“By the way Major, on the subject of improvements funded by the ticket price, of which you 'have seen nothing significant in 20 years'; here are some I can think of in the Western area in the last 5 years. Reading Station area remodelling: £500m. South Wales Resignalling: £400M. Newport Station: £20m. Cotswolds Line redoubling: £20m. New platform at Bristol Parkway: £10m. Bristol to Bath signalling improvements: £10m. Access for All at stations nationally: £100m. I won't include all the track renewal, embankment stabilisation and bridge reconstructions that go on every year costing at least £100m pa just in Western.

Funded and in the design/development stage: £3.5bn Inter-City Express (half of the total cost to Western, the other half of the trains go to the East Coast). £1.0bn Great Western Electrification. £1.2bn Great Western signalling to European standards. I won't mention Crossrail.

And as stated previously, Bath Spa station improvements were paid for by the section 106 order, not the fare box. So it's been paid for by all those happy Southgate shoppers. Shame they didn't buy us a more reliable lift.”

“Major: "… it's reasonable to conclude the changes bring no real benefits to consumers using Bath Spa"

So, increasing the stairs to platform 2 from one set to two (a 100% increase), or building a new access from the Widcombe side, and a further new exit (a 200% increase in entrance/exits) don't bring real benefits? How do you decide that's a reasonable conclusion? Maybe you don't use the station, and so you don't see the queues to exit the ticket barriers, or in the ticket lobby, or the crush just to get off the platform at peak times.

"the request was for evidence of measured improvements and benefits but you provided none"

How can you say these improvements are not measured? I just measured them. One stairs – now two stairs. One exit/entrance – now three.

"DDA compliance should, of course, be a fundamental requirement in any changes"

So you decide that construction works that make a station fully DDA compliant (lift quality/reliability notwithstanding) is not an improvement at Bath Spa because it should already have been in place?

What you are doing, sir, is circular reasoning. Anything which is detrimental to your argument is arbitrarily deemed as not valid by you. This is not debate; you're just trying to wind people up.”

“Refer to my comment Friday Sept 9th 6:40pm

Because: "One of the lifts at Bath Spa railway station broke down at the weekend."

...says everything about the provider and quality of service the customer is expected to accept as satisfactory.”

“BathMcNab - I was aware of (had read) your previous comment.

However, where you said: "It is reasonable to say these changes constitute an improvement." I say conversly it's reasonable to conclude the changes bring no real benefits to consumers using Bath Spa.

Moreover, the request was for evidence of measured improvements and benefits but you provided none... e.g. Access to ticketed areas was not a problem requiring a resolution, nor were platform two exits, "barrier lines" (whatever they are) or additional staircases. DDA compliance should, of course, be a fundamental requirement in any changes.

As for value for money of journeys, I also strongly disagree this is a wider debate.

This is because each and every ticket price rise, for as far back as I can remember, has been justified at least in part as necessary for reinvestment and development programmes - like the so-called "improvements" at Bath Spa. I can only relate from my own experience that I see none of any significance manifest in the last 20 years (for example).”

“Thanks Paul - my mistake.”

“Major; "I'm willing to be persuaded, so please enlighten me by telling me how, precisely, recent changes have improved and added benefits to the station's customer experience, any specific facilities"

Refer to paragraph 1 of my comment of Friday 3.34pm.

"...and the value-for money of journeys set against the high prices of available tickets?"

This is a significant;y wider debate, perhaps off-topic for the specifics of Bath Spa changes. But I would observe that, for a peak day return to Swindon, it's cheaper than the cost of petrol and parking.”

“TiminBath, I'm willing to be persuaded, so please enlighten me by telling me how, precisely, recent changes have improved and added benefits to the station's customer experience, any specific facilities, and the value-for money of journeys set against the high prices of available tickets?”

“If you think this is bad, it is just a slight foretaste to the Bath-whinging we will hear when the electrofication masts go up.

I am embarassed by the whinging, not because I am apathetic, but because the new station arrangements are an improvement.”

“Newlywed: Au contraire. Kirsten has consistently argued the lifts will be too small.
Paul Wiltshire, deputy editor”

“MajorFlack said: "What's really embarrassing is the level of apathy and willingness of people to take the BS of a private company's PR as 'evidence of improvements to public facilities' when records show that as the cost of alleged changes to consumers rises, the quality of services actually diminish".

Although some of the work may be paid for by Network rail/ FGW (ultimately through rail fares), the vast majority is in fact being paid for by Multi (the SouthGate developer) through a contract known as a S106 planning obligation. In other words; regardless of what you may think of the improvements, the vast bulk is not being paid for by rail passengers.

If you believe (like I do) that the changes are in fact an improvement, then the fact that they also come at no (or hugely subsidised) cost to rail passengers is arguably a win win situation.

In fact, you might say the city planners/ councillors should be commended for negotiating such improvements as part of the SouthGate development.”