passengers who block up gangways are not only an in-conveyance but a safety hazarded. 

 

Train operators on long distance travel should only sell enough tickets for the number of seated passengers the train carries. 

 

I know its rare but there are train accidents, even if its a train pulling up quickly standing passengers can still be thrown about

 

As for commuter trains I like many more have had to suffer many uncomfortable journeys packed in like sardines and thrown about the carriage, thankfully they were 20 mins in duration. Glad those days are over

 

 

I never said that standing on long distance services wasn’t uncomfortable, nor that the ‘walk up’ fares for long distance services are exceedingly expensive - but it’s important to not confuse theses aspects with safety.

 

While these factors are of course very relevant to the choice of whether or not you use the train, it remains the fact that standing is permitted because it is perfectly safe to travel that way by train compared to other modes where it is not!

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

I never said that standing on long distance services wasn’t uncomfortable, nor that the ‘walk up’ fares for long distance services are exceedingly expensive - but it’s important to not confuse theses aspects with safety.

 

While these factors are of course very relevant to the choice of whether or not you use the train, it remains the fact that standing is permitted because it is perfectly safe to travel that way by train compared to other modes where it is not!

Phil

 

Why then do train operators not have safe dedicated standing areas on long distance trains then?

[phil-b259]

23 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Phil

 

Why then do train operators not have safe dedicated standing areas on long distance trains then?

 

Because that would mean less seats - and as you observed it’s far more comfortable to travel sitting down.

 

It’s perhaps unfortunate, but if you do not book ahead then you will not only pay more for your ticket but you will also have to run the risk of no seat being available on long distance services

 

On the other hand at least if you do have to take a spur of the moment trip - at least you can. Yes it might be uncomfortable but at least you can still travel.

 

in an ideal world there would be some mechanism by which you could claim a refund if no seats were available in the train. In future years however technology may be able to sort this.

 

[hayfield]

I agree its more comfortable in a seat, but having dedicated standing areas would increase capacity on these trains. However I would assume that HSE would object on safety grounds

 

Good idea about getting a reduction if no seats available, but at the moment with record numbers travelling by train there is no real pressures on making things better for those travelling.  

[Wickham Green]

19 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I am now an infrequent train traveller, I have been very impressed with modern stock, far better than when I was commuting. ..................................

Clearly you've not yet inflicted a class 700 on your backside nor had to travel sideways on a 378 ................. when I was commuting by rail we had EPB stock on the Southern and they had COMFY SEATS (! )which took up far too much space and weighed far too much for the accountants ....... even the replacement Networkers have half decent seats and decent suspension below.

[Reorte]

19 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I am now an infrequent train traveller, I have been very impressed with modern stock, far better than when I was commuting. But for long distance travel whats wrong with a pre booked ticket, even if it was only boufgt a few mins earlier ? 

I was quite glad of having an open ticket when visiting my brother once as I got hit by the runs and couldn't travel until a couple of days later. I book whenever I can but it's not always an option, even for long distance. Although standing for any distance is no fun it's better than being told you can't travel at all if your plans changed, and I'll happily take the very low risks involved, they're low enough to not be concerned about.

 

On the seating front IMO they've just got more and more uncomfortable over time.

[hayfield]

No its not that you cannot travel if you have not booked days before, you can turn up and book a seat right up to departure, providing there is room on the  train, and we are talking long distance journeys. With most of us having access to apps or the internet, just log on and book the next available seat, of if you have decided to go the next day book the night before