Post Reply
Talkback Home

Train misery - Tim (2nd Dec 2006  09:33:11) It looks like SW Trains are going to replace the nice comfortable 444 trains with the sardine can 450s on the Portsmouth route http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk I'm seriously unhappy about this - I don't think the 450s are suitable for long distance travel as the seats are too small and uncomfortable. Perhaps if enough commuters let SW Trains know how they feel about this it won't happen. Tim

Re: Train misery - Darren (2nd Dec 2006  16:57:55) We use the train for trips to London socially and it never ceases to amaze us how many people use Liphook station on a Saturday afternoon and evening. Travelling back from London late on a Saturday evening far more people seem to get of at Liphook than Godalming and Haslemere. We always find the trains comfortable, if not clean, as long as thet are the older "White" trains. On the odd occassion we have had the newer "Blue" trains it has been the most uncomfortable hour sent on a train, even worse than the old slam door carriages. I don't know how a daily commuter to London could stand sitting on those seats for 2 hours a day (if they get one at peak times). I will investigate how to make my feelings known to SWT and recommend others do too.

Re: Train misery - rob (3rd Dec 2006  22:51:53) Absolutely. You can find their contact details on their website. I've already written. Hope others will too. And look out for the next "meet the managers" session. rob.

Re: Train misery - NIall Greenwood (4th Dec 2006  13:44:26) Tim, This is indeed a cause for concern - and it has been and continues to be a subject for discussion especially amongst morning commuters! The guard was telling us the other week (us being a group of commuters standing (in FC) to Waterloo) that the 'Portsmouth end of the line' always vote for comfort over capacity, whilst the Woking end votes for capacity over comfort, which is easy to understand really. The difficultly is Liphook/Haslemere are in the middle, but if the increase in passengers continues it won't be long before it will be 'standing room only' further and further south. This may seem an irrelavance for locals who don't commute - and endulge themsleves in the odd snip at commuters as well I notice - but it is largely the workers who bring the money back into the outlying areas. Whether the change of trains goes ahead or not - and it may be possible to get up a protest - I suspect the longer term solution lies with having the infrastructure (education, medical, transport, and police - see this week's Herald!) to support the increase in housing happening across the South East. So, not an easy problem!

Re: Train misery - liz (5th Dec 2006  09:46:16) It seems to me that the First Class carriages in the 'Blue trains' seem to offer very little advantages over Standard Class - particularly bearing in mind the premium price paid. I don't travel First Class myself unfortunately, but if all the First Class passengers travelling from Haslemere and Liphook were to downgrade to Standard Class in protest about the downgrade in service, this might actually make SWT sit up and take notice.

Re: Train misery - Clive (5th Dec 2006  10:31:24) I'm afraid the replacement of the rolling stock is pretty much a forgone conclusion. When SWT pitched for the franchise renewal they promised to increase rush hour seating capacity by 20% and replacing the 444's (white trains) with the higher capacity 450's (blue trains) is the easy option. Funny they never told their customers about their plans. As it turns out, I have since learned that it was the DfT who actually suggested this as a short term solution to overcrowding in the Tender specification and it is they who have ordered 17 more 450's for SWT to use, so it is more of a political issue than an SWT operational issue. We might get further by lobbying our MP. I cannot stand the thought of shortly spending 2 hours a day on the 450's - it really does my back in and you can neither work nor relax. This is a real retrograde step for Liphook commuters.

Re: Train misery - liz (5th Dec 2006  10:46:56) I have just receive a reply to my email to SWT complaining about the move to blue 450 trains. SWT are apparently "noting customer feedback" but "The fact of the matter is that we are committed to making the change in order to fulfil our franchise agreement with the Department of Transport. Therefore the change will go ahead as planned". So the message is, basically, "Stuff it".

Re: Train misery - Andrew Smith (5th Dec 2006  17:09:12) The whole issue of the rolling stock is directly related to the franchise requirements set by the Department for Transport and responsed to by SW Trains who have committed to deliver certain services and improvements using the rolling stock at within their budget. Rumour has it that SWT seriously underbid its nearest competitor by a considerable margin when it won the franchise renewal. So SWT is now committed to delivering the required level of service against the set budget and this has apparently meant a re-jigging of stock whereby the 450 trains whihc were expressly designed for journeys of no more than 1 hour are now to be used on rush hour services between Waterloo and Portsmouth. This is allegedly to increase the seating capacity in the rush hour but the seats are smaller/narrower than on the current 444 stock and far less comfortable and the confidguration and space means that passengers will find it very difficult to work (on a laptop or otherwise). The reason the Portsmouth line is getting the 450s is that the 444s are being moved to the Bournemouth line to replace the 'Wessex electric' stock. The wessex electrics are around 18 years old, reliable and still very much in their prime. The only reason they are being retired early would seem to be because they are relatively too expensive too lease. So, it appears to be a question of budget and economics - in order to meet the targets they have set themselves, SWT are no longer willing to use stock which does a perfectly satisfactory job but which they judge to be expensive. SWT publicly argue that there is far greater damnd now on the Portmsouth line so trains with more seating capacity is needed. Whilst this is difficult to argue against, it is just part of the picture. Surely, the answer is more frequent trains of existing quality and comfort levels, not the same trains but at worse quality and comfort. However, in the world of Dept for Transport franchising, price matters and in order to win renewal of the Franchise, SWT came in at the cheapest tender and so are trying to deliver the service for the tender price they bid. This appears very much to be at the expense of the travelling public who will see annual season tickets' pricing rise by at least 4% from January 2007 at a time when their journeys will become far less attractive. I am not sure where you go with this but SWT are currently issuing a standard letter to anyone who writes to them. SWT clearly need to know the strength of feeling amongst the travelling public and I would not dissuade anyone from writing to them - but potentially the main culprits are the DfT and so it might well be just as valid, if not more productive, to write to your MP and also to Gwyneth Dunwoody MP who is the Chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee.

Re: Train misery - James Arbuthnot (6th Dec 2006  10:23:22) Mike Grimes has asked me to join in this thread, which I am happy to do. It is a hard conundrum. With the Government's house building agenda we're faced with the fact that more and more people coming to live in our area will want to commute to London and we will have to find a way of accommodating it. Should we accommodate more people on the trains but at lower comfort? I personally hope that we will not have to make such a trade-off, but I would like to know what others think. I believe that simply cramming more passengers into the same space is not the answer. And should really I be complaining about the abolition of First Class carriages? I am, after all, meant to be a modern Tory. What we need is a reasonable degree of comfort for as many people as possible. The ideal solution would be to have longer trains - but that means longer platforms. After the meetings organised by Finchie I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask for this. I was told that the Strategic Rail Authority had previously looked at extending the length of platforms. Sadly that work now seems to have faded with the demise of the SRA. We do also have to bear in mind that it would be a very expensive thing to do, because it would require land to be bought in the centre of towns and cities, sometimes involving knocking down well-established buildings. So I have written to SW Trains to seek assurances that capacity will not be increased at the expense of comfort. We need a better co-ordinated approach to transport, and indeed with the provision of all infrastructure. While we wait for that, I have already started raising questions in the House about what is being done to improve capacity at our local railway stations. If, as I believe, we should get people off the roads and onto the trains, we won't achieve it if trains are so crowded, uncomfortable or expensive that they make other choices.

Re: Train misery - Niall Greenwood (8th Dec 2006  13:39:09) James, many thanks for joining in this discussion - which is a reassurance. My wife and I are both commuters, and although long days mean we see less of Liphook/Halsemere than we would like we do consider ourselves proud to be local. The house building agenda is a cause for concern, and having attended a variety of public forums and planning briefings it has not always been possibly to understand the underlying assumptions about increase in demand. At a recent meeting the CPRE reported a government view (?) that 70m would need to be housed in the next 10-15 years, and this despite a failing birth rate, a late start to home ownership (rightly or wrongly, but set against a rising life expectancy) and a net migration figure that has only recently become positive - previous census figures only show risesof some 1m per decade, and not the 10+m forecast. The conclusion being that a significant piece of communications work is missing. But assuming that development will increase, and needs to be managed I think it is valuable to look at the indicators of capacity being reached - either within the silos of education, health, transport etc, or holistically. Locally the car park waiting list for Haslemere is 7 years (?!) and standard seating is only predictable from Liphook; neighbours can't get their children into the same primary school; rat running through village centres and country lanes is causing log jams and some passengers pay for FC, which is not cheap, but allows them to work, and stand all the way to Waterloo, as happens in SC. So I would say some of the capacity limits have been reached already. I'm all in favour of everyone sharing comfortable train travel, and of not driving to work, but I do think some creative ways of providing more seating are required, either through longer trains, and therefore platforms, more trains - if the hub stations can cope or a radical move to double-decker trains or something else if the answer to the first to options is 'no'. Otherwise people will make choices other than working in London with the impact that will have on the economy. I hope this view helps.

Re: Train misery - James Arbuthnot (12th Dec 2006  08:38:16) I agree with that. And I too have asked government ministers and train companies about double decker trains as a solution. The immediate response has been that with 6,000 or so bridges (not to mention tunnels) to replace, the expense would be ghastly. I've still not entirely given up on the idea.

Re: Train misery - Finchie (12th Dec 2006  09:45:28) Huraah - what progress we are making ... I've been a bit disconnected from the Trains issues due to my commute by car to Beaconsfield. Can't wait for the Government to charge me for that journey by the mile. At least the tunnel is going ahead, so thank you JamesA for your lobbying on that. In a rare visit to the Big Apple, I was lucky enough to take one of those Blue Trains - YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME !!! Cattle travel in more comfort than that. Why don't they just put on those extra trains we used to have at peak times - funny that - would increase the capacity by 20% without the need for the blue Cattle Trucks. And another thing (sorry to hijack this thread) - My parents live in Camberley so I do that journey alot, Going to Friimley Park Hospital - YOU ARE JOKING - that drive is a disaster. And we are a civilised nation looking for small improvements in our quality of life... Anyone one any recommendations of where to emigrate to ? (Don't count me as part of the Brain drain - but I am sure inteligent, educated youngsters will be off in their droves once they figure out they can't afford houses unless they live in the middle of nowhere and the journey from nowhere to a job is cr&*p). I think I'll just go wherever my kids go. New Zealand looking the best option ! A big Christmas Cheers, Finchie :-)

Re: Train misery - Mike Grimes (13th Dec 2006  01:05:35) I think we can count double decker trains out. We know how long and how much it takes to build a tunnel. There are ways capacity could be increased without resorting to using inappropriate rolling stock. 1) Remove first class seating. 2) Remove the Buffet serveries (2 per 10 coach train) they are rarely used - 1 trolley usually suffices. 3) If the train sets were permanently 10 coaches there would be no need for the two extra drivers positions in the middle. 4) If the train sets were permanently 10 coaches there would be no need for so many guard's positions. 5) Disabled toilets - delicate area I know, but I have never seen a wheelchair user on a SWT service (not unrelated to the fact that they cannot access the stations) - they take up a huge amount of space and there are two per train. 6) Cycles - can't they cycle to work? Trouble is, of course, this was all decided before we heard about it as SWT were given the arbitary target by the SRA to increase Peak capacity by 20% (or else we do not renew your franchise) without a corresponding target relating to customer comfort. It is a bit like we passengers felt this morning after the overrunning engineering works. That SWT's overriding aim was to get trains running to timetable (target) rather than passengers to destinations. If a train company get's an empty train to Waterloo on time this is recorded as good, if 400 passengers are left stranded on a freezing country station, this is not recorded as bad. Anyway, it would be a nice gesture if all the first class ticket holders were to switch to standard class when their ticket expires and tell SWT that they dissapprove of the cattle trucks they (and their fellow standard class passengers) are now forced to travel in. May pigs continue to fly ;)

Re: Train misery - Clive Worlock (14th Dec 2006  09:17:25) Forget "Satndard" class - we will all be travelling in "Third" class in future - a real dash of nostalgia! On this basis SWT should be compenstaing us all and cutting the price of tickets, not increasing them by another 4% in the New Year. If this was America we would all be joining in a class-action law suit against SWT for all the pain and discomfort from travelling on their trains!

Re: Train misery - Niall Greenwood (14th Dec 2006  11:30:59) Mike, Thanks for your very thorough review of practical options that could be considered to help the train problem. I agree that double decker trains are likely to be impractical/too expensive, but it is worth understanding what we could have had if we had planned differently in the past. One to add to your list is updating signals. I read an article recently that said many signalling systems were outdated and were one of the main obstacles to increases train throughput at stations - this must be worth investgating. In terms of peopel giving up on first class season tickets, I wouldn't be too dismissive of the idea - several people I commute with say that they are not going to renew their first class tickets, such is the depth of feeling/lost of service from the recent change in trains.

Re: Train misery - mammal (15th Dec 2006  06:52:00) Vote for a socialist government (God forbid...not them get out the cross and garlic) or accept an infrastructure that is at the mercy of market forces. Most of you I suspect are within the business sector you must therefore have an undertanding of the concept of a Business why do you expect The train service to be any different? and the few remaining social institutions such as the NHS or Royal Mail are dangerously on the brink of the same abyss, because they `don't make money.' they aren't suppossed to make money they are a service to be used by the people for the people. So James Arbutnot, it was your government that got the popular vote in the eighties by a wholescale squandering of every national asset this country had taken years of polital evolution and heartache to establish, so the less you have to say on the subject the better. Its a bit late closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Re: Train misery - Chris (19th Dec 2006  04:45:58) Yes, a real socialist government, like the ones from our distant past, where we had strike after strike after strike, mostly within our nationalised industries (power, railways, post...the list and productivity days lost is endless), winter of discontent, loony left wing councils squandering money on daft minority schemes. I'm sure James A could come up with some statistics regarding lost productivity on the railways during those good old days. Fortunately the world has moved on but if you are still hankering after good old fashioned socialism, go and live in Cuba. Most other countries in the world have shelved the idea.

Re: Train misery - Stephen (19th Dec 2006  11:58:56) Mammal has finally added some realism to this debate. Private companies are not charities. If the government tells them to maximise revenue and ignore comfort - that's what we get. The only way things will be different will be if the government spends money to expand capacity (signals, double decker trains, longer platforms, etc), or govt tells SWT to run the current trains and therefore fewer passengers are carried and the money paid by SWT to the govt goes down. Simple! So how do we get the government to change its policy. I'm no expert in lobbying and I don't particularly want to go to Parliament Square to get my head bashed by the Met's truncheons, which leaves me with only one option. As in any so-called democracy, I will have to make the yes/no choice in the next general election. But wait a minute. What is the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP's party going to do any differently? If Labour isn't socialist, the Tories are either. So James, is your party going to fix this mess or not? (NB: A clue: your party is undertaking a rail review as we speak).

Re: Train misery - James Arbuthnot (20th Dec 2006  13:11:06) I don't know. We're undertaking a rail review. But in order to help me know what you want, this sort of thread is useful, at least to me.

Re: Train misery - Mike Grimes (20th Dec 2006  20:25:49) In a nutshell we want train companies to increase capacity, not by cramming more people onto already overcrowded services, but by increasing the frequency of trains of the more comfortable variety. I personally would like the train company targets to become passenger focussed rather than train focussed. At the moment passengers are left stranded on stations whilst train companies reposition empty trains to meet targets.

Re: Train misery - Niall Greenwood (21st Dec 2006  09:09:39) I thought I'd better complain to SWT about this issue - rather than just 'venting my frustration in cyberspace', and received the following (standard?) response back, which actually seems pretty fair; Dear Mr Greenwood Thank you for your email of 05 December 2006. Please accept my very sincere apologies for the delay in responding to you. This has resulted solely from an increased workload due to the recent performance problems we have experienced. It was in no way intended as an indication that we do not welcome your comments and observations on the journeys you have experienced and I do hope that you will forgive us the delay. I am sorry that you are unhappy with South West Trains decision to use alternative Desiro stock on your route as opposed to the stock you have become used to and I am very sorry that you have perceived what you believe to be an attempt to hide the stock change from our customers. I would like to assure you that this is not the case, we have no reason to 'hide' our decision to change the stock as we genuinely believe we are improving the service for our customers. There was a period when we could not confirm the changes as the proposal had not been finalised or final decisions made and even our Train Planning department did not have information that they could give out. I would like to assure you that as soon as the decision was finalized we arranged for information to be put on our websites, posters at stations and everyone here at our customer services department was fully briefed to be able to answer any queries that might come in. I am sorry if the way we have approached this appear to you to be secretive, however, I can only reiterate that this is not the case. The change has been brought about by the new franchise commitment to provide 21% more main line seats to cater for the ever increasing demand for our services, which is partly brought about by the increasing number of housing developments and people needing to commute within the South West Trains' area. As a commuter led service it is very difficult to find a compromise between comfort and making sure we can get our passengers to their destination. If we do not make changes to provide more room we will inevitably get concerns from customers who can't get onto these trains because there is no room. However by making changes we get concerns from customers who don't like the trains and find them uncomfortable. I was sorry to learn that you do not like the seating on our new trains and find them uncomfortable. I do appreciate that the seating layout in a the class 450 (blue Desiro) is different to that in a class 444 (white Desiro), a 12-car 450 provides over 140 more seats than a 10-car 444 train this should help alleviate some of the overcrowding on your route, which has increased by around 100% since the last passenger count was undertaken last year. The 1730 and 1800 from Waterloo when counted for instance, have both consistently shown to be overcrowded with up to 200 people standing on some occasions. A great deal of research was carried out by the manufacturers, Siemens, into the seat design. The design is modern and efficient and the aim was to produce an environment that would be clean and functional. The seats have been designed to suit the widest practical population range, and be the best compromise between number of seats on a train, UK fire performance requirements for trains (which restricts the range of foam densities available), and passenger protection if ever there was an accident. Long-term use and how easy they were to clean also played a small part in the design. We have retained a number of class 444s (white Desiro's) on a number of services on the main Portsmouth route such as the 0615 and 0642 from Portsmouth in the mornings, and the 1630, 1700 and 1900 from Waterloo in the evenings so passengers can choose to travel in the 444's if they wish too. I hope that this provides some background to the reasoning behind this change and I do hope that we will not lose your custom but matters of comfort are personal to the passenger travelling and while we do not wish passengers to be uncomfortable, who may find our services comfortable and who won't is something we cannot calculate and therefore cannot take into consideration when planning changes. I understand that starting your day on a service you find uncomfortable is not ideal, however, I do hope that this helps to explain that by making these changes we are addressing the issue of overcrowding, and while our method may not meet with the approval of some of our passengers, many of our passengers just want to get where they are going as quickly and efficiently as possible and with demand as high as it is we must ensure we fulfill this wish in the best ways we know how. I would like assure you that all feedback from our customers is summarised for our directors attention and I will ensure that your comments are included Kind Regards Emma Robson Customer Relations Officer

Re: Train misery - Tim (21st Dec 2006  09:20:28) The reply to my letter from SWT was as follows [editor - Tim got the same reply as above]

Re: Train misery - Stephen (21st Dec 2006  10:44:14) Got the same response as well. The bit I liked was "matters of comfort are personal to the passenger travelling and while we do not wish passengers to be uncomfortable, who may find our services comfortable and who won't is something we cannot calculate and therefore cannot take into consideration when planning changes." Meaning what exactly? Anyway, James - what I want for Xmas from Mr Cameron is a committment to invest in quality and quantity of train services, acknowledging that there has been next to no capacity improvements for many decades. Acknowledging that the population has grown significantly around Liphook whilst many of those want to live here and commute to London. Next we want to do so in comfort and with a reasonable journey time and with a decent frequency (more than hourly I would suggest for a town of c. 10,000? people). And that journey should be in appropriate rolling stock, for which I would say that class 450 layouts are not suitable for journeys in excess of one hour. I want to be able to park at my station or other stations with higher frequencies (i.e. Haslemere). the fact is that transport infrastructure supports the growth of UK's economy, a fact underlined recently by the Eddington Report. If people can't get to the country's capital by public transport, what chance the UK remaining the position it does in the world. If this growth that SWT talks about is to continue, no-one can get around it by adding seats to trains. Eventually we will need more capacity. that will need money to pay for it. So governments taking a short-termist view is not helpful.

Re: Train misery - Niall Greenwood (21st Dec 2006  18:23:40) Ummm, my initial favourable view has just had to be revised downwards, as I have just received a standard email response to my thank you note addressing another raft of issues I definately didn't raise. So much for cyclostyled correspondance! Bah humbug - and a Merry Christmas to all!

Re: Train misery - liz (22nd Dec 2006  09:24:15) An extraordinary comments in SWT's letter: "As a commuter led service it is very difficult to find a compromise between comfort and making sure we can get our passengers to their destination". There must be a requirement to provide an aceptable level of comfort and using trains which are designed for short surburban services for long distance passengers is surely not acceptable. I would also like to know Seimens' assumptions as to the size of the average passenger when they designed their "modern, efficient and easy to clean" seats. - Or did they assume that one in three people would be quite happy to lean forward for the entire length of their journey, hurting their backs in the process!

Re: Train misery - Andy (2nd Jan 2007  15:50:22) I'd just like to chip in here, although I travel from a bit further down the line than Liphook [Havant to be exact]. One of the reasons for the over-crowding [SWT quote up to 200 people standing on the 17:30 & 18:00 services] is that two years ago SWT changed the service pattern on those services, adding stops at Woking and Guildford. After those two stations, there are seats available, even on the Class 444 [white] trains. Why do these services now stop here when Guildford and especially Woking are already served by numerous trains? Consequently, there is no longer a "fast" service between Portsmouth and London; SWT is now running a suburban service all the way to the coast. Trying to mix and match the two styles of service is incompatible. Other parts of the country do have Express trains - eg GNER Newark to Kings X; 125 miles in 85 minutes versus Portsmouth to Waterloo; 76 miles in 90 minutes. Two years ago, the Portsmouth journey was 10 minutes quicker! Now we pay more, to go slower in less comfort. If we want more trains, build more track. The current track is pretty much at capacity, limited at present by the signalling system. If we upgrade the signals some capacity can be added but not much, as pretty soon the fast trains catch the slow ones and then have to trundle along behind them. However, additional track means this situation does not arise, and for those of you at Liphook trains every 15-20 minutes become a reality. We seem to be able to add more capacity for cars, and even for planes, why not for trains?

Re: Train misery - Phil (3rd Jan 2007  21:43:45) Why not have longer trains even if the platforms are shorter.? I think we are all clever enough, if needed, to move down a few carriages when we need to get off . . after all I hear "get off from the front 5 carriages at Liphook" every night and funnily enough have managed to do so no matter where I am sitting.

Re: Train misery - Phil (3rd Jan 2007  21:51:28) The only time I have really experienced overcrowding is when a train has been delayed or cancelled - happened again tonight on the 6.15pm from Waterloo. The 6pm was down from 10 to 5 carriages due to a problem and hey ho the 6.15pm is full. There is a surprise. If the services run on time there is rarely a problem with capacity. . . Am I wrong?

Re: Train misery - Nigel McKim (10th Jan 2007  04:46:51) My attention has just been brought to the changing services on the Portsmouth line. I have been commuting between Haslemere and Waterloo for the last ten years and have welcomed many of the changes that have come about, however, I have become increasingly concerned about recent developments. The latest announcement that the 450s will constitute the bulk of the peak time long distance services is the final straw. The design of these trains is appalling. I can understand that they are appropriate for short distance multi-stop journeys but they are not appropriate for longer distance journeys. I have had back ache every time I have used these trains, even when I have had the ability to stretch out over several ‘seats’. I simply cannot use the seats on these trains so am now faced with standing the entire journey back and forth to Haslemere on a daily basis. This is the limit. I appreciate the many comments raised on this web string and as a result a couple of additional thoughts come to mind. 1. Seats: What constitutes a ‘seat’ on our train services, has this ever been defined? I contend that the average adult today cannot fit onto the 450 seats since they are too narrow. Nor can they sit comfortably for any extended period of time. I would suggest anything over 20 minutes is the limit, rather than the hour that Seimen’s seem to specify. It staggers me that this design has resulted from their ‘extensive research’. From the number of people that I now speak to who complain bitterly about these seats I can only assume that the Seimens research never included having people actually sit in the seats for any duration. 2. Timetable and train types I am left wondering why we have got into the current situation. I can understand the claim that passenger numbers have increased hugely on this route and that SWT are doing the best they can to improve the capacity of the service but I do have my suspicions and would dearly love to see the data behind the latest SWT announcements. Do we have the right to get access to this in it’s full form? The impression that I am getting is that SWT are progressively patching over the cracks that have resulted from a series of poor decisions since they took over the franchise. I am not an expert in these matters but I have been led to believe that it became necessary to restructure the previous timetable (established over a period of decades) because the new trains were slower on this route. They were naturally slower to load and unload at stations due to the fewer doors, however, the original intention was to compensate for this by running the trains faster between stations. I have heard that, only once the trains had been ordered, was it realised that the power supply / track / signalling on the Portsmouth line would prevent the faster speeds between stations. As a result SWT were always behind the curve when trying to cope with the previous timetable and the newer trains. The inevitable solution has been a reduction in the service so that the current performance targets can now be met. As Andy has stated, this has resulted in the suburban service running to the coast rather than the previous shorter distance suburban service running in parallel with the longer distance ‘fast’ service. 3. Action What action can be taken? I appreciate the fact that James Arbuthnot is involved in this discussion. I am less pleased that some correspondants have degenerated to scoring political points. I think that there are some serious issues here to be resolved and it requires joined up thinking from all sides of the political spectrum. It is apparent that simply petitioning SWT is not the way forward. (I hear that someone on our line has started such action and would like to support it, so if anyone knows who this is please let me know.) Rather a more concerted effort of lobbying the government in conjunction with SWT is now required. I think that the points Mike Grimes has raised are all very valid and I would like to see SWT responding to these. There also needs to be some serious thought at government level about how the country responds to the increasing numbers living in the South East. Increased capacity is required for all services in this region, however, transport should be a particular concern. It is vital for the country’s future and the future of our planet that we get more people onto public transport. This means providing high capacity and high quality service. Without this we are doomed to failure.

Re: Train misery - James Arbuthnot (10th Jan 2007  21:55:18) This last valuable comment makes me think it would be worthwhile asking SWT too to join in the discussion and to comment on as many as possible of the points made throughout the thread. It might be a bit against their normal way of doing things, but hey, life moves on. I'll write to them. No, I'll e-mail them.

Re: Train misery - Andrew Smith (11th Jan 2007  08:53:31) Readers of this thread may wish to know that there is a campaign website to co-ordinate dissatisfaction with the down grading of the train services. The information on the site confirms that the reasons for the changes are as much if not more economic than operational, as I menitoned in an earlier entry. This is also confirmed by an article by Ben Wwebster in the Times on 4th Jan, you can see it on line at www.timesonline.co.uk/... The campaign website is www.no450.co.uk and there is e-petition which anyone can sign and also post comments. I'd encourage people to do this.

Re: Train misery - Niall Greenwood (11th Jan 2007  09:25:30) SWT are presumably hoping that 'all this fuss will die down', and commuters will come to accept the changed service - however, given the number of people complaining about back pain from sitting on local trains that are bing used for long distance journeys I can't see that this will be the case. As a daily commuter, who reads station signs, in carriage magazines and local papers I am staggered that SWT was able to bring this change about with so little discussion. Their claims are also disingenuous, the seats simply aren't comfortable, train journey times have increased (ironically in order to hit punctuality targets), and ticket price has been used as a means of controlling passenger numbers. And all of this is only going to get worse as development in the SE continues. SWT seem to be happy to enjoy their monopoly - why else would they behave like this - so it's got to be over to the politicians to do something. The current lot haven't done anything, so come on James, you have a captive audience here of aggreived commuters you could help - what do the opposition propose to do about it?!

Re: Train misery - Tim J (11th Jan 2007  12:41:01) I absolutely agree that the current situation should not be allowed to persist. It is absolutely ridiculous to force people to travel on trains where the width of the seat is narrower than the average person's shoulder width! Is there no minimum service level agreement for the quality of seating provision? Why not just strip out all the seats and we can fit 300 people in a carriage? What other business (other than a monopoly that has just been given a new 10 year contract) could get away with such a move that cause obvious customer dissatisfaction? If the aim was to increase seating at Guildford , then I note most people still have to stand who board at Guildford ( and why not, it's a 30 minute journey, it's expected to stand that length of time on most London routes). We need either more frequent trains, or longer trains. Anything else is simply not an option. Tim

Re: Train misery - Stephen (12th Jan 2007  09:12:51) Petition - fantastic idea. Petitionee - so wrong. SWT is contracted to deliver the additional 'capacity' It's the Dept for Transport that makes the decisions and hands out the money and therefore it is they who whould be petitioned. Really, reading the comments on this posting, most people don't seemt to have the faintest idea how the train system works. We could achieve a lot more if we pushed in the right direction. Although, at least no-one has posted a complaint about 'British Rail'

Re: Train misery - liz (12th Jan 2007  13:39:10) SWT is indeed committed to increase capacity - but there are other options apart from the 450s. That is what these postings have been about Stephen.

Re: Train misery - Tim Jordan (13th Jan 2007  10:44:51) Stephen, Care to comment on who we should be petitioning at the DFT and how? I'm happy to help. Tim

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (13th Jan 2007  22:23:51) Good to see strong support in Liphook. I am a daily Havant commuter and run the no450 campaign. See our website www.no450.co.uk which is under construction. Importantly it's linked to our petition. Please sign it and pass on. Our aim is to ban high density suburban rolling stock from the Portsmouth line. We have the full support of the Portsmouth Society (civic group) who are working actively themselves on this, and the Portsmouth News.

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (13th Jan 2007  22:26:51) Further, some of you will have seen John Holland's suggestion that we just push for new seating in the 450s. The Class 350 Siemens trains which run for Silverlink out of Euston and in the West Midlands are exactly similar but have 2+2 seating (Standard) and 2+1 (First). With the 442 withdrawal already a fait accompli this might be a reasonable compromise. No 450 Campaign

Re: Train misery - Phil (15th Jan 2007  16:19:55) ARBEIT MACHT FREI! This pathetic government, intent on DNA-ing everyone, building a national database and increasing other surveillance technologies, might as well also tell the train companies to buy some brown wooden cattle trucks at 500 people per carriage to ship the "workers" in and out. Of course the "workers" should pay heftily for the honour. Then the dream is fulfilled. No offence meant to anyone and a bit extreme maybe but you get the feeling of frustration here. What will it take to change this? PS I have signed the above petition in the hope that it will have some effect . . .

Re: Train misery - Mammal (16th Jan 2007  08:41:58) Unless the Tories are going to take a leaf out of Hugo Chavez' book and re-Nationalise the Train service, or press for some kind of radical intervention with legislation to rectify this situation, their contribution to this particular thread is meaningless, because they are on the wrong side, they are batting for the wrong team, they created this bloody predicament in the first place. They wanted to transform every social mechanism into a commercial enterprise and now the Chickens are coming home to roost. All this argument does is highlight the stark lack of political choice we have in this region and the fact that people can't help voting for what they think will benefit themselves short term as opposed to what will benefit the country long term. And if any government were brave enough to Re-nationalise, how long before the Yanks are raising an eyebrow and breathing down our necks? What you people should be petitioning for is Nationalisation absolutely nothing less is acceptable or even practical. So get cracking and good luck Un Mundo Mejor Es Posible!

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (16th Jan 2007  09:29:28) I take Stephen's point entirely, but have you tried petitioning the DfT about our trains? They won't even answer. They seem to be a powerless bureaucracy, who are forced by the Treasury to reduce the subsidies. In the no450 campaign we're all furiously lobbying MPs. I hope you're doing the same. In the meantime, the TOC is the provider and our immediate point of contact and it's SWT we pay for the service.

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (16th Jan 2007  09:34:15) There are some really worthwhile and valid comments on this blog. I hope you're all sending them to SWT, your MP, Passenger Focus, DfT and all the rest. Set yourself a target - send at least one email a day about this. Ask a question so they must answer. All the contact addresses are on www.no450.co.uk. We need to get into the top ten of "Passenger Focus Issues".

Re: Train misery - Adnrew Smith (16th Jan 2007  10:32:49) Re Stephen's message on the target of the petition - I think SWT and the DfT Franchising people both have a degree of responsibility here. The switch around of rolling stock achieves marginally more seats on the Bournemouth line but those trains there are still perfectly serviceable and what is happening appears to me to be as much about profit motive and economics as operational necessity. It appears that a major reason behind the withdrawal of the Wessex Electrics is that they are relatively expensive to lease. Sure, the DfT in setting the Franchise requirements DID openly suggest that it would be possible to rearrange rolling stock to meet passenger number targets. I am sure SWT might well say that they have to deliver the franchisor's requirements have to juggle resources to do so. It might have been so much better if they had not taken this up with such enthusiasm; arguably they would not have done so if they had put the comfort of the passengers at a higher priority.

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (16th Jan 2007  11:25:58) We have managed to get the 450 train issue as an agenda item on the SWT Passenger Panel and it will be discussed at their next meeting - 23 Jan 07. Can someone please put me in touch with the key people who organised the Liphook train petition a while ago? The panel tell me it was very effective and successful, and is probably our best chance of success. I need to tap your expertise! Thanks, my email: no450@hotmail.com.

Re: Train misery - Stephen (22nd Jan 2007  15:32:15) Reported today: A UK government rail chief has said passengers should not expect seats on rush-hour trains, according to a report. Dr Mike Mitchell, director-general of the Department of Transport's (DfT) Rail Group and a former director of rail firm FirstGroup PLC, said it would cost too much to ensure seats for every passenger in the peak period, according to London's Evening Standard. Mitchell, who reportedly qualifies for free first class travel and is paid 150,000 stg a year by the DfT, said commuters should travel off-peak instead, the newspaper said. 'If you are travelling a relatively short distance, I don't think it is unacceptable to expect to stand in the peak,' he was quoted as telling the government's transport select committee. His comments come amid growing concerns about overcrowding on commuter rail services. Passenger watchdogs and trade unions have criticised recent fare rises and peak-time travel restrictions, saying they are pricing people off the railways. They have also hit out at a recent move by Stagecoach Group PLC franchise South West Trains to replace some long-distance rolling stock with trains designed for shorter journeys, describing it as a cost-cutting move that will make journeys less comfortable. Gerry Doherty of the Transport & Salaried Staffs Association union told the Standard: 'Dr Mitchell is arrogant and out of touch if he thinks it is acceptable for commuters not to have a seat when they are paying 5,000 stg a year to commute into London.'

Re: Train misery - Debbie Jones (22nd Jan 2007  22:54:19) I've just seen the report on South Today. I can't believe they are replacing the white trains with the cramped blue ones. They say it is to allow more seats but no one can sit on the middle seat in the 6 seater sections so they aren't actually providing any more room. My husband and I are actually lucky enough to travel in on what is apparently the last remaining white train to London in the mornings and it makes such a difference. I would prefer a 10 carriage white train to a 12 coach blue train any day. We unfortunately have to travel back on a blue train and by the time I get off at Farncombe I have such a painful back. Also, the peak travel period is the time when the comuters are most likely the ones that need to use laptops. It is near on impossible to use a laptop comfortably on a blue train. I know my physio would have a fit if she knew I was using a laptop in those conditions!!! Please, please, please can they bring back the white trains. David, I heard mention of a website on the South Today report. I couldn't find it searching but would be interested to put my name down against any petition if there was one going...

Re: Train misery - Alastair Godwin (23rd Jan 2007  00:21:19) Here are some more email addresses to keep us occupied:- spalmer@swt.co.uk ian.dobbs@stagecoachgroup.com c.f. e-Motion - Edition 19 Page 7 - "We're with you all the way" - Quote "We are not taking our customers for granted" - Ian Dobbs. Try pulling the other one, Sir ...

Re: Train misery - Debbie Jones (23rd Jan 2007  09:42:15) I've just read through some more of the above posts and have found the website that David mentioned and have signed the petition. Have also passed it onto others. Thank you for taking this action, I hope it all pays off.

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (23rd Jan 2007  11:41:59) Hi Debbie, The website is www.no450.co.uk. Click on petitions at the top. It'll try and make you pay - you don't have to! David Habershon No 450 Campaign

Re: Train misery - John (23rd Jan 2007  15:40:18) If the trains are being replaced due to over crowding then will somewone explan why the 17.30 last Friday night only had 8 carriages on it instead of 12 with enough people to fill the missing four. I travel in from Havant everyday and i along with several other people had to stand until Hazlemere. Also anyone noticed all the people standing in Carriages 1 - 8 on departing waterloo in the evening but with loads of spare seats in carriages 9 - 12? why doesn't SWT ask passengers to fill up from the front. This would also make it easier for for the late comers to get a seat as they wouldn't have to rush down to the end of the platform. Anyway none of that really matters as I want to see the white coaches back. Regards John

Re: Train misery - Andy (23rd Jan 2007  17:08:48) I'm not an authority in this area but I assume that SWT will have to compete for the right to operate this franchise again at some point in the future? Does anybody know when it's up for renewal and who is ultimately responsible for issuing the franchise? I would guess that SWT would be very concerned about it's ability to retain the franchise if there were an ongoing customer revolt against the company on one of its principle routes?

Re: Train misery - Mike Grimes (24th Jan 2007  01:32:12) Andy's might have been a good point but we were caught off guard. Stagecoach have just won a new 10 year franchise to run SWT and part of the deal was that they would "find" 21% extra space for passengers on peak services. James Arbuthnot forwarded to me a reply from Stewart Palmer, MD of SWT, stating that it was nothing to do with him as he had agreed it with the DfT during contract negotiations and suggesting that James takes it up with the "Government", which he has done. But the Secretary of State is also responsible for Scotland and we still await the reply. Meanwhile the 442s (plastic pigs) have probably already gone back to the leasing company, which is sad because they were amongst the most reliable trains in the fleet and more comfortable than the 444s that we are fighting for. It is interesting that I am not the only one to have suffered back pain on the 450s. I add that I do not, otherwise, suffer back pain. I wonder whether there is a Health & Safety angle here as these trains were not designed for journeys over 30 mins. It is also pretty galling, having been told that these trains are to increase capacity, that they regularly turn up as 8 coach sets with less capacity than the 10 coach 444s and that, where 444s are still used, they are regularly 5 car sets and often very overcrowded. Somehow, I don't think the prime objective is passenger comfort or capacity and if we leave it too long I don't think we would get much sympathy from new members of the House of Lords.

Re: Train misery - Niall Greenwood (24th Jan 2007  08:57:26) Andy, I think one of the earlier messages mentiones that the contract has just been relet for another 10 year...so not very good news! Niall

Re: Train misery - David Habershon (24th Jan 2007  09:42:48) www.no450.co.uk. Teaming up with the Reading Action Group would definitely help our cause - see this complaint from a Reading-Waterloo commuter: "I really must complain about the appalling mess that the Reading line has descended into over the past few months. Day after day we are suffering unreliable short formation Juniper trains with horrendous overcrowding. As a First Class annual season ticket holder I am sick and tired of not even being able to get on the train as the vestibules are jammed with bodies as was the case yesterday and today. When I do get on these excretable trains they offer no comfort just squeaking, rattling and vibration from flat wheels. How are we supposed to do any work under these circumstances. It is disgusting that you continue to charge 1st class fares whilst providing a third rate product. I can assure you that a major rebellion amongst First Class customers is building up and a mass demand for refunds is iminent. Just compare this to Autumn 2006 when SWT was basking in the success of contented passengers riding on comfortable Desiro trains and with complaints at an all time low. Do something now or SWT will be in for a very uncomfortable time!" ...so Reading is a home for our 450s - well worth pursuing and linking up with this group, led by Mike Johnson on readingline@ntlworld.com

Re: Train misery - Alastair Godwin (24th Jan 2007  23:24:02) In answer to John's thread, following received yesterday from spalmer@swtrains.co.uk "Dear Sir/Madam, Sorry about this. Also case on Friday. We are struggling at present with 4 units out of service with damage after the storms on Thursday. I have asked my people to spread the reductions around, but the right thing to do is to reduce a 12 to an 8, a 33% reduction, rather than an 8 to a 4, a 50% reduction. As soon as we get these trains repaired I hope we will be back to normal. Yours Stewart Palmer" Well we seem to be back to normal BUT the question is ... 4 "units" out of a total Desiro 450 fleet of how many units? The other point to note is (considering SWT's habit of making endless Public Announcements (in a quiet zone?) is that there is rarely any apology or explanation given for short formations. And another thing, the SWT Customer Call Centre is never open towards the end of the evening peak. They must all be rushing off to queue for a seat on a 450 ... ! Don't forget the webcast on Monday 12 February - no time publicised! http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/../_TalkToTheTopOnline.htm NOTE: The second webcast will be on Tuesday 14 August when most of us will be on holiday! Anything for a quiet life, SWT?

Re: Train misery - James Arbuthnot (25th Jan 2007  15:20:38) Worth looking at the following link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6296387.stm

Re: Train misery - David Brace (26th Jan 2007  22:45:43) Just to let the Portsmouth line passengers know that we are suffering the same fate on the Eastleigh, Winchester Basingstoke route with most peak hour services formed of 450s. Basingstoke is the same distance from London as liphook. One of the problems that should be resolved is that there is usually sufficient room as far as Woking/Guildford. Should SWT not reduce the number of services stopping at Woking and resolve the overcrowding with more local services? What is most irritating is seeing nearly empty Class 444s working stopping services up to Woking whilst we are crammed into the 450s. Finally, the loss of the Wessex 442s is a scandal. Last year the 442s were the second most reliable electric train on the network! So what does SWT do but to get rid of them.

Re: Train misery - Tim (1st Feb 2007  06:53:03) Some might be interested in the email I received from passenger focus: Thank you for your email of 11 January 2007 regarding the change to rolling stock as implemented by South West Trains. I apologise for the delay in responding to you, this is due to the higher than usual amount of correspondence received recently. We have received a high volume of complaints and comments in regards to this issue recently, so I have provided Passenger Focus' stance on this issue and the reasons behind it, which is as follows. "Under the terms of their franchise, South West Trains have an obligation to increase passenger capacity on some of their busier routes, in order to help alleviate some of the crowding problems that they are experiencing. Part of their commitment is to increase capacity immediately by providing more seats. The Department for Transport, who negotiated the South West Trains franchise, stipulate that this must be done without directly increasing the cost to the passenger or the tax payer. So the only way to do this is through changing and reallocating rolling stock - the Department for Transport has invested in some new trains for the South West Trains franchise to help alleviate the problem, and these are currently starting to enter service. I understand that a small number of their Class 444 (white) trains will remain in service on the Portsmouth line for the morning and evening peaks. South West Trains have assured us that they will put posters up at stations on this line to advise passengers what services these will form. We are very much aware of the impact that these changes will have on passengers. Many regular commuters like the comfort and seating layout provided by the Class 444 trains and will see this as a degradation of their current service, whilst at the same time seeing their ticket prices increase. We accept that action does need to be taken in order to increase passenger capacity as crowding is a problem. However, we take the view that, whilst more passengers will be accommodated, ultimately these changes will result in fewer toilets on suburban routes, more standing room on shorter routes and inferior seats on some longer journeys. We feel that the long term solution to solving the crowding problem is investment, but accept that at this point in time train operators have to do what they can to manage the stock they have within the individual financial climate of their franchise. The obligations placed on South West Trains formed a part of their franchise commitment and therefore these changes would have taken place regardless of which operator actually runs the trains. We have long had concerns about the capacity provided by the rail network and the resultant and increasing over crowding that is occurring. The only realistic way to address this in the long term is by investing in long term solutions, such as upgrading the rail network so more trains can operate on it, lengthening platforms where possible to allow for longer trains and finding other technical solutions. There is a need for permanent solutions that face the fact that each year there are more passengers using rail. We therefore believe that it is time for a public debate about the future of rail. We do not accept that it is right for passengers to face fares rises above inflation while seats, toilets and buffets are removed and standing in comfort becomes a desirable objective. We believe there is a real danger that we are sleepwalking into a position where rail is changing fundamentally without any public debate or transparent rationale for funding decisions. Passenger Focus is therefore taking this debate to the heart of government through all of the channels available to us as a statutory body. In relation to the specific changes South West Trains have made, we are currently writing to all of the MPs in the effected areas to ensure they are fully aware of the capacity issues and the changes this is bringing to the daily lives of the travelling public in their constituencies. We hope they will put their weight behind the call for a public and transparent debate about the future of rail. We also facilitate a quarterly meeting of rail user groups, who travel on SWT routes. All of the groups are already aware of the problems with rolling stock changes and when they next meet this month there will be an opportunity to discuss the issues and decide if there is any action they also wish to take. I hope this is helpful and reassures you that we are keen to ensure that passenger's views are fully represented in relation to these rolling stock changes." I have personally read the whole thread that you attached to the bottom of your email. There have been some interesting posts on there and also some comments which are very useful to Passenger Focus. I have therefore forwarded this link to the Passenger Link Manager who works closely with South West Trains so that she may take some of these comments forward when she meets with SWT. I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact Passenger Focus, Yours sincerely

Re: Train misery - Ross Kiddle (4th Feb 2007  16:22:37) Sadly, the Portsmouth-Waterloo line is doubly cursed. Not only do we have back-breakingly uncomfortable trains to sit in but there is still insufficient electrical power in the third rail to make them work properly. The recent power upgrade was subject to the usual penny-pinching cost cuts by the treasury so there is barely enough juice to drag the trains up the steep gradients encountered on the route. Siemens designed the Desiros to achieve rapid acceleration between stops which would have cut journey times. Instead, with inadequate power supplies, we ended up with slower overall journey times - and now back-ache! Depressing isn't it? However, on the bright side, it has to be said that one advantage of the blue "Dizzies" over the white ones is that each 4-car unit has the same traction power as the 5-car 444s. This gives the 450s a slightly perkier performance anyway. Also, the air conditioning on all Desiros is better than in any other train in the UK - and,in my experience, less dehydrating than in "native" German trains. The decor is rather smart too I think. Some of the newest Electrostar units now serving in the Southern franchise area are more comfortable than 450s due to re-specified slimline seats but the air-con feels oppressive and the air stinks of lavatory disinfectant! Virgin Voyagers are even smellier. So let's count our blessings. The fact is, the 444s are by far the finest commuter trains running anywhere in the UK - and are at least as good as anything I've ridden on anywhere in Europe (ignoring the adverse effects of dodgy tracks this side of the channel). For a brief period of time, and for the first time in my experience, it was a pleasure to make the trip to London on the slow slog from Fratton. If we want to get them back, we must fight for them - maintain the pressure - make life a constant misery for SWT management, MPs and ministers. But we'd better build up the pressure now while Tony Blair is still around because Gordon Brown is likely to be an even more obstinate man to deal with, if/when he gets into No. 10! Ross Kiddle

Re: Train misery - Tim (5th Feb 2007  13:03:52) Anyone make the "Meet the Managers" event at Waterloo on the 1st Feb? I noticed there was a police presence! I had a chat with some SWT employee who had been fed the usual script. I nearly lamped him when he pointed out the seats on the 450s were only 2cm narrower than on 444w- er yeah but the lack of armrests means there's 20cm less space per person! If SWT think we are going to let this lie they have another think coming. Next event is the MD webchat and I'm still interested in the Health and Safety aspects - I'm sure an independent evaluation of the seats would show they are unsuitable and likely to cause backache/DVT. The bottom line is that these carriages are unacceptable. No matter what the excuses are from SWT this will not change and our feelings will not change until the 450s are removed from the route.

Re: Train misery - Stephen (12th Feb 2007  12:43:59) SWT 'promised' in their December bulletin that certain services would retain the Class 444s, including the 0727 from Liphook in the mornings and the 1630, 1700 and 1900 from Waterloo in the evenings. Maybe its the revised timetable throwing everything off but I haven't been able to find any commutter services consistently using 444s. Anyone noticed any 444 services?

Re: Train misery - Chris (12th Feb 2007  13:12:33) The 0609 service from Liphook is a 5 carriage 444 and the 1700 Waterloo to Liphook is a 10 carriage 444. I can't recall the 0609 ever not being a 444 but very occasionly the 1700 service is a 450.

Re: Train misery - liz (12th Feb 2007  13:16:13) Still using a 444 on the 6.09am from Liphook. But mostly I travel of the 450s in considerable discomfort. They are far more uncomfortable than even the old slam door trains. It seems that SWT don't care if we get backache - apparently "comfort is relative". I wonder what defines adequate seating? Apparently the new franchise should leave passengers at least no worse off then they were before but I would argue that we are far worse off since the introduction of the 450s.

Re: Train misery - Mike Grimes (13th Feb 2007  00:16:04) Today SWT held a Management hosted question and answer live "Web Event" where they managed to answer over 700 questions. I might add that there were not 700 different answers. Transcripts are currently available at the link below www.southwesttrains.co.uk/... Most of the questions, predictably, were about the change of rolling stock on the Portsmouth line. I submitted a question and it was not published or answered so this may not be the total depth of opinion. Two questions stood out :- Question: 20 The complaint was that the Weymouth 442's were being replace with "our" inferior 444's. We just want them back. Question: 670 You do not appear to have had the courtesy to answer my first question about the changes in rolling stock on the Portsmouth line so here is a simpler one for you - has anyone actually PRAISED the new formations? Answer: Reactions to the stock change have been mixed. However, we have had positive feedback from passengers at our Meet the Manager sessions. This presumably means "almost nobody".

Re: Train misery - Mike Grimes (13th Feb 2007  00:39:17) One other subject was about "Penalty Fares" Apparently, only "Revenue Protection Staff" are authorised to impose a penalty fare - guards are not. Although guards may charge the maximum fare for the route (even off peak). This is no more than the correct fare at peak times and it might take a long time to go through the whole train selling tickets. Maybe regular first class travellers could join the protest and consider boycotting first class in the 450's (it is no better than standard class in the 444's after all). The SWT mantra that this change is to provide comfort for the maximum number of people (when the opposite is true) must stop. SWT management have been given the opportunity to acknowledge that there is a huge depth of feeling against the introduction of short haul commuter rolling stock on a long distance Inter City route. They, so far, have not taken it.

Re: Train misery - Tim (13th Feb 2007  13:24:02) I asked 2 questions, neither of which were answered Why is the 1815 from London to Liphook a 450 train when SWT's own figures showed no-one standing on the 444s at their last survey? What is SWT doing about the back pain we are suffering? I note the passenger focus has upgraded it to a hot issue. www.passengerfocus.org.uk/hot-issues I also notice from this a Health & Safety investigation is being undertaken (I'm sure this will be a bluewash!) The vast majority of questions on the webchat were about the ridiculous 450 trains. This is turning into a huge PR disaster for SWT. They might as well back down now to save themselves any further embarassment Tim

Re: Train misery - Paul Robinson (13th Feb 2007  18:30:55) I am not a regular commuter, the only time that I have had occasion to use the rail network to travel to and from London I have had to stand both ways. This included one memorable occasion when, fresh from an eye operation at Moorefields Hospital, and still under the influence of a general anaesthetic, I was made to stand all the way swathed in bandages and blinking myopically at an unsympathetic carriage. So the size, spacing and comfort of the seating has remained a mystery to me. I would not recognise a 444 or a 450 if it bit me in the bum. What I do recognise however is the could not care less attitude of a company who has a monopoly and is determined to make money while working to Government guidelines whatever the inconvenience and or discomfort this causes to its customers. If you really want to make the operator and the Government sit up and take notice then you have to adopt the tactics recently used by rail travellers in the West Country and vote with your feet and refuse to buy tickets.

Re: Train misery - Graham Hill (21st May 2007  14:06:31) Just came across this site and as an infrequent user of the line all the way to Havant I really do feel a numb bum by the time I get home on the 450's ! The solution is easy (for me !). South of Guildford there isnt generally too much of a problem. Indeed on the old 2 x 444's (white trains) there was very often room at the back but Guildford/Woking commuters seemed happier to stand rather than walk down the train despite the harrased guard making tannoy announcement advising where the spare seats were. So my solution....well adopt Southerns idea of dividing trains en route. Run a single 444 from Portsmouth and then attach a second unit at Guildford or even Haslemere. Certainly one of the trains I have used regularly attached a second unit at Guildford before it ran non stop to London so SWT cant say 'it cant be done'. Both 444's and 450's have been attached to my knowledge. Adding the second unit will provide seats for the commuters nearer London and of course save on the total number of units needed as they wont have to run 2 units half full all the way to Portsmouth and back.

Re: Train misery - Mike Grimes (21st May 2007  16:55:28) Graham, Have you made this suggestion to Stewart Palmer directly? He may even have a reply ready for you that he has already written, I have received a number that use the same text. You could speak to SWT at their upcoming "meet the managers" at Waterloo (under the clock) on Thu 24th May 16:30 - 19:00. You may also wish to join the no450 campaign and sign the petition at www.no450.co.uk or participate in the forums at www.no450forum.org.uk Let's get the 450's sent to Reading where they belong.

Re: Train misery - Graham Hill (23rd May 2007  17:09:08) Mike...no I havent. As I said I am an irregular user of the line and live near Havant but felt I would point out what seems a good option. I have noticed on many occasions that trains are full and standing leaving London but 'our' mainline services seem to be used for short hops to Woking and Guildford so by the time we get out into the country there is no problem. So what we have in essence is a mainline service which is also useful for shorter distance commutes and I dont blame the residents of Guildford or Woking for using them. I'm sure fast Southampton line services have the same problem although I believe a lot of the peak hour ones dont stop at Woking. Apart from the Guildford service I noted, I think SW trains divide at Bournemouth regularly with only one unit going on to Weymouth so again, splitting of trains is not an alien idea for them. I really cant believe my idea is so radical as not to have been thought of as a possible solution and for the good citizens of Guildford being able to get onto a unit sitting in platform whatever waiting for the Portsmouth unit to arrive and join up has to be much better than standing on a draughty platform wondering if seats are still available. Of course coming from London needs a bit more discipline to ensure you join the right bit if a unit is detached en route but us south coasters seem to manage it when our Victoria services split at Barnham or Worthing so I'm sure its not beyond the good citizens of Liphook to grasp the idea.

Re: Train misery - Stephen (23rd May 2007  17:21:43) Graham, As a citizen of Liphook (allbeit not necessarily good citizen) I find myself very able to grasp the concept of splitting and joining trains. Unfortunately, I am neither Managing Director of South West Trains nor Secretary of State for Transport so I find myself unable to action your very kind suggestion.

Post Reply
Talkback Home