Why Are We Always In A Hurry?

[dave55uk]

I have just seen a news report on the BBC News website where they want to speed up journey times between Norwich/Ipswich and London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-24860394

Taskforce to speed up rail travel in East of England

A taskforce is being set up to find ways to speed up rail services to the East of England by as much as 25%.

Chancellor George Osborne MP said he wanted the journey time from Norwich to London to be cut to 90 minutes and Ipswich to London to 60 minutes.

At present, it takes about two hours from Norwich and about one hour and 10 minutes from Ipswich.

The taskforce will be made up of Department for Transport officials, Network Rail experts and local MPs.

The main line service goes through Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk.

'Efficient rail services'

Mr Osborne, who addressed the city's chamber of commerce, welcomed the "Norwich in Ninety" campaign by MPs, councils and business leaders, to speed up links to London.....

The time saving quoted from Ipswich to London would only be TEN minutes. Is it really worthwhile spending (probably) quite a lot of money just to save such a small amount of time? Why does everyone seemingly want to get from A to B as fast as possible? Do people not enjoy the actual journey anymore?

 

[Goatboy]

Sadly as the Railway has, in most cases, abandoned the idea of being a good value, cheaper alternative to other forms of transport such as the roads, it must instead look to offer something else to justify the cost of using it - speed.

It's usually cheaper to drive now if you are not fortunate enough to get Advance tickets, so competition on price is less useful. If the journey is quicker than driving, people may be prepared to pay more for it.

 

[NSEFAN]

Sadly as the Railway has, in most cases, abandoned the idea of being a good value, cheaper alternative to other forms of transport such as the roads, it must instead look to offer something else to justify the cost of using it - speed.

It's usually cheaper to drive now if you are not fortunate enough to get Advance tickets, so competition on price is less useful. If the journey is quicker than driving, people may be prepared to pay more for it.

Yet despite the high fares, the railways are the busiest they have ever been, in terms of passenger numbers (Source). I think we are in general actually seeing more and more emphasis on capacity rather than speed.

 

[rf_ioliver]

I have just seen a news report on the BBC News website where they want to speed up journey times between Norwich/Ipswich and London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-24860394

The time saving quoted from Ipswich to London would only be TEN minutes. Is it really worthwhile spending (probably) quite a lot of money just to save such a small amount of time? Why does everyone seemingly want to get from A to B as fast as possible? Do people not enjoy the actual journey anymore?

Not only will there be speed increases but overall modernisation, capacity improvements, reliability improvements etc.

But one of the main economic reasons for the railway is speed

t.

Ian

 

[northwichcat]

The time saving quoted from Ipswich to London would only be TEN minutes. Is it really worthwhile spending (probably) quite a lot of money just to save such a small amount of time? Why does everyone seemingly want to get from A to B as fast as possible? Do people not enjoy the actual journey anymore?

What about onward connections? Sometimes if the first service was 5 minutes quicker it could mean you can arrive at your final destination 30 minutes or more earlier.

 

[route:oxford]

Action = consequence.

A diagram that takes 10 minutes less could readily result, subject to network performance and availability, in fewer units being required to provide the same level of service.

Or a 10 mile extension to the service...

 

[Taunton]

Yet despite the high fares, the railways are the busiest they have ever been, in terms of passenger numbers.

This old chestnut again. Privatisation progressively makes it more and more worthwhile to buy separate tickets for separate parts of the journey, and as each is counted as a "journey", it inflates the numbers.

Commuting by season ticket has also always relied on averaging the number of journeys, as separate tickets are not involved, and that itself has led to inflation in numbers by various changes in the methods of counting, some honest, others less so.

It would be good to know, in comparison to the claimed increase in passengers, what is the increase in numbers of seats provided. I suspect it's gone down compared to 20 years ago.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It would be good to know, in comparison to the claimed increase in passengers, what is the increase in numbers of seats provided. I suspect it's gone down compared to 20 years ago.

The railway now provide far more seats per hour than it did 20 years ago due to far increased frequencies on most routes.

 

[jopsuk]

This old chestnut again. Privatisation progressively makes it more and more worthwhile to buy separate tickets for separate parts of the journey, and as each is counted as a "journey", it inflates the numbers.

I reckon that's a tiny, tiny part of it. I reckon very few people do this, even on the routes where it is even applicable.

I'd also be willing to lay money that there's more seats now than in 1993. Given there were few withdrawals between 1993 and privatisation, for example South West Trains have replaced 134 four car slam door units and 24 5-WES with 130 450s, 30 4-car 458s (soon to be 36 5-car 458s) and 45 444s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The railway now provide far more seats per hour than it did 20 years ago due to far increased frequencies on most routes.

And longer trains, too.

 

[OLJR]

I am not a supporter of spending vast sums to save marginal amounts of time. It is perfectly easy to be productive on the train and I see plenty of business travellers working.

It's usually cheaper to drive now if you are not fortunate enough to get Advance tickets, so competition on price is less useful. If the journey is quicker than driving, people may be prepared to pay more for it.

Anybody can get Advance tickets ... they are available up to 6pm the day before and in my experience are usually in good supply even at that late hour.

Driving is certainly a cheaper option for people who want the flexibility to leave when they want though. But as a non-driver myself I shall continue being happy with my Advance tickets!

 

[Yew]

If you make a journey regularly. Those 10mins quickly add up to a lot of time. And remember that upgrading linefeed means upgrading and replacing equipment. Hopefully increasing reliability.

 

[JamesRowden]

It's usually cheaper to drive now if you are not fortunate enough to get Advance tickets, so competition on price is less useful. If the journey is quicker than driving, people may be prepared to pay more for it.

Unless the person in question would need to buy a very expensive season ticket, I think that not having a car and using public transport, walking and/or cycling works out a fair bit cheaper. Even if it does not seem so convenient.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sadly as the Railway has, in most cases, abandoned the idea of being a good value, cheaper alternative to other forms of transport such as the roads, it must instead look to offer something else to justify the cost of using it - speed.

Rubbish. If that was true it would still take eight odd hours to get from London to Edinburgh. The railway has always been the business of speed. Much hailed BR often did it's best to cut journey times. The HST and APT for example. The 1930s were famous for the attempts of LNER and LMS to reach Scotland faster than the other. During the 60s the Eastern Region went to great lengths to try and shave minutes off from various sections of the ECML all with the goal of improving journey times.

If anything this is a process that has stagnated since privatisation (the WCML being a notable exception) and in some cases gone backwards compared to headline speeds a couple of decades ago (though this is often off-set with more services).

Fares are certainly expensive but attempting to speed up services isn't an attempt to justify the cost it's continuing to do what the railway has always done and should get back to doing.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Fares are certainly expensive but attempting to speed up services isn't an attempt to justify the cost it's continuing to do what the railway has always done and should get back to doing.

While i agree i think it should not be to the detriment of local and regional services, the WCML nearly had some terrible impacts on services.

 

[ainsworth74]

All things in moderation

 

[tsr]

[The following post will include the dreaded concept of stating the obvious to many people, but just in case...]

I may sound controversial here, but I believe that integrating connections with "branch lines"/non-mainline NR routes, plus other local transport to and from stations, is of equal or greater importance now to improving the speed of any specific set of mainline workings. Overall speed of a journey will, after all, define how quickly you get to your destination, and will also increase comfort. It's all very well having an improved mainline, but no good if it takes ever longer to reach the line from centres of population because of a lack of investment and joined-up thinking. We've gone through this one a lot of times, as have regional forums, councils, transport providers - such as TOCs - ...etc.

A 125mph (or greater) mainline is fantastic, but if you have a two-hourly local service connecting to the trains on it with a 45-minute connection, you have instantly reduced journey times to a point where you may as well use a competing mode of transport if you have access. Likewise, a hot, crowded and uncomfortable Tube transfer; a walk across town to another station because a spur has been removed from passenger use; a two-hour wait for a bus... all of these issues exist around the country somewhere, and the railway needs to carry on investing very heavily in integrated transport and making sure other transport connects well with the faster services (which may, for example, dump passengers for ever longer in a wait for connections).

Of course, with extensive planning - as is already the case in some parts - these effects have been greatly mitigated and even prevented, but by no means across Great Britain. In other words: make the convenience and low cost of hopping between connecting services a priority, even with different commercial organisations involved, and you will get people onto the trains.

 

[MK Tom]

I reckon that's a tiny, tiny part of it. I reckon very few people do this, even on the routes where it is even applicable.

I'd also be willing to lay money that there's more seats now than in 1993. Given there were few withdrawals between 1993 and privatisation, for example South West Trains have replaced 134 four car slam door units and 24 5-WES with 130 450s, 30 4-car 458s (soon to be 36 5-car 458s) and 45 444s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And longer trains, too.

On the flip side, the Oxford-Paddington express is often now a 3-car 165/166, where twenty years ago you could expect a loco-hauled rake three times that length. There are plenty of places where once-long loco-hauled services are now run with far shorter DMUs.

 

[YorkshireBear]

On the flip side, the Oxford-Paddington express is often now a 3-car 165/166, where twenty years ago you could expect a loco-hauled rake three times that length. There are plenty of places where once-long loco-hauled services are now run with far shorter DMUs.

You have to consider frequency too. Example being TPE and XC.

 

[yorksrob]

It should also be remembered that this isn‘t entirely a nationalisation/privatisation issue. A lot of these changes started with the rise of the sprinters.

 

[Goatboy]

Anybody can get Advance tickets ... they are available up to 6pm the day before and in my experience are usually in good supply even at that late hour.

No, not everyone can. Only people who happen to be travelling on a route where they are available can get Advance tickets. Those of us who are not must buy regular tickets, or try and obtain value through split tickets. Even when Advance tickets are available, if they are priced by Cross Country and you are making a return trip they are often more expensive than the walkon offpeak return.

Sadly not every route is a Virgin Trains £7.50 each way special.

I can travel from London to Brussels for £34.50 quite easily by booking 3 months in advance on virtually ANY train I choose (As I have done so last week). I can't travel from Devon to Birmingham for that no matter how far I book except for a few exceptions on irritatingly timed trains. Great.

Unless the person in question would need to buy a very expensive season ticket, I think that not having a car and using public transport, walking and/or cycling works out a fair bit cheaper. Even if it does not seem so convenient.

Most people already own a vehicle as it's difficult to rely on public transport for everything you do outside of areas like London. A car is an important part of a good transport mix for most people. Therefore when comparing car with rail from a personal 'which should I use today' perspective marginal cost of the journey is more important, as the car still exists if the train is used, it just sits in the station carpark.

If you are fortunate enough to be able to dispense entirely with vehicle ownership then obviously the maths are much different. Not many are.

 

[mountaineer]

What about a Britannia hauled service with fewer coaches, stopping at Colchester only ?

 

[tbtc]

Sadly as the Railway has, in most cases, abandoned the idea of being a good value, cheaper alternative to other forms of transport such as the roads, it must instead look to offer something else to justify the cost of using it - speed.

It's usually cheaper to drive now if you are not fortunate enough to get Advance tickets, so competition on price is less useful. If the journey is quicker than driving, people may be prepared to pay more for it.

Is there any thread that can't be turned into the same old debate about ticket prices?

I thought that the OP was going to see a discussion about the merits of speed - its funny how the "spending large sums of money for the sake of saving a few minutes" argument is generally used against HS2 but never about other "upgrades".

But then, when someone finds an example where it was faster in steam days (for an irregular, non-stop service) than 2013 (for a regular service) then speed becomes all-important.

 

[dave55uk]

(for tbtc especially)

I was actually hoping to see a discussion about why people always seem to be in such a rush these days (and not just on train journeys).

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps it's just that everyone (perhaps not quite everyone) has a competitive nature and so wants to be the fastest.

 

[Mojo]

If the frequency is staying the same then don't forget that faster journeys can reduce the operating costs as you can get more utilisation out of the fleet, train crew, etc.

More noticeable in the bus industry and on shorter journeys of course. Do feel sorry for Norwich customers as their trains to London are fairly slow in comparison to other main lines.

 

[yorksrob]

(for tbtc especially)

I was actually hoping to see a discussion about why people always seem to be in such a rush these days (and not just on train journeys).

Because I‘ve got a five minute connection and the next train is in an hour/tomorrow morning at 8:00.

 

[AndyLandy]

Perhaps it's just that everyone (perhaps not quite everyone) has a competitive nature and so wants to be the fastest.

For me, it's about dealing with the long overall journey times. To go home and visit my folks means spending five hours travelling. If a speed increase on one leg takes that down to 4:30 then that's an extra half-hour I can spend with my family at each end.

It doesn't even have to be the exact half-hour. Potentially a ten minute saving might enable me to make a half-hour earlier connection.

Whilst I don't mind spending time travelling. I'd far rather spend time either at home or with my family rather than somewhere en-route.

 

[tbtc]

(for tbtc especially)

I was actually hoping to see a discussion about why people always seem to be in such a rush these days (and not just on train journeys).

I think that its a very interesting question, sorry that it got hijacked.

I think that one reason why it gets so much attention is that "marginal improvement in reliability" isn't sexy, isn't tangible.

Look at how unimpressed people are on this forum with a simple improvement like a freight loop.

An infrastructure upgrade that will increase reliability from 93% to 96% may make quite a difference to the time that people spend on a train over a month, but we seem more interested in headline times (even when the TOC regularly fails to meet them).

An example, consider the Flying Scotsman - a 3h59 journey from Edinburgh to London, non-stop south of Newcastle. Whilst it apparently runs late fairly often, it seems more important to give it a headline-grabbing time (under the four hour barrier) than a realistic schedule that it'll meet 95% of the time.

 

[Bevan Price]

You have to consider frequency too. Example being TPE and XC.

But 2 x 4 car Voyagers per hour have fewer standard class seats than the loco + 7 formations that they replaced........

And on some lines, greater frequency can prevent higher speeds. On TPE, the only way to reduce Manchester - Leeds journey times will involve replacing some "all-stations" services by a "skip-stop" pattern.

 

[dosxuk]

The time saving quoted from Ipswich to London would only be TEN minutes. Is it really worthwhile spending (probably) quite a lot of money just to save such a small amount of time?

Would you agree the THIRTY minute saving on a Norwich - London journey is worthwhile though? It's only natural that other stations between the two termini will also see a sped up service.