I read a letter in RAIL this month from a Blackwater resident - one paragraph from that: "Not enough trains, not enough drivers, and not enough guards. Result: the current unreliable service."

 

 
It looks like the trails have convinced GWR that the system works and can be applied to various routes according to this BBC news article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3355ll0krxo

 

Cancelled - "more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time"

09:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport due 11:25
11:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading due 12:57
13:24 Reading to Gatwick Airport due 14:55
14:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading due 16:28
16:50 Reading to Gatwick Airport due 18:25
18:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading due 19:57
20:22 Reading to Gatwick Airport due 21:57
22:01 Gatwick Airport to Reading due 23:21

 

Coming back from Weymouth the other Friday on the day that SWR had run into the sand, staff came through the 3 carriage Bristol train opening anything that wasn't already open: I'd forgotten that these even had aircon. Perhaps it was the same set as on the way down.

Mark

 
...hence lines closed between Gloucester and Swindon. Early Gloucester-Southampton diverted to Bristol Parkway, and was initially showing as on time at Swindon. Then it changed to delayed. Then it was back on time, so I had to jog to Melksham. Now it's delayed by 15 mins.

Report I saw earlier said lines were expected to be closed until 9:00.

EDIT sorry didn't see Graham's post (on phone).

 

Took the 15:35 from Bath Spa to Portsmouth and Southsea.    3 car train that looked like it would have been good on a commuter run in the autumn.  No space for luggage, overheating (no working air con) small (3+2) seating and far more passengers that was comfortable, especially as a number  had their luggage on the seat beside them.    On time from Bath Spa ... waited at Batheaston, waited at Dundas, 8 minutes late by Bradford-on-Avon

 
Report of a woman seen on Stroud viaduct. 

 
This feels like a repeat ...


But clearly something going on ...

 

(Note: The following contains personal experience and it may be a little heavy going. I continue being a PIP claimant and have the requisite health conditions but I am in a better place today.)

That's the doom-monger's take on it. The reality is now, thankfully, a little more nuanced. If The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (colloq. Welfare Bill) reaches Royal Assent, which now seems more likely, then current PIP claimants will continue getting what they currently get. Claims made between now and November 2026 will be assessed under the existing rules. New claimants from November 2026 will be assessed under the new rules.

One thing I'm not clear on, and this does affect me, is how existing claimants are dealt with when their claim is up for its periodic reassessment. If that assessment is after November 2026 will it be old or new rules?

Ultimately this bill, when it comes to PIP, is tinkering. From what I've read the only change will be the requirement to score 4 points for one of the Daily Living component tasks. There are 10 tasks that have scores ranging from 0 to 12 points. 8-11 points in total from all tasks are required to receive the standard rate of Daily Living PIP. 12 pints or more for the enhanced rate. Mobility PIP eligibility criteria isn't changing at all as far as I can tell.

More detail on the current PIP Points system: https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/pip-points-system

What this bill doesn't address in any way shape or form is the claim process and periodic reassessments. These will continue to be farmed out to private companies who don't give a shit about individual claimants' needs. They are box tickers doing the DWPs bidding and only care about preserving their lucrative contracts and 'performance' bonuses. They employ healthcare 'professionals' who are often anything but. These assessors very often don't have any training in the disciplines needed to understand and accurately assess individual claimants health issues. A real world example:

I was once reassessed by a healthcare professional whose day job was as a paramedic. A worthy, highly skill profession for which I have the utmost respect. But being a paramedic does not provide you with the skills to assess how mental health and mobility affect one's daily living. The training given to PIP assessors is woeful and doesn't magically equip them with the right skills for each claimant. For my reassessment I had provided as much evidence from the actual professionals involved in my care as I could. I'd completed the form with the assistance of a welfare benefits adviser. The result of my assessment with the paramedic? I went from scoring 10 points for Daily Living at my previous assessment to 0 at this one. Despite there being no change in my health conditions as evidenced in reports from my GP, a CPN and the community MH Team. That was all ignored and all that was taken into account was the report from the DWP's (well... Serco's) moonlighting healthcare 'professional'. My income was immediately cut by more than half. My mental health took a serious dive over the next nine months. I was forced into looking for work when I wasn't suited to it. Two complete breakdowns led to two resignations. Suicide ideation became suicide planning and there was one serious attempt. During the nine months between losing my PIP and my tribunal appearance I gathered all paperwork related to my claim, including the healthcare 'professionals' report. Which, incidentally, got to me unredacted. That's how I know my 'professional' was a paramedic, as the DWP/Serco had accidentally provided me with all her personal and professional information. Her report was 'shoddy' and 'contained irrelevant information' according to the welfare benefits adviser I showed it to. She concentrated far too much on my physical capabilities. Didn't question me in any great depth on my mental health issues, and didn't allow me to bring them to her attention. The report said I was late. I wasn't, she was. She'd had transport issues and arrived 20 minutes after my appointment time - the first of the day. The report said I was rude and combative. I was stressed, made worse by the delay. That may have made me somewhat curt but she gave as good as she got. And none of that goes on to explain how she came to the conclusions that she did in her report - 0 points for every daily living task. My only explanation was it was punishment for my curtness and attempts to ask questions on the day.

At my tribunal, the panel gave me 9 points, reinstated my claim for daily living PIP and backdated the award. A relief yes and a nice lump sum. But not really recompense for what I went through during that period. Had things gone just a little bit differently I wouldn't have made it to that tribunal.

 
From comments made earlier about examiners' pressure I'm guessing the occasional cancellation would provide welcome breathing space. Taking the quoted workload 35 a week, a 3% no-show rate is barely more than one a week.

 


So that's both the 18:44 and the 20:12 from Swindon to Westbury cancelled - service gap from 17:35 to 22:30.  How about marrying up the working trains with the working crew?

 
Brighton, yes - but well over ten years ago.

 
Having worked in national government, I don't think a 3% failure to attend rate is of great concern. My FTA rate was higher, even though it often meant no money for the absentee next payday.

 
The choice of reason "Trespassers on the railway" wasn't, I think, the best choice in this case (I accept that the person adding details to the system may not have been aware of the incident's details)

I wondered why there was no train through Stroud until 15:13. It turns out that there was a main road closure also, connected with what the police referred to as a "concern for welfare incident" involving one male.

 
Thanks Bob - attached the wrong file!

 
3 is distinctly possible

 

Sometimes all it takes is a choice of phrase to add a "flavour", or implicitly biased message. The implicit message here is "people who can't be bothered spoil it for other hard-pressed learner drivers desperate to pass".

The article doesn't say whether or not a share of the 3% provided as much advance notice as possible of their non-attendance (but the wording implied that there was no notice).

The article doesn't give any reasons within the 3% category (late arrival and mechanical failure are outside that statistic).

Some possibles:
1. They were ill. (that might account for about 1% - though it doesn't excuse anyone from providing notice if possible)
2. The instructor providing the car for the test was ill.
3. The test was booked by a bot but not sold on - is this possible?
4. The test was booked months ago (due to the waiting list) but the learner decided they were not ready. They were not incentivised to cancel their test (no refund).

I'm not going to spend time researching the stats for sickness rate of the age category most likely to be a learner driver; nor am I going to look at the precise rules surrounding test booking. However, in current times there is a particular need to think about hidden agendas in the way news is presented. There is also a need to consider if throwing money at a problem is the only solution.

 
Delays to services between London Paddington and Slough

Due to a points failure between London Paddington and Slough some lines are blocked.

Train services running to and from these stations may be delayed by up to 20 minutes. Disruption is expected until 15:30 01/07.

Elizabeth Line suspended Paddington to Reading/Heathrow.

 
Whoops. Knowing the area and the railway's previous practice I'm surprised they hadn't already reverted to diesel.  I suspect some overenthusiasm for running their visiting (and late-arriving) S160 might have played a part, and/or they thought they had sufficient fire-watchers in place along the line.  As yet their website still promises the steam loco next weekend but I'd be surprised if it runs.

 

As someone with a recognised disability, I can update

Nobody will have their benefit cut. Anyone currently on PIP will not be impacted
New guidelines that will impact any new claims come in, in November 2026

Sadly, as always people look at false scenarios rather than facts

 

Appears to be the timetable from 2016.

Current one is here - https://passenger-line-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/bordersbuses/PERY/477-timetable-20250401-d126c169.pdf

 

Thanks - set out very clearly considering.   It differs from the original article which says


Which struck me as amazing time for it to have to run ... it is, according the the .pdf which I believe, 12:54pm!

 
Here's the timetable....

 
Good to hear - but that is a Wiltshire unitary idea, no? By that I mean unique to Wiltshire & not a legal requirement for all unitaries?

 

Today - Bath Spa through trains to Portsmouth are reported as
4 at 2 cars
7 at 3 cars
5 at 4 cars
1 at 5 cars

 

It can get quite complex.   We are a unitary here in Wiltshire and they do most of the highways and footways.  However, there's also something called the LHFIG in each town - the local highways and footpath improvement group - which is part funded by Unitary, part funded by the local community, and does (after intense procrastination, consultancy, time and paperwork, and if it fits the politics of local councillors) make relatively minor adjustments.

 
Brighton, no?

 
Highways & footways are generally a County matter outside London, unless a unitary.

 
A complete line closure with substitute buses has been announced from Tuesday 26th August to Saturday 30th August 2025

Monday 25th is a Bank holiday, but appears trains will be operating that day.