What is important in Train Renewals? A Historical Consideration.

I was recently involved with a discussion online regarding the current average ages of trains on Britain’s railways. One individual’s argument was that it was a bad thing that on average British trains are older than they were in yesteryear. Indeed, his main complaint was levelled at South West Trains, whose class 455s on the inner suburban routes (Hampton Court, Kingston Loop, Hounslow Loop) are nearly thirty years old. While they are actually between twenty-six and twenty-nine years old, I pointed out that historically electric multiple units frequently have operational lives of between thirty and forty-five years. But further to this, currently, the ages of British passenger rolling stock is at its lowest for some time.

However, I believe that age should not be the primary issue when policy makers consider renewing rolling stock. The main factors should be how much work trains are undertaking each year, their ability to be upgraded when the business and trading environments change, and their capacities. Indeed, while the 455s are getting on now, unlike their compartmented predecessors the ‘open’ seating arrangement they were originally built with makes them far more suitable for upgrading. Furthermore, there seems to be no reason to dispose of them when they are mechanically sound, especially given that last November SWT won the ‘Golden Spanner’ award for their reliability.[1]

Naturally, the link between rolling stock ages and renewals is one that has been approached by railway managers since the industry’s beginnings. As an illustration of this I will look at William George Beattie’s tenure as the London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) Locomotive Superintendent between 1871 and 1877. Beattie was employed by the company in 1862 as a draughtsman and was later placed in charge of the company’s hydraulic equipment.[2] Therefore, it seems unusual that a man with no locomotive design experience should be placed in charge of the company’s locomotive department. However, there was one factor in his favour. His father, Joseph, was the L&SWR’s locomotive superintendent between 1850 and 1871. He had great talent and I presume the directors felt that his son would have inherited some of his skill.

The directors were mistaken. Poor William should never have been appointed and was the most inept locomotive superintendent the company ever had. While he ran the company’s locomotive department shambolically, the most serious problem was that he was not attuned to the company’s locomotive traction needs in a time when passenger numbers were increasing massively.[3] Indeed, between 1871 and 1877 the number of passengers the L&SWR conveyed rose by 68.3% from 14,347,577 to 24,142,851.[4]

It could be said that part of Beattie’s failing was that the rate of locomotive renewals slowed. The number of locomotives the company had in its possession only increased between 1871 and 1877 from 272 to 377 (38.6%). Furthermore, the average age of locomotives went from 8.54 to 9.90 years over the same period. Lastly, when Beattie was superintendent only 1.09 locomotives were renewed per year. Yet, between 1878 and 1882 under his successor, Adams, the rate was 1.76. Nevertheless, despite these facts, the slowing of the renewal rate wasn’t actually a serious problem for the company, as on average the number of train miles each locomotive ran per year dropped between 1871 and 1877 from 24,154 to 22,834 miles.[5]

The real problem was the quality and suitability of the new locomotives Beattie introduced. He perpetuated his father’s antiquated and small locomotive designs, which, while suitable in the 1860s, became unsuitable in the 1870s with the increased traffic numbers. Thus, trains were slower as the number of carriages in each increased.[6] The noted railway commentator, William Acworth, commented that ‘engines which had been in the van of progress were mere pigmies by the side of the giants of the present time.’[7]

But his failings didn’t stop there. When in 1876 he could no longer rely on his father’s designs, and because the company needed heavier models, he was forced to design a heavier new locomotive type. However, ordered twenty locomotives without a prototype and these were subsequently recognised as monumental failures suffering problems in both design and construction. Indeed, Bradley argued that Beattie had inadequate knowledge of locomotive design to meet the L&SWR’s needs.[8]

Therefore, this historical case reinforces the fact that when considering issues surrounding locomotive renewals, the age of rolling stock should not be the primary concern. Rather, rolling stock’s suitability for the trading environment and whether they meet the needs of the operators is far more important.

----------------------

[1] http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/fleetreliability.aspx

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838-1919, p.62

[3] Bradley, D.L., L&SWR Locomotives: The Early Engines 1838-53 and Beattie Classes, (Didcot, 1989), p.5-6

[4] Board of Trade Returns, 1871 and 1877

[5] TNA, RAIL 411/470, Locomotives, boilers, rolling stock, etc: correspondence, 1882-1884, Statement of Engine Stock, renewals of same and train Mileage during the past 14 years., Undated, p.59

[6] Bradley, L&SWR Locomotives: The Early Engines, p.5-6

[7] Acworth, William, ‘The South-Western Railway,’ Murray's Magazine, Vol.3 No.18 (1888, June) p.802

[8] Bradley, L&SWR Locomotives: The Early Engines, p.5-6

The Mighty Trek To Snowhere - "South West Trains Can I Have Some Information Please?"

Yesterday, I struggled in vain to get to a party. I suppose the lure of nibbles, socialising, intellectual conversation and alcohol would entice anyone. Yet I failed; foiled in my efforts to get to London by the culprit in most of Britain’s current travel worries, snow. The reality is that this is a story about not travelling on trains; after all, I travelled much further on busses yesterday. Instead, the tale is about the gaps in information that were endemic amongst South West Trains (SWT) staff and subsequently their customers.

My journey started at on the 3.54 train from Hampton Court. As I boarded the train there was no indication that anything was amiss. Thus, I settled in my seat, comfortable in the knowledge that the train was going to stop at the usual places and get me to Waterloo (sorry, ‘London Waterloo’) on time. However, out of the corner of my eye I did notice the guard move in a hurry to the back of the train. On reflection, this should have been my first warning something was up. Anyway, I forgot about it and began to read my book. One of the things about being savvy about the railways is that I notice the small changes in what the trains do. So, when after starting the train immediately jerked to the right onto the outside line, I realised that information had departed from reality on the SWT passenger information boards.

Then the voice of doom came over the speaker system “Ladies and Gentleman, due to adverse weather conditions we are running a shuttle service between Hampton Court and Surbiton, you will need to change trains at Surbiton to continue onto London Waterloo.” I don’t know if this was a practical joke that SWT was playing, but surely that is information I should receive before I commit to a journey, before I tap my Oyster card on the reader, before I start the next page of my book and definitely before the train starts moving. The frustrating thing was that it wouldn’t even have been hard to announce the change in the service just before the train started. I realise that the guard may have been thinking that the passengers may have been able to change at Surbiton, but in reality some of us may not have wanted the hassle, may have put our journey off, or may have travelled via another medium. After all, if one train’s timetable had been affected, we could be pretty certain that every other’s had also.

So, in an annoyed state, I got off the train at Surbiton and wandered over to platforms 1 and 2. Ominously, there were a lot of people already there waiting for a train. My onward journey didn’t look hopeful, and after descending the stairs a quick glance at the signals told me as such. Every signal was red, nothing would be moving from Surbiton for some while. After waiting for about 5 minutes on platform 2, which trains usually streak past without stopping, a class 444 Desiro came to a halt. Now, the class of the locomotive is significant as the class 444s are the long-distance Desiros. They never stop at Surbiton and usually can’t be seen adequately as they are moving so fast.

A frankly bewildered guard stuck his head out. And then the barrage of questions started, “is this train going to Waterloo?” “When do you expect to be on the move?” “How long are you going to be here?” Apart from the simple fact that his next stop, if the train was to move, was going to be Waterloo, he himself was in the dark regarding many of these questions. That said, the source of all the tribulations was finally known, and he informed us that all the signals at Wimbledon had gone down and nothing was moving on the main line. But, many people got on the train in the hope that at some point they would be on the move.

One of the joyful things in such times of trial is that generally people pull together and are good natured, and one of the reoccurring themes in this story is that people try their best to support strangers. Thus, once I had heard what was going on I spent a couple of minutes explaining the situation to a number of people that asked me what I had just heard. Other people did this too. Of course, I put my unique train-twist on things, (“there are two red lights…”) but people were thankful to be better informed, even if they were stuck.

Suddenly, another train arrived on platform one. I don’t know why they thought it would help, but to the cries of “oo, another one,” many people abandoned the class 444, and trotted over to the newcomer. I suppose they thought that, as a train they recognised (it being a local one), it may do better in getting to Waterloo. I watched them moving round the doors, clustering to get on, and then thought hard about my options. I could continue fight from here to get to the party, or I could try another station on a different line. I took the latter option. Kingston was my new destination. I thought that maybe SWT would do what they usually do when works are going on on the main line, in reversing trains there and sending them back to Waterloo. I ‘touched out’ of Surbiton with my Oyster at about 4.20. On my way out I went to the ticket booth to ask if trains from Kingston were still running. I don’t know what I expected, but the response was heartening, “yes, trains are running from Kingston.” That was positive I thought, at least someone, somewhere, knows something.

On arriving at Kingston, it appeared that I just missed a train. Looking up at the board I could see that the 4.27 to Waterloo via Wimbledon, was on time and ‘touched in’ with my Oyster. But, I trotted up to the ‘information point’ on the platform to ascertain the state of play. When I got there, two individuals were inside. They were having a conversation and the one closest the window had his back to me. “When is the next train to Waterloo?” I asked. The response was efficient to say the least, “on the other platform in a moment.” Yet, I was concerned. If the train that was due was scheduled to go ‘via Wimbledon’ and nothing was moving past that place on the Main Line, then how could the train’s onward journey be OK? I responded, “but that train is via Wimbledon, how is it going to get to Waterloo if Wimbledon is out of action?” Both of the SWT employees looked at me as though I was in a dream world. The response was far from encouraging “that next one is fine.” I wasn’t having that, and retorted that I had just come from Surbiton, where nothing was moving. He reiterated that the train that was due would get me to where I wanted to go, and so, I walked over to the other platform to wait for it. I was still very concerned, especially as it seemed that the men in the ‘information point’ didn’t know about what was going on at Wimbledon. There was no “that hasn’t affected our trains” or “we don’t foresee any problems.” No, they seemed that they just wanted to get rid of me so they could continue their chat.

I wandered up the ramp and then another ominous announcement came. “Ladies and Gentlemen, due to a signal failure at Wimbledon we are suffering severe delays. We are not sure if the next train will go any further.” The train rolled in as I reached platform level and stopped. Then it struck me. Was I the person that told them of the signal failures, a fact which they then looked up? I suppose it wasn’t outside the realms of possibility. In fact, the time difference between when I told them and when the announcement was made seemed to me long enough for them to call someone for the relevant information. If this was so, then it was simply shocking. Anyway, I was now faced with another dilemma. If I got on this train I could be stuck on it if it started to move towards Waterloo. That was something I didn’t relish. The alternatives were either to give up and go home, or try one last bid to get to the party from Twickenham. Trains from that place should have been better, as on route to Waterloo they did not go through Wimbledon. I decided to take that option.

On my way out of Kingston station I touched out with my Oyster. I reflected on the fact that, once again, there had been a severe lack of information available. Indeed, 'touching in' and then 'touching out' with my Oyster at the same station, which cost me £1.50, could have been avoided by someone standing in the main station booking hall just informing people, or even just a sign detailing the problems being present. Yet, as I exited, the station was bereft of staff. There were no staff manning the ticket office, and the barriers were open with no one guarding them. Indeed, I sort of realised that the SWT staff at Kingston did know something was up, what other reason could there be for abandoning whole sections of the station? But, the situation was simply not good enough. From the guys in the office, who seemed to know nothing (either that or they did not care), to the lack of information outside the ticket offices, there was nothing to stop 100s of people wasting their money by ‘touching in’ with their Oyster and then going nowhere. Indeed, if the rail companies come down unnecessarily hard on honest people who make mistakes in buying the wrong ticket, then in return they should inform people as to the state of play on days like this so they can avoid paying for journeys they have no hope of making.

On my way out there were a number of people clustered round the information board all looking confused. I informed them of the situation, which was that a train had pulled up; however, it wouldn’t be going anywhere as Wimbledon was out of action. 5 minutes later, and after a lot of good-natured camaraderie, I left to get the bus to Twickenham. While on it, I checked on my phone the National Rail Enquiries website for the status of trains going from Twickenham to Waterloo. The site was not a joyful one to be on. While some trains were still running, clearly most were cancelled. Given my information problems so far, I was curious to see how close to reality this information was.

Passing into Twickenham station I noticed that the barriers were open with no one manning them, that the ticket office was closed and that there was no sign detailing the state of play. Where had everyone gone? Had they abandoned their posts like rats from sinking ships. However, the digital display was showing almost exactly the same information I had seen on the National Rail Enquiries website. What a surprise it was to have accurate information. A train was due, so I touched in and went down to the platform. As it pulled in, I thought long and hard. ‘This could get me to the party.’ But if things were still terrible later, my journey home may also not materialise, leaving me stranded in London. And so, at the very moment I could have achieved my goal, I turned and walked away. It was now about 5.30. I ‘touched out’ with my Oyster, which cost me another £1.50, and went to the pub.

Whose fault was my long journey? As the failures materialised before I started out, I can safely say that SWT were not communicating with their staff effectively. This, therefore, meant that we passengers were out of the loop. From the guard who knew nothing, to the ill-informed staff at Kingston, to the lack of information outside stations, and the lack of staff generally, the state of information provision was truly shocking. I know that because of the geographically spread nature of railways that information moves on it at a slower rate, especially if there is a need to get maintenance crews on-site to diagnose a problem which takes time. But, the fact that the staff at Kingston seemingly didn’t know about the problems at Wimbledon shows that SWT’s information flows had broken down.

On the positive side, the experience showed me that when times are tough and people face adversity together, they do help each other out and band together. Indeed, what it has also showed me is that people understand railway workers’ predicaments and are much calmer when they know what is going on. And while in explaining the situation I evidently gave people bad news, once they had the information as to the state of play they were much less frustrated. I cannot say that throughout railway history information flows for passengers have been much better, and in fact I think that we recieve the most information that any generation of passengers has ever had. But, quite clearly, SWT could keep improve things greatly. The level of service that they gave me yesterday was, simply put, inexcusable.

Ticket Machines - Some people's thoughts....

On Wednesday it was plastered all over the news that ticket machines aren’t really that user friendly and as a result a third of queues at ticket offices had waiting times longer that the ‘industry standard’ of five minutes at peak times. This research was undertaken by Passenger Focus, an organisation that was set up to defend the rights of rail users, but who in reality are only listened to by the media. The Association of Train Operating Companies, Network Rail and anyone else in the industry rarely, if ever, take any notice of them. Now I could rant about ticket machines for ages, but in reality I have nothing to complain about. In all honesty I do not find them that confusing, but I acknowledge that it might just being a case of being well-versed in their operation to the point whereby it is second nature. My only gripe is when the touch-screens don’t work and I find myself repeatedly beating my finger against them like someone who needs a ticket to Narnia, but can’t find it. This said, I am also aware that my case is exceptional and many others do have problems.

Rather than discuss the results of the survey, which I felt was a highly imperfect one, I felt it would be far more interesting to get some views and experiences from my friends on the subject of ticket machines. Thus, I posted the BBC website’s article on Facebook and requested people’s opinions. However, what happened was that the discussion that started trailing off into lots of discussion about the quality of the railways generally and the various run-ins that a few of my friends have had with railway officials. Yet from amongst these I received some interesting comments.

Sarah said that she was “always paying over the odds” because she was “thick!” I think not Sarah. If anything has come out of the survey it is that ticket machines are confusing and sometimes do not show the cheapest price. However, this is what they are legally obliged to do. Simon followed this by saying that “I've picked up some very cheap tickets from the ticket office as opposed to the machines.” Therefore, as limited as this evidence is, my friends confirm that occasionally the ticket machines overprice which it seems from all prior pieces of evidence is not a new phenomenon.

But then again, Adrian recounted a story in which he was offered a ticket at the ticket office, as opposed to the machine which he was unable to use.

“I normally buy off-peak returns to Manchester Piccadilly from Thames Ditton or Surbiton, which allow me to make the inward journey at any time within a month. This, with my 16-25 railcard, costs me £45.60. When approaching a ticket kiosk the member of staff offered me a return for somewhere in the region of £120, even though the machine offered me my usual £45 snatch minutes earlier (but it wouldn't take my card). I even had an old ticket for a previous journey, which I showed him, and he paused, shrugged and said that £120 something was the price he was being shown. I then persuaded him to sell me a travelcard. This way I travelled to Euston and bought my usual £45 ticket from there.”

Therefore, it seems that there is not just a problem of ticket pricing at machines or at the offices, there is a very real problem somewhere in the software. If machines and offices are out of sync with each other this amounts to a form of corruption. Indeed, unless people are willing to check both the machine and the office prices, then this put the railway companies’ operatives in a position of power. Who has the correct knowledge, or time in this case, to be able to question what prices are presented to them? Very people I’m sure. Therefore, the companies can effectively stop people from receiving the cheapest prices. They might try to deny they do this, but the evidence is plain to see in the cases recounted by my friends and others.

Only Simon talked about the actual quality of the interaction with the machines. While in no way representative of the nation’s experiences, the lack of commentary on how user-friendly they ticket machines were in the discussion I started, possibly shows that the quality of this interaction is secondary to people’s concerns over receiving the correct and cheapest price. Simon said:

“I think the machines operated by South West Trains are okay. It's Southern's that are rubbish! You don't seem to be able to buy multiple tickets of a single type. However, Southern do provide Oyster services which SWT do not.”

In my own experience I have found that the difference between different companies’ ticket machines can make a very real difference in the quality of the buying experience. I agree with Simon that SWT’s ticket machines are okay, but they could be improved. The only other experience that comes to mind is East Coast’s machines which are very user friendly. I think, however, the report that Passenger Focus presented is quite poor because it was not a complete survey of ticket machine services across the nation. PF only looked at the machines operated by four companies (South West Trains, First Great Western, East Midlands Trains and SouthEastern). This is no way to run a survey and what is required is more data from which to draw conclusions. Indeed, if the Association of Train Operating Companies’ (ATOC) own figures show that ticket machine users are satisfied 7 out of 10 times, then there seems to be a discrepancy that can only put down to regional variations that haven’t been accounted for in PF’s work (even if ATOC’s figures can also be considered dubious).

Overall, I think that the process of purchasing tickets by all means, from machines, offices or online, needs to be looked at more carefully and using far better research. Perhaps there should be a standard machine or software? Or what about a poster with the prices of the most used tickets at each station? Of course, with such a fractured industry this is unlikely to happen. I think first we need to get the prices altered…oh dear, well, that’s another problem!

Goodbye Lord Adonis...You'll be missed

What will happen to the railways of this nation in the next five years? I don't know, who knows? The media certainly didn't talk about it throughout the election campaign. I think this is principally as one of the most expensive additions to the British railway network, the new high speed line to the north of the county, High Speed 2, was debated by the parties before the election date was even announced. Further, because the three major parties broadly agreed on how this line would be built there was no real need to highlight the small differences in each of their approaches. This said at an estimated cost of around 34 billion, 14 billion more than the Trident renewal cost, you'd think it'd at least be mentioned...once. (Ok, it probably was, I just must have missed it)While I am in no way a Labour supporter, one of my main irritations about the fact they are now out of government is that Lord Adonis, probably the man in the country who least lives up to his name, will have left the Department of Transport (DofT). I think that at the moment it is a shame he will not go down in British political history for his work at the DofT. Every time I hear his name mentioned on the news it is to regale us with tales of how he was one of the members of the Labour party negotiating team that tried establish a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition, against the wishes of many in his party. This is, unfortunately, not what he should really be remembered for. After all, he was only trying to keep his party in power. What's more, it is likley that he will also be remembered as the man who erroneously grounded everyone under an ash-cloud when the Icelandic volcano blew its top. Again this is not really something he should be remembered for.

What Adonis should be remembered for is the many policies that he enacted and drove forward to improve this country's rail network. He took office as Minister for Transport in October 2008 under Geoff Hoon, and succeeded him as Secretary of State in June 2009. Hoon was pro-plane and pro-car in his approach, but largely ineffective. Yet Adonis felt that the 'green' transport policies were the future, and as such railways took centre stage. As such, Christian Wolmar stated in Rail Magazine that 'the new Transport Secretary has effected a complete revolution in the government’s handling of the railways.' (RAIL No. 624, August 11th 2009)

Firstly, and it has already been mentioned, he was the man that got the plans for building a new High Speed Line to the north off the ground. This was after years of political indecision and having the proposal firmly locked away in a filing cabinet. On Adonis' advice, the Government set up the the High Speed Two Ltd company in February in 2009 to look into the viability of the project. Adonis therefore brought the issue to the forefront of politics and this had the effect of forcing the other two major parties into developing their own policies regarding a high speed line. Subsequently, there was universal consensus in the election manifestos that the development of High Speed 2 is now an economic, social and environmental necessity. Therefore there is now a real hope that building work will start in the next parliament (even if the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives do disagree on the finer details). This said, the sad thing is that if it does succeed Adonis won't be at the helm to take any credit for getting this gargantuan project off the ground.

Further, Adonis set out in July 2009 a Government plan to electrify important lines that still are dependent on diesel traction. These included the Great Western main line to South Wales and the Liverpool to Manchester route. This would electrify 300 miles of railway, would give faster journey times, and provide travellers with a more pleasant journey. This last part is particularly relevant to me. Having recently completed two journeys on the Great Western mainlLine I can say that the juddery, jiggery and jumpy service was more than a little irritating at times, especially when trying to consume hot tea. While the plans were given a very negative reception in the mainstream media, the railway media and franchise holders for once had the same opinion, and applauded the vision that Adonis had shown. However, I think the electrification plans are less likely to be undertaken by the incoming government. It was a proposal that came from Adonis and his team, and not from business or the travellers. Therefore with him gone, electrification probably won't see the light of day for a long time. In addition, while relatively cheap compared to HS2 at 1.1 billion pounds, it was only projected to break even after 40 years. With a massive debt the Government are highly likely to side-line it based on this projection.

The last area where the loss of Adonis will be felt is in his support for the travelling public. He demonstrated frequently that for him the traveller came first. Mainly this ethos was expressed through the DofT's increasing influence over the companies running the franchises. Yes, Adonis was accused of micromanagement, but there are a number of cases where this was of very large benefit to the customers. Additionally, there were none that come to mind where it was not. Firstly, he beat South West Trains up (something that I am never unhappy about) regarding their plans to close ticket offices, reversing the decision. Secondly, as National Express East Coast's own money worries were beginning to hit the quality of the service, he told them that their game was up and stripped them of their franchise. As a result we now have the Government running East Coast as a not-for-profit company. I certainly have no complaints and to my mind the service has improved. Lastly, he conducted a rail tour round the country experiencing the delights of the British rail network. The joy at the end of it was that he complained about the fare prices and gave an ear-full to the Train Operating Companies (TOC). This was a man who frequently supported the rail user over the TOC's lust for profit.

There were of course mistakes, and the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) springs to mind. This was a project to replace all of Britain's ageing high speed trains, some of which are nearly 35 years old, at a cost of 7.5 billion. Yet, the plan was correctly put on hold in February this year after £20 million had been spent. The project's value for money was to be reviewed given the financial crisis. Yet, as I have stated before in my blog, it was better to spend 20 million erroneously, than waste 7.5 billion. I suspect, given the fact that Labour dropped the plan in February, that this project will not be revived. This is one case where I won't complain and for various reasons I am happy to see the back of it.

As I write there is no Secretary of State for Transport, the new government hasn't appointed one. Lord Adonis was a man who could see into the future. He envisioned a Britain where people used trains more than cars, where rail transportation was clean and comfortable, and where the rights of the rail user were above those of those of the TOCs. He saw that long-term rail policy is not something that interests a great many people, that the rail user is essentially concerned with those aspects of travel that confront them from day to day, such as fares, open ticket offices and quality of service. He addressed these things, yet at the same time realised that their were bigger issues that needed attention to make the railway industry a success, such as long term strategy, funding and the environment. He realised that the media and the public would not demand these changes, rather that the big initiatives needed to come from his office, from his mind. Therefore this is why I feel that in the last year and a half Britain probably had its best Secretary of State For Transport in a very long time (well, as far as the railways go). It is just a shame that his tenure is now cut short.

What, therefore, are the priorities for the new Secretary of State for Transport regarding Britain's railways? The important things are having vision and the protection of the interests of the traveller. It is not good enough for the new Secretary of State to simply accept the 'way things are.' He or she needs to push to make Britain's railways the best they can with ideas, confidence and having the railway user always in mind. Adonis' momentum needs to be continued, but I suspect it will not as it will be hard to better this exceptional Secretary of State for Transport. Goodbye Lord Adonis.

The South West Oyster Fiasco

South West Trains, my local Train Operating Company (TOC), dumbfounds me a lot of the time. Some of the things it does, some of the ways it works, strike me as silly. Many of its actions just serve to heighten my suspicion that the only thing that motivates its management is to line the pockets of its owners' shareholders. This said, at times it does incompetent and costly things that beggar belief, that explain why it probably needs to milk the franchise for all it is worth. The best demonstration of this is in its attitude to the Oyster Card which from the 1st January could be used on all its services in the 6 zones that Transport for London (TfL) cover.

For those of you who are unaware of the Oyster card, this is an electronic ticketing device that you can use in the TfL area (basically greater London) to make journeys. There are card readers at every station and at the start of the journey you simply touch your card onto the yellow panel and then touch out at the end. If you have opted for the pre-pay option this will take money off your card's account. If you have put a Travel Card onto the Oyster then it just logs your journey and hands the data over to a government department (Ok...that last part I hope isn't true, but I'm as sure as heck the data collected has been used somewhere at some point). Usually single journeys from 'anywhere' to 'somewhere else' with an Oyster are cheaper than buying a paper ticket. I have always felt that for a system of travel it is perfect. Efficient, relatively hustle free and cheap.

Although they could have meddled with the names and concepts to make it a bit more interesting. Card readers sounds so droll, so mild, so boring. How about instead of 'card readers' they call them 'quest start portals'? And Oyster? Really? How'd they come up with that one? Even a 'Crustacean Card' would have sounded better. Continuing the 'quest' theme, what about 'Mighty Steed' card. Whims, I venture, but it could have been so much more interesting. Anyway, I digress.

Originally Oyster was only rolled out on the London Underground (and bus) services in July 2003. London Underground is run by TfL and is therefore nationalised. Yet the National Rail services are run by private TOCs and are therefore privatised. It was always hoped, and expected, by TfL and the Mayor, that in time the suburban routes of the National Rail operators, such as South Eastern, Southern, and our beloved SWT, would allow Oyster readers to be placed at their stations so that every traveller in London could enjoy its benefits. Of course when the Mayor at the time, Ken Livingstone, muted this, he had the door slammed in his face by the TOCs more than once. Yet, never a man to give up, Ken kept beating away like a persistent door-to-door salesman; getting to the point where he was sitting on the sofa with the TOCs, in their living room (it was a house share), with a cup of tea.

This process of getting Oyster on National Rail services took a long time for a number of reasons. Firstly there was the obvious one. TfL, I hope, is run in the interest of the public (this is of course unless you are Bob Crow) and therefore is a not-for profit organisation. The TOC's are really not. The implementation of Oyster on National Rail routes would mean that many of the fares between stations which the TOCs controlled themselves would actually be reduced as they would be brought in line with the fares of TfL's zonal system. In the end the agreement meant that while Oyster Rates on National Rail services are usually cheaper than the paper tickets, they are now set by the TOCs. Secondly it would mean a lot of investment in the network by the TOCs. The estimated cost of Oyster equipment at SWT's stations cost them an estimated £40 million. Therefore the negotiations, which went on before January 2009, were complicated and frustrating, but by mid-2008 most companies had agreed a deal with TfL. That is except SWT, dragging their feel like a petulant child who screams as everyone walks away.

Basically, I think, they hated the fact that this would be a heavy investment and cut into their immediate profits. This said, most children of this ilk do eventually have to be picked up and brought back to the family. SWT was no exception, and under heavy pressure from TfL and realising they were being left out, they agreed to adopt Oyster. Yet, for making the move they were given one very important concession. (this is the ice cream to calm the kid down).

As many of you will have found out no SWT ticket office will top up or put travel cars on your Oyster, or sell you the thing in the first place. This forces the traveller to go to the local 'travel shops' for all their Oyster needs. SWTs fatuous arguments were that the equipment was too expensive and also that selling Oyster services wasn't part of their franchise agreement. Hang on a minute, it wasn't part of anyone's franchise agreement.

I'm befuzzled, I cannot see why a company that consistently acts as though they only care about profit refuses to sell Oyster products at its ticket offices? While there would be an initial sunk cost, this would be soon made up in the cut they'd get from selling Oyster products. It's not like there isn't a precedent. The owners of the myriad of newsagents certainly, at some point, saw that they could make a bit of extra cash from operating Oyster machines. In addition all the London-connecting TOCs saw the benefit of having Oyster-selling equipment at ticket offices. So why can't SWT? I suspect it is again because it would cut immediately into their profit margin. This, for company who has got a ten year franchise agreement (2007-2017), is incredibly short sighted and is probably loosing them a lot more profit than they realise.

The short-sighted nature of SWT was brought home to me on Thursday. My usual route between Hampton Court and Waterloo is as follows. Firstly I go from Hampton Court to Surbiton, where I change onto the direct train to Waterloo. This train comes from Alton and is one of SWT's long-distance services. On Thursday, after enjoying a mere 7 minutes of stationary delight at Subiton station, I got on my usual fast train. Sitting reading my book I suddenly became aware of the Ticket Inspector, passing through the carriage. He got to me and I dutifully pulled out my Oyster. “Oyster eh”, came the response, “Not to worry,” and moved on without checking a thing. This is not the first time my Oyster hasn't been checked by a SWT ticket inspector, and I am sure it won't be the last. In addition I have a number of friends who have experienced the same thing.

The truth is that SWT staff simply don't have the device issued to most TfL staff to check whether Oysters are valid. Therefore if I am on a train without having 'touched in' at the start of my journey I would technically be travelling without a ticket and would be required to pay a fine of £20. Further there are ticket inspectors on services between stations with no ticket barriers (Whitton to Mortlake, Teddington to Strawberry Hill). Overall it begs the question as to why SWT staff don't have the Oyster checkers? Is the company slow? Have they forgotten something in the run-up to Oyster's introduction? It isn't like they haven't had the time to buy these devices for their ticket inspectors, and they are ten-a-penny elsewhere in London. I can't answer this question, but ultimately SWT haven't bought them and therefore again are loosing revenue. Again, this is possibly because they don't want spend the any more than they have to now, even if long-term this may loose them money.

Overall the point that I have been making throughout this post is that I feel that SWT, as a business, are not long-term thinkers. They care more about immediate profit and their dividends, rather than long-term gain in both reputation and financial terms. With this attitude we can only hope that this company, which I personally perceive as only acting in the interest of Stagecoach's shareholders, looses the franchise in 2017.

An alcoholic journey home...

The relationship between alcohol and travel is not one that I think anyone thinks about that much. I am, of course, talking about the attempts by the inebriated to negotiate the joy that is an integrated transport network after a night out and 6 beers down the hatch. I write with experience. On Wednesday night I made three of the most fatal errors the stumbling, bumbling, alcohol infused, London commuter can make. These were, firstly, walking around a large unfamiliar tube station for an unspecified time, then getting on the wrong train and, lastly, failing to check out with my Oyster card at my destination. Does the level of shame rank alongside whoofing down a whole chocolate orange when I got home...possibly. Actually why am I laying out the whole sorry story in my blog? I suppose to give the entry a point I'll end with some analytical observations, but I may just get there and give up, the shame bearing down on me like a massive cask of ale. Well, here goes.
After a pleasant evening at my monthly Humanist meeting I left with a couple of friends and headed to King's Cross-St Pancras tube station to make my way home. On the journey we passed the Gothic St Pancras station. Alcohol always tends to make me more in awe of the building, I also could, if I didn't hold my tongue, talk about it for a couple of hours. So we passed with my usual thoughts swishing round my head, 'its a temple of railways,' 'a testament to the industrial age' and quickly followed by 'shut up David, no one cares,' and so we headed down to the tube station, went through the barriers and said our goodbyes. It was at this point that alcohol had its first joke of the evening with me, which a quick glance at the map would have remedied. My beer addled brain forgot that King's Cross is not on the same branch of the Northern line as Waterloo and I gleefully went down to the Northern Line station.

By this time, I think it was about 10.55, I could see that time was pressing as the Hampton Court train left Waterloo at 11.30. Now if I'm right I must have been wondering around the depths of King's Cross for about 10 minutes. I dunno really, time slowed down, sped up, came into existence and went out of it. I somehow found myself on the southbound Victoria Line platform which, ironically, was the correct one for getting to Vauxhall where I could also join the Hampton Court train. But alas I didn't take the opportunity handed to me by fate. So I followed the signs to the Northern Line and then, for some inexplicable reason (I'm going to venture it was a portal in the space-time continuum) I again found myself on the Victoria Line southbound platform. Fate struck again, I again spat in its face. I pootled off, right-royally confused, to find the Northern Line...again

I did this quickly. But in my joy I again failed to look at a map and got on the first Northern line southbound train at about 11.05. This, for a railway enthusiast and historian, was an inexcusable action. I was on the wrong train. When it comes to railways I should have no problem with getting on the right train, and in my inebriated state I can usually spout endlessly about the railways, describe locomotives and get home OK. This said, it was railway knowledge that saved me. Angel is the first station on the Bank branch of the Northern Line and as it was read out there was a a few moments of realisation that I had to sit through. “Am I...yes I...Oh Dear God!” Now my options were open. Either I could go back to King's Cross and chance it on the Victoria Line, or I get a connection to the other branch of the Northern Line and attempt to reach the train at Waterloo. At this point I would like to say that if TfL ever think of making a tube map which shows the journey times between stations, I'd support it. Now I am not saying I'd have been able to use it on Wednesday, given my state, but at least it might have helped a bit. Anyway. I took the former choice and managed to get to Vauxhall at 11.32.

I like to run. It is a past-time of mine. However that morning I had done a 2-hour one. Yes, I think I have the mind of a lunatic, but I like it. Anyway I figured at 11.32 that this would leave me between 1 and 2 minutes at Vuaxhall to get up the stairs, through the barriers, into the station and onto the train. Therefore I did my second run of the day, much against my will. I reached the train, panting and puffing, with literally seconds to spare. With all the failures of my journey home, you would think that this small success would allow me to be free of trouble for the rest of it. To my surprise the barriers at Vauxhall railway station were open, thus allowing me to reach the train in time. However, I'm a good commuter, and slapped my Oyster on the reader to 'touch in'. The problem was when I woke the next morning, with more than a slight headache, I remembered the alcohol had had one last victory. I had failed to touch out at Hampton Court, costing me a good £6.

So this is my tale of woe. Therefore I suggest that TfL, South West Trains and you, the reader, consider the following point. While TfL have banned alcohol on public transport, except when it is being carried inside someone, how much has it earned them through people getting on the wrong train and having to take other modes of transport home, or by individuals forgetting to touch out their Oyster and being charged the full fare? Surely TfL should quantify how much it may be earning them and encouraging alcohol consumption? Of course I say this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it is an interesting thought that in some way the alcohol industry is an indirect contributor to the public purse.

Fighting with Richmond Station

Richmond Station is a bit stupid. Now don't get me wrong I love the place, but I feel that it is where all the problems of interchange stations come to the fore in a microcosm. Where at Waterloo the missing of trains, food arrangements and general the general scuffle of commuters are well spaced apart and not much of a nuisance, at Richmond the same problems are compacted within very limited area, which makes the affair somewhat of a trial.

I think I'll start with a brief history of the stations, as this sets my complaints about it in context, please use the map that I made shows when everything was built. The Richmond and West End Railway (Clapham Junction-Richmond) opened the first terminus on 27^th July 1846. When the line was extended to Windsor by the Windsor, Staines and South Western Railway this company opened a new through station in August 1848. Soon after their opening both companies were taken over by their main backers, the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR). The old terminus station was used as Richmond's goods station until 1936. On the 1^st January 1869 the L&SWR connected the West London Joint Railway's station at Addison Road (now Kensington Olympia) with Richmond, and to accommodate the extra trains the company built a new northern terminal station. This was how the station remained until 1937 until the Southern Railway rebuilt the main station buildings, decommissioned the 1848 through station and moved the through platforms to align with the terminal ones. Currently South West Trains operate the main line through services and Transport for London operate the District Line and London Overground services from the terminal station. Unless you want to get into the nitty gritty of the history of the station (and lets face it that is a wild prospect), I think that this is all that will be required for what follows.

The first thing about Richmond is that from any vantage point from within a train, the movements of all services can be observed. This creates a situation were making a connection between the terminus and through stations is like some weird psychological torture, a device formulated by past railway builders to spite the railway traveller. The journeys that I take through the station usually means either leaving the main line services and getting onto the trains that run out of the terminal station (all of which run to my usual destination of Kew Gardens). I also do the return journey. The former journey is always fine, I suppose, as missing a connection isn't an issue. There is usually another train to Kew within 5 minutes. It is the return journey that is the nightmare, something that makes me want to kneel down on the station concourse and beat my fists against the ticket machine. In this journey I will have to catch a particular main line train, at a particular time, usually at either 29 or 59 past the hour. So I travel along in the Overground or Underground train, winding its way through lovely Kew, passing the temple of commerce, Homebase, and I marvel at the skips and general decoration of the line side. The time is 6.21, the train takes 3 minutes, and I believe, foolishly, that my interchange will be a smooth transaction. The train trundles into the approach to Richmond and then STOPS! This is the terror of which I write, a nightmare of limitless proportions, of a clock that is my enemy. 6.24 passes, and no movement. 6.25, 6.26, 6.27, and then like a great instrument of torment the train home on the main line sweeps by on my left hand side. Plastered up against the window, like a 6 ft tree frog, I realise that I'll now be sitting in the Puccinos for half an hour, cursing some railway engineer for the torment he has inflicted. At least at Waterloo the train you miss doesn't go right past you....

So once the journey is completed, there is the second great hazard of Richmond station, a plague at rush hour that in itself is a trial of epic proportions...that includes a balancing element. I of course mean the rush to the barrier. I'm not certain how many of you know Richmond station's layout, however at the end of the terminal station, on the lower level, are the ticket barriers. Therefore getting off the train at rush hour is like those nature documentaries where you see ants going along a branch in either direction. For one thing waiting at the station are those people who are going to be getting on the train when you get off. Now most people observe the unwritten rule that you let people off the train before you get on. I say most people, because I have noticed a increasing propensity for these travel hawks to attempt to get on the train even when crowded, just as the doors open. I know what this is about; its about them desperately trying to get one of those 8 'single' seats on District Line trains. You know the ones, the ones by the window. Once off the train, you then face a fight to the barriers against commuters going one way, and slow moving people, walking in your direction, going the other. What's more this merry dance is all played out on the narrow platform of the terminal station, forcing most people, usually including me, to the edge. I walk along it at this point, looking down at it like some abyss (and the thought of electricity down't make me wild either). At the current time I have never seen anyone fall off the side, but I am sure it has happened. Some poor sod, casually going about his business, takes one wrong move and falls arse-over-tip onto the track below. Perhaps it was when a traveller lost his rag with someone trying to get on a train...and pushed him, I wouldn't put it past a rushed commuter. Once past this peril, like water through a nozzle, 200 or 300 people, are forced through 4 ticket barriers, that are wholly inadequate and always leave someone hard-done-by! There's is always one individual who feels that the person ahead pushed passed. Not once have experienced in this curfuffle a time when an evil look wasn't thrown, or a bad word wasn't said, and once or twice I have witnessed people come nearly coming to blows. At least at Waterloo there are plenty of ticket gates and you don't fall off the platform...

Lastly there is the positioning of the over-bridge. Now I like a good walk, and am a regular runner, however the positioning of the link between the through and terminal stations is in the most difficult places. Say the train, that I may or may not have missed, is coming into Platform 1, and I have to get to it from the terminal station, the only way is to go to the back of the station, through the pandemonium of the rush hour, and over the bridge. Again this is a case of visual psychological torture, with a physical element thrown in. I can see my connecting train all the way through, as I negotiate the people, some smell, some move slowly (not in itself a crime, but bloody irritating) and some think that the station is a good place to have a natter. “Excuse me” I ask as I move through the swathes. Once past the crowd for the barrier I run, like a whippet, through the station, all the while observing my chariot home on the opposite platform. Up the stairs I go, upwards and onwards, across the bridge, and then a sound so terrible as to make we weep, fills my ears. That, sadly, is the sound of a class 450 combined power handle being thrust forward, propelling the train onward. I slow to a walk down the steps, watching it gradually pull out on my left hand side, and consign myself to Puccinos...again.

Richmond Station is quite simply a badly laid out. Whose fault is this? Who is the master of my torments? Well I know I cursed engineers above, but in reality the blame should be placed on the development of the rail network. As any railway historian worth his salt will tell you, the British railway network was left to be formed without strong Government oversight or planning. Therefore many lines were built opportunistically, in an ad hoc fashion and in an adaptive manner. Richmond is the finest exemplar of how railway builders adapted stations over hundreds of years to their immediate requirements. So for example the over-bridge now is in exactly the same place as it was at the older station built in 1848, despite the through station moving. This places it at the back of the station and means it takes far longer to cross between the two stations than a closer footbridge would allow. Why couldn't there have been another footbridge at the other end of the platforms? Secondly when the northern station was to be built in 1863, Richmond town was built up. Thus the station had to be fitted into a smaller space than if where it had been built had been farmland. Thus the platforms on the northern station are too narrow for current demands. Better Government planning may have allowed for the station to be cited in a better place, or that more platforms could have been built. These are just a few of my concerns, however overall, what is true of Richmond is that it is still not one station, it is remains two, something it is still trying to come to terms with.

Stagecoach Rail...any chance of some profit?

Ah so it is a good day for the railway industry. Stagecoach, the firm that runs East Midlands Trains, and my local provider, South West Trains (SWT), as well as owning a very silent 49% of Virgin trains, has said that that the revenues from the railway division rose 2.1% in the 40 weeks up to February 7th. Tickets sales on SWT rose 3.4%, while on Virgin Trains revenues rose 8.8%.

Well if that isn't inflation-busting good news for their rail business, even if Stagecoach's North American Division is performing poorly and the fact that people don't want to stand in 6 ft of snow has hit the profits from their bus operations quite hard. Overall however stagecoach remained confident in its position that the cash would keep rolling in. It shows, in large part, that everything is on the up for rail travel, everything is going green in the garden of Waterloo station and, well, the economy is doing better. This said as a precaution they won't be paying a dividend in respect to the year ending 30th April.

Yet not all is rosy at Stagecoach. SWT are currently in the middle of £100 million contract negotiation (OK bust-up) with the Department for Transport over how much taxpayers money they should be given in franchise payments, including revenue support payments. Basically because railways don't make money, a basis I'd tend to say was a bad thing to base an industry on, the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are paid 'franchise payments' to ensure the private companies stay in the business. Clearly however this isalso so that they make sure they pay dividends to their shareholders. In addition some companies have been receiving top-ups, to keep them going. But at the same time most companies pay fees to the DfT (and hence why National Express booted off the East Coast franchise...they couldn't). Thus SWT in the six months to November paid £50 million to the DfT, whereas in the previous year they paid only £5 million.

In my opinion the contract negotiation shows how a) the franchise system is about logical as jam and Marmite sandwiches (you could do it, but I wouldn't advise it) and b) that the TOCs and the DfT are consistently beating the living crap out of each other. If we consider that firstly SWT receive money from the DfT (previously £100 million but with top ups), BUT that last year they paid £50 million back, up from £5 million, this seems illogical at first glance. Well let me break the bad news, the views of both parties are entirely logical given their positions, but both are detrimental to the traveller.

Firstly the DfT being handed tightened budgets and increased costs, especially running the East Coast franchise, understandably want to reduce the subsidies they pay out to the TOCs. Now at this point I hope that Stagecoach's view is this: that if they are receiving less from the DfT, but having to pay more back, means that they invest in trains less, they have to raise ticket prices and that station facilities will suffer. Yea...we hope too much. Their 'logical' position is based, in my opinion, simply on profit. I'm not someone who blames businesses for acting like businesses, it's in their nature to want to make profit. That's why the unfettered free market doesn't work and good government regulation is required.

The reality is that the SWT-DfT slanging match hinges on the contract wording. The original contract states that if SWT's revenue falls to under 94% of projections, the Government will reimburse 80% of the shortfall (so if it is 6% down, the DfT pays 4.8%). Conversely the DfT collects 80% of any profit above 106% of the projections (so again it collects 4.8% of the 6% profit). SWT won the contract by agreeing to pay the DfT 1.2 billion over nine years, ending in 2016. The despute comes regarding when SWT believes the revenue support starts from. SWT believes, for obvious reasons such as the economic crisis, that the date should be April 2010, whereas the DfT believes it should be February 2011. Now I'm no legal expert, but you'd think that'd be something specified in a contract? So we are now waiting for an arbitrator to make up her or his mind. we think this will come in the Summer.

I'm sorry to break the bad news to you, but whatever happens though the long and the short of it is that you, the traveller, will loose out. If the economic situation declines further, and revenues drop below 94%, it doesn't matter when the contract starts, ends or finishes - you loose. An arbitrator's decision stating that the contract starts in April will probably allow SWT to use the extra money to start paying dividends again. If the contract starts later, SWT will reign in their services, raise fares and possibly let station improvements fall by the wayside, again in an attempt to pay dividends. If the reverse looks like happening, and things continue to improve and profits rise, irrespective of when the arbitrator says that the contract begins, SWT will use the money, once again, to pay their shareholders, larger, more normal dividends.

Therefore I cannot foresee a scenario, short of the DfT forcing SWT to do something, where any of the benefits of an improving financial situation may be passed on to the traveller. The chiefs of Stagecoach used this announcement to call for a reassessment of the franchise system. Tony Collins the boss of Virgin said, "The franchising model needs to change, it's not good for the Government either because they now have a lot of franchises where they are paying additional revenue support." Yes Tony...please can we scrap it, it ain't doing me any good!

Loving Clapham Junction (even if it is a bit shit)

I actually like stations...sometimes. Clapham Junction particularly is one of my favourites, even though it is cold, there are no waiting rooms and travelling from one platform to the next is like a continual re-enactment of siege of Constantinople. Indeed so bad is the Junction that the recent "Better Rail Stations" review from November 2009 described it as the second worst interchange station in the country, scoring a paltry 39% in the satisfaction stakes (The number one offender being Manchester Victoria). That said, I'm gonna stick my neck out and say I like it for a number of reasons

Firstly, it is possibly one of the most pretentiously named stations in the country. A glance at the map will rightly place Clapham Junction in Battersea, Clapham being a mile to the east. Originally when the main line was built between London and Southampton there was no station built there. The area was really just farmland, inhabited by the poor, a few ducks and a Daxon named Colin ("...and thank you Colin") The nearest station, a mile away, was Wandsworth, which was later re-named to Clapham Common. It wouldn't be until 1863 that the current station was built by the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR), the London Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) and the West London Extension Railway (WLER), to act as an interchange between the Windsor and Southampton Lines (for the L&SWR), the Line to Victoria (Built by the LB&SCR in 1860) and the WLER. Keen to attract a better class of clientèle, the companies colluded to call it Clapham Junction, significantly raising its status, and since then the name has never been changed. Therefore to my mind it is a bit of an upstart station...

Secondly I like that being an interchange means there is a real sense that its a place where people come together. OK they may not talk to anyone but the station staff, the guy in the AMT coffee or the toilet attendant, (who has one of the worst jobs imaginable) but there has always been to my mind a tacit understanding that everyone there is going about their business commuting to their various destinations. Having observed many people there (and it is great for people watching), there is a mutual respect between the bulk of commuters, embedded in the knowledge that they are in it together. They may all be crammed into steel tubes, but they all made a concious decision to suffer 35 minutes of that existence...together, in silence...and sometimes in awkward silence...

This said my third reason is conflict. No, it's not what you are thinking...very rarely do I see commuter on commuter action. Rather the conflict stems from a phenomenon at Clapham that I have never witnessed at any other station. At rush hour a member of the station staff continually broadcasts on the PA system things like 'please stand behind the yellow line,' 'please let people OFF the train first before getting on,' 'move down inside the carriage,' 'there's another train along in two minutes,' and so on and so forth. Now I understand why he's there, he's the Lion tamer, the microphone is his whip. It does however suggest that the great British travelling public are in conflict with the railways, that while they are all travelling together, they are also pushing against the boundaries of what the railways can offer. They want to so badly get on the train, but he has to stop them. This guy therefore is the negotiator between the warring parties and where at other stations people just deal with this conflict, at Clapham the is another factor, a bold, and ignored, member of the South West Trains staff...the commuter tamer.

Lastly I'll go with the obvious one...History. Whatever you think about the railways, Clapham has had the most trains going through it of any other station in its lifetime. Therefore when I see the modern trains rush through, I see steam, smoke and wheezing, imagining a past I will never see and never truly understand. This history is also ingrained in the fabric. Clapham, whether you are on the platform or in the overpass, hasn't had its basic fabric altered in about 100 years. Oh there are a few more platforms, there have been some changes in its lifetime, but at the end of the day most of what was built before 1900 is still there and you can see its history in the bricks, the iron and the rivets. It is a place that is filled with everything wonderful about the Victorian Railway...do it well, build it sturdy and make it functional...

Therefore while many rightly deride Clapham's failings, I do think it has got a life of its own, I love it and long may its character remain...

Waterloo isn't what it used to be

Waterloo is a dump! There I said it. We can of course applaud the cleaners, I didn't see one Metro or Evening Standard dumped floorward today. I did see plenty loitering the train. In fact in a bit of a tangent I think it is weird that Network Rail get a good cleaning job done at Waterloo, while South West Trains clearly don't give a shit about the carriage interior. Different priorities I suppose...anyway

I think that the problem with Waterloo is that now the romance has gone. If anyone has seen the 1961 John Schlesinger film 'Terminus: 24 Hours in the Life of Waterloo Station' they will know what they I mean. Since the station's building in 1848 (with the current station being the product of a re-build between 1900 and 1921) there has always been the bustle of commuters, and the film expertly portrays individuals going to their varied occupations. Yet what I think has changed is the fact that people don't interact with the station in the same way. The film expertly portrays the station as a social arena, where drinks were served, meals were sat and eaten and lovers came together and spent time talking. Now people drink on the move, the meals are over-salted and speedily scoffed, and I see most people arguing, yelling, or moving so fast that others nearly topple like dominoes. Waterloo is now one part in people's a-b-c lives and not an interactive part of it. In short the station experience, while still essentially still about travelling and meeting, has sped up.

The biggest indicator of the 'quicker' station experience are the barriers, designed to catch those devious travellers who were moving in too fast to buy a ticket. Pesky, ugly and unnecessary is my opinion. Oh the Train Operating Companies love them so much that I bet they get aroused by the mere site of yellow circles and flashing lights. I bet every time they see one open they can just hear the money jangling into their pocket. Of course this poses problems for the majority of travellers that are 'honest.' They place anyone who previously would have very willing pay for their ticket on the train or those who make simple errors with regard to ticket buying, in the category of a fare dodger. For all those who fail to have a ticket the mantra is now no ticket...no excuse - you are getting a fine. This is a problem especially prevalent on South West Trains where many stations have been equipped with barriers, most notable amongst them being Waterloo.

Are these revenue-generating, money sucking, fare evasion instalments worth it? No. As Richard Malins at 'Transport Investigations' has just commented in the latest issue of RAIL magazine, they are only profitable at larger stations because of the extra cost of staffing them at the small ones. Thus all the Train Operating Companies have done in their efforts to slow the public down, catch fare dodgers and claim the money that is (rightly or wrongly) there's, is that they have dehumanised the travel experience and set them selves up for grief with their customers. Would it be terrible if at that at the cost of a few dodged fares and turning a blind eye to the errors of the travelling public they could have fostered good customer relations? In truth at the end of the day they just pissed us off, but then again they are monopoly Train Operating Companys with no others to challenge them. Thus this goes to show, in my opinion, that they don't really care about customer relations at all, rather bleeding our pockets dry is all that matters.