Save the Train forum

Dedicate to campaigning to retain an appropriate "TransWilts" passenger train service ... Swindon - Chippenham - Melksham - Trowbridge - Westbury - Dilton Marsh - Warminster - Salisbury ... and to other services too

THIS FORUM IS NOW A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE. Please use our Coffeeshop Forum for new posts

link to main site
Save the Melksham Train

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2012, 10:20:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Recommended service - hourly, according to the GWRUS. Let's work towards that service and towards ensuring all services are used.
7889 Posts in 5009 Topics by 97635 Members
Latest Member: zpnovvnfsxm
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Save the Train
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Greater Western
| | |-+  A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence  (Read 5894 times)
Industry Insider
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


View Profile
A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« on: December 29, 2007, 12:27:22 PM »

I know that certain people on the forum (rightly) put information on what services are running very highly on their list of priorities. The following are two examples of where there just seems to be a general lack or basic organsation within the publicity department.

1) The Christmas & New Year alterations booklet - Congratulations if you got hold of one of these, but in truth you'd probably be better off guessing what times trains are running as the one I have been most heavily involved in referring to (Book B) is absolutely full off errors and ommisions, especially regarding services from Oxford to Didcot. Remember, that this booklet is for the use of the staff as well as passengers and it's no wonder their is a general state of confusion!

2) Information at Bicester Town - I noted today that the (unstaffed) station at Bicester Town had its train times poster up with the heading Bicester-Oxford Train Times. It then goes on to print the timetable for the Cotswold Line with not a mention of the Oxford-Islip-Bicester service anywhere to be seen. Surely, even if those who produced the poster made a cock-up and printed the wrong service by mistake, the person sent out to stick it up in the poster board might have spotted that the layout looked a little suspicious (about 25 stations listed rather than 3).
Logged
Graham Ellis
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2062


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2007, 07:28:18 PM »

Hi, II - I've got to the stage that I just shrug off too many thingls like this.   Errors in information / lack of the correct information almost seem endemic in the FGW organisation at times and I've had some long battles over things that should be patently obvious - like getting First to display at Trowbridge station the time of trains that leave from THAT VERY STATION to Melksham, Chippenham and Swindon.  I'm now picking and choosing what I report / ask about - just too negative to do 'em all, but I WILL push hard on cases where they are turning business away by not marketing ... and pushing travellers away onto other less appropriate means of transport.

But ... I notice in Melksham a day or two back, First's Town Centre bus stop still tells us that there are no trains from Swindon to Westbury on a Sunday.   I've news for you - there IS a service again ... but how on earth do First expect peopel to use it if it's absent from the timetables that so many people use!
Logged
Lee
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3633


View Profile WWW
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2008, 02:52:56 PM »

2) Information at Bicester Town - I noted today that the (unstaffed) station at Bicester Town had its train times poster up with the heading Bicester-Oxford Train Times. It then goes on to print the timetable for the Cotswold Line with not a mention of the Oxford-Islip-Bicester service anywhere to be seen. Surely, even if those who produced the poster made a cock-up and printed the wrong service by mistake, the person sent out to stick it up in the poster board might have spotted that the layout looked a little suspicious (about 25 stations listed rather than 3).

Henrietta Leyser of Oxford-Bicester Rail Action Group informs me that this error has now been corrected.
Logged
Industry Insider
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2008, 02:54:52 PM »

On my latest visit to Bicester Town, I note that the timetable poster has indeed been changed.

Though I noticed this little 'gaggle' of signs at the platform entrance...



It struck me that all three of them have certain issues concerned with them that mean they perhaps shouldn't be there at all? :

1) The facilities are checked on a regular basis. Hmmm, are they really? I somewhat doubt it judging by the documented farce with the help phone at Melksham, though I suppose it is at least useful to have a phone number listed you can call to report faults.

2) Nearest station with access for mobility impaired customers is Oxford. What does this actually mean? Bicester Town is an unstaffed station, but it only has one platform which has level open access from the small station forecourt. The step up from the platform to the train is probably typical of most stations (around 6 inches), so unless you are 'Mobility Impaired' to an extent you are confined to a wheelchair then there are no problems. If that is the case why not use the phrase Confined to a Wheelchair or is that not PC? In any event the nearest station is Bicester North which also has level access to all platforms and is staffed throughout the majority of the operating day.

The 'Station Facilities' poster on the platform also states Oxford is the nearest station to purchase advance tickets, railcards etc., when of course Bicester North is much closer. Sceptics would say that Oxford is quoted deliberately so Chiltern Railways (who operate Bicester North station) miss out on some potential sales commission. Or perhaps it's just an innocent mistake with the person who produces the poster being unaware of the other station?

3) It's against the law to smoke. An interesting one this. As a non-smoker the fewer places people can smoke the better as far as I'm concerned, but I can clearly see that it seems silly to prevent smoking on the station platform, which is as open and windswept as the station forecourt and road. It doesn't actually say where the non-smoking area starts and ends either of course, and as it's an unstaffed station who on earth is going to enforce such a ban?

I guess the wider issue I am raising is that the number of useless/contradictory/vague signage at our stations is increasing incrementally as the years go by, and is yet another way that money is being wasted.
Logged
Graham Ellis
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2062


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2008, 07:55:50 AM »

Thanks for that interesting trio ... the "Mobility" one is a new one on me ... and it does seem out of place with your description of Bicester.   We have (it sounds like) a similar situation at Melksham with regard to flat access to the trains, and no signs, and we loaded a wheelchair-bound traveller for the Santa trip to Swindon with no problems at all.

I have phoned the number on the notice concerning the checking of the facilities to make a comment, and have been assured that all comments are noted and that the facilities (at Melksham at least) are indeed checked once a week. However, the lady I spoke to wasn't able to give me details of how they're followed up, nor what targets (if any) are set for resolving issues thus raised.

On the "No Smoking" sign - I'm pretty sure that's a legal requirement on any company operating a business to which the public (or suppliers) are invited, isn't it?  I know that we have even had to put up signs at home, as we work from there and sometimes an engineer comes in to fix something, or a delivery man carries a parcel inside. Actually, we got conflicting advise from the people who's job it is to enforce the law ... it is a bit "woolly"; I take it that First has been advised that even on an open platform smoking is banned for legal reasons - that's what the sign says!
Logged
Industry Insider
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2008, 05:14:13 PM »

On the "No Smoking" sign - I'm pretty sure that's a legal requirement on any company operating a business to which the public (or suppliers) are invited, isn't it?  I know that we have even had to put up signs at home, as we work from there and sometimes an engineer comes in to fix something, or a delivery man carries a parcel inside. Actually, we got conflicting advise from the people who's job it is to enforce the law ... it is a bit "woolly"; I take it that First has been advised that even on an open platform smoking is banned for legal reasons - that's what the sign says!

I might be wrong, but I believe the non-smoking legislation brought in by the government concerns indoor and 'covered' areas only that are not private dwellings and might potentially accessed by members of the public - by which I think a 'covered' area is a roof structure that is attached to more than two walls of a building. That explains some of the pubs that have got outdoor covered areas that are exempt (such as outdoor heaters, and canopies). By that definition an uncovered platform would be exempt from this legislation, though of course most covered ones wouldn't be. It does just seem daft at places like Bicester Town, but perhaps it was a railway industry decision to keep everything consistent by just banning smoking on all platforms?
Logged
Lee
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3633


View Profile WWW
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2008, 11:05:35 PM »

Some feedback from the First Great Western Coffee Shop Forum :

Some of the No Smoking audio announcemnts and signs are a little confusing.  At Paddington, signs say something like "No Smoking within the confines of this station".  I guess this means anywhere on station propery, but why put it in some a wordy way.  people could be forgiven for thinking that the ban only applies to the confined (ie, enclosed parts of the station". 

At Bath the auto-announcement says "no smoking on any FGW station" (how is the public supposed to know which stations are FGW stations?  Why not just say "no smoking on this station" or "no smoking on any station" (I belive that smoking is banned at all stations in GB with the possible exception of fishguard harbour where it is allowed because it is actually owned by a ferry company and when they tried to ban it smokers ended up standing on the adjacent road and level crossing which presented a more imediate health risk.   

Smoking is actually against railway byelaws (byelaw 3) provided there are signs indicating this, so yes, technicaly it's illigal to smoke on a station if there are signs!

An interesting point, vacman!  Just an idle observation, but the last time I saw someone actually on duty at our 'allegedly' manned station at Nailsea one morning last October, he was leaning nonchalantly against the 'It is illegal to smoke on this station' sign at the top of the steps to platform 2, puffing away!  (And he's ex-Wessex, too!)  Shocked Wink
Logged
Industry Insider
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2008, 08:07:58 PM »

My 'Stupid Sign of the Month' award for February (I spotted it last night!) goes to Pershore and Moreton-In-Marsh (and very possibly other stations).

The signs read "Bicycle Parking - please note that bicycle searches can take place at any time".

Now, how the hell do you conceal something suspicious on a bike? It would take some fiend to hook up a bomb inside the cycle frame, so unless someone leaves their panniers attached (which of course would be rather inviting theft) then this is another example of stupid signage.
Logged
Industry Insider
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2008, 12:37:15 PM »

I continue my campaign to highlight stupid station signs with this view of the new, improved, cycle storage facilities at Hanborough.



Just in case you miss stupid meaningless sign no. 1 concerning the risk of your cycle being 'searched' at any time, a duplicate sign has been put up about 4 feet away. Not that you're able to use these facilities anyway however as the other sign clearly states that you are not allowed to pass that point and access the cycle racks anyway. I give up!
Logged
Lee
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3633


View Profile WWW
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2008, 02:13:32 PM »

Not that you're able to use these facilities anyway however as the other sign clearly states that you are not allowed to pass that point and access the cycle racks anyway. I give up!

I've always had a bugbear as to why "not allowed to pass that point" signs are situated in stupid places. See example below from St Andrews Road :

Logged
Graz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2008, 04:56:29 PM »

^ Surely, the 'no passing' signs should be where the platform ends (except in situations where the platform is overgrown/dangerous - eg. Stapleton Road) - but I can clearly see a station sign further down in that photo!
Logged
Graham Ellis
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2062


View Profile
Re: A couple of examples of FGW general incompetence
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2009, 02:41:31 PM »



One of these pictures was taken at about the time of day that First chooses to run a train from Trowbridge (behind us) to Melksham and Chippenham (in frontg of us), and the other was taken some six hours from the time that any train runs.

I was taught when I learned a bit of marketing to provide a product that people wanted, at a time they wanted it.  It strikes me that someone may have failed to do their marketing here ... the picture with queuing traffic is taken when there's no train about an the quiet one is at the time that there IS a train.  And before you ask - the reason for the road being quiet in the second picture is because no-one is travelling and NOT because they're all on the train!
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Save the Train | Powered by SMF 1.0.5.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 19 queries.