Road and rail building plans under review after Covid

[Bletchleyite]

Ignores the fact that you need to get to the station first and are invariably fleeced for parking to begin with. Don't say "oh but use a bus / bike" etc - I live on the edge of a large town, the nearest stations are 5 miles and 7 miles away. Any bus is going to take *at least* 30 minutes to cover those distances, if only because by their very nature they have to stop and pick up other passengers. So do I want my journey to / from work extended by 30 + minutes a day, just to assuage your guilt about the environment and desire to force people onto public transport ? Probably not.

And "socialising" on a train - please. Don't make me laugh. I don't *want* to socialise with other commuters. I want to socialise with my family or friends -and they're not the ones making the same journeys I am. I want a quite, comfortable environment, where I don't have to listen to other people's phone conversations, the overspill from other people's music, smell the scent of other people's food and drink or body odour. Particularly on a journey to work which is a journey I make through necessity, not choice.

It sounds like the train is not for you, then

The things you state are not true of everyone.

 

[jfowkes]

It sounds like the train is not for you, then

The things you state are not true of everyone.

This is true, but also we need to make the train work for more people. Currently @A0wen is right - the train just doesn't work for a lot of people for loads of reasons. Getting people out of cars and into trains (and buses, and onto bikes etc.) is going to take a pretty big shift in the way we work and the way we value our time, environment and health.

 

[A0wen]

It sounds like the train is not for you, then

The things you state are not true of everyone.

Because it will be true for a significant proportion of the population - yet if you listened to those on here, rail is the only answer.

Like many other posters on this board, there are cases where rail makes sense and I support those, but even those who actually work in the rail industry recognise it isn't the be all and end all.

This is true, but also we need to make the train work for more people. Currently @A0wen is right - the train just doesn't work for a lot of people for loads of reasons. Getting people out of cars and into trains (and buses, and onto bikes etc.) is going to take a pretty big shift in the way we work and the way we value our time, environment and health.

The bigger issue is if you achieved as little as a 1% modal shift to rail from road, you'd massively overcrowd the railways. And the answer of 'build more railways' isn't viable, because the schemes people want built would (a) be incredibly expensive (using Bald Rick's £30-£ 40m / mile as a starter for 10, given he has actually got some specialist knowledge in this area) and (b) most of said schemes won't address traffic concerns, because they are dealing with less well used flows or complex flows which the rail network can never efficiently handle.

Rail is good at shipping lots of people or materials between point 'a' and point 'b' - it's why commuter flows into the major cities work for rail. It's why trying to replicate the myriad of random journeys people make in suburban or rural areas of the UK isn't viable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is true, but also we need to make the train work for more people. Currently @A0wen is right - the train just doesn't work for a lot of people for loads of reasons. Getting people out of cars and into trains (and buses, and onto bikes etc.) is going to take a pretty big shift in the way we work and the way we value our time, environment and health.

Yes, true. @A0wen might find a First Class quiet coach single seat suitable, perhaps? But you are more likely to attract family passengers and business travellers if they have somewhere to use their laptop, share a picnic etc - which means tightly packed airline seats really aren't the thing.

 

[quantinghome]

Train journeys only work well for certain types of journey. But boy do they work well for those journeys.

In terms of market share rail probably has an upper limit of 20-30% in the UK (Japan is higher at 37% but we're never going to see their level of urban development). It's currently around 10% (or was in the beforetimes).

The trick is to get the sort of rail / mass transit service we see in London (where you turn up to a station and a train arrives within a few minutes to take you where you want to go) in every major UK city.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bigger issue is if you achieved as little as a 1% modal shift to rail from road, you'd massively overcrowd the railways.

Only if you persist in running short trains around the place. It would not be hard, for instance, to near double the capacity of XC - obtain and run 10-car trains instead of silly short ones. This is true all over the (non-London-commuter) railway, even on parts of the IC network where 5-car trains run. It's already been done in some places - single Pacers and Sprinters on Manchester to Blackpool have given way to long, comfortably-laid-out 6-car 331 formations with tables for laptops and families. That is how to do it.

And then there's HS2 which will do that for the WCML, too. (Doing the originally-planned Euston rebuild to (I think it was) 12 long platforms would also help)

The trick is to get the sort of rail / mass transit service we see in London (where you turn up to a station and a train arrives within a few minutes to take you where you want to go) in every major UK city.

Certainly "Merseyrail style" operation is the way to get people using urban rail, yes. Even if it makes journeys a bit slower, the ease of use of a 15 minute frequency (say) makes the difference, and lots of people travel from Liverpool to Chester/Southport on Merseyrail despite these being slow, all stations services.

 

[A0wen]

Yes, true. @A0wen might find a First Class quiet coach single seat suitable, perhaps? But you are more likely to attract family passengers and business travellers if they have somewhere to use their laptop, share a picnic etc - which means tightly packed airline seats really aren't the thing.

For a good many commuters, the last thing they want to be doing on the morning / evening commute is sitting there trying to work on their laptop. They would *much rather* have a seat than be standing rammed into somebody else's armpit on a sweaty train.

The actual proportion who want to work is remarkably low.

As for families, that's leisure travel - which automatically limits the number of days to about 160 a year (52 x weekends a year plus 60 days of school holidays), compare that to commuters who (at least before covid) were potentially travelling 230 days a year (47 weeks x 5 days) - on that basis the rail network should be far more concerned with providing a suitable environment for commuters than "leisure" travellers, who often travel at a much lower cost to begin with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For a good many commuters, the last thing they want to be doing on the morning / evening commute is sitting there trying to work on their laptop. They would *much rather* have a seat than be standing rammed into somebody else's armpit on a sweaty train.

Commuting is well down and will stay that way to some extent. Commuting is not the future of the railway.

More likely is people going into the office a couple of days a week for meetings. Those people might want to work on the train so they can travel in work time rather than getting up at the crack of dawn.

"leisure" travellers, who often travel at a much lower cost to begin with.

This is untrue. Season tickets, which most commuters use, are heavily discounted. Typically they pay, per day, about the same as or sometimes a little less than an Off Peak Day Return.

 

[A0wen]

Train journeys only work well for certain types of journey. But boy do they work well for those journeys.

In terms of market share rail probably has an upper limit of 20-30% in the UK (Japan is higher at 37% but we're never going to see their level of urban development). It's currently around 10% (or was in the beforetimes).

The trick is to get the sort of rail / mass transit service we see in London (where you turn up to a station and a train arrives within a few minutes to take you where you want to go) in every major UK city.

The thing you're missing in your comparison with Japan is *where* people live.

In Japan over 110 million live in urban areas, 10 million in rural.

In the UK it's 55 million in urban areas and 10 million rural. (Source: Statista.com).

If you've got more people living in cities, then they are more likely to use rail - because the population density is higher, space is restricted, and often journeys are shorter.

 

[BayPaul]

Because it will be true for a significant proportion of the population - yet if you listened to those on here, rail is the only answer.

Like many other posters on this board, there are cases where rail makes sense and I support those, but even those who actually work in the rail industry recognise it isn't the be all and end all.

You on the other hand seem to think people should travel in the way you want - not for the first time, you've still not confirmed what your particular specialism or qualification is when pontificating on these boards beyond being a passenger. You claim to have the answers, imply the rail industry are either lazy, incompetent or thick, penny pinch at every opportunity, yet you won't tell us how you're qualified to make such assertions.



The bigger issue is if you achieved as little as a 1% modal shift to rail from road, you'd massively overcrowd the railways. And the answer of 'build more railways' isn't viable, because the schemes people want built would (a) be incredibly expensive (using Bald Rick's £30-£ 40m / mile as a starter for 10, given he has actually got some specialist knowledge in this area) and (b) most of said schemes won't address traffic concerns, because they are dealing with less well used flows or complex flows which the rail network can never efficiently handle.

Rail is good at shipping lots of people or materials between point 'a' and point 'b' - it's why commuter flows into the major cities work for rail. It's why trying to replicate the myriad of random journeys people make in suburban or rural areas of the UK isn't viable.

I agree. I would far rather that resources are pumped into areas where rail is very viable, and where it can achieve a meaningful shift of people away from cars and planes, rather than Beeching reopenings. HS2 (and future extensions to Scotland and the SW), Transpennine upgrade, Crossrail, CR2, Castleford Corridor, windmill junction, new tram lines are all schemes that are ideal for this - high capacity intercity or metro lines, areas where trains can compete well, can take huge numbers of cars out of cities, and have a massive reduction in CO2. Reopenings like Tavistock are just a minor distraction, use up scarce budget, time and other resouces, and only take minimal cars off the road. An intigrated public transport system would really help, rather than buses being seen as second rate and competing with trains. I would also love to see far more investment in cycling / walking / electric scooter infrastructure, to reduce the number of short journeys.

If there were high speed trains running 2-4 times per hour from London to Edinburgh in under 3 hours, at a decent cost, practically noone would drive or fly. Equally, if Manchester had a public transport system of a similar quality to London, there would be little reason for anyone to drive into the city.

 

[A0wen]

This is untrue. Season tickets, which most commuters use, are heavily discounted. Typically they pay, per day, about the same as or sometimes a little less than an Off Peak Day Return.

Family leisure tickets are also often discounted, usually by virtue of having a railcard - add in such 'leisure' journeys will usually be two or three times a year, not a couple of hundred times a year.

The commuters will continue to be the main source of revenue for the rail industry even post covid.

 

[BayPaul]

Only if you persist in running short trains around the place. It would not be hard, for instance, to near double the capacity of XC - obtain and run 10-car trains instead of silly short ones. This is true all over the (non-London-commuter) railway, even on parts of the IC network where 5-car trains run. It's already been done in some places - single Pacers and Sprinters on Manchester to Blackpool have given way to long, comfortably-laid-out 6-car 331 formations with tables for laptops and families. That is how to do it.

And then there's HS2 which will do that for the WCML, too. (Doing the originally-planned Euston rebuild to (I think it was) 12 long platforms would also help)



Certainly "Merseyrail style" operation is the way to get people using urban rail, yes. Even if it makes journeys a bit slower, the ease of use of a 15 minute frequency (say) makes the difference, and lots of people travel from Liverpool to Chester/Southport on Merseyrail despite these being slow, all stations services.

Homogenising the service also enables significant increase in frequency and capacity without huge infrastructure improvements. Far too much capacity is eaten up on our mixed traffic lines because certain stations are seen as too important to have to use the stopping service, so have a fast service, which destroys paths. On many lines it would be better to close a few very minor stations, and then run a frequent metro-style all stations service. This is especially the case on 4 track lines - fast line services should go straight through, with all services stopping at all principle stations, and slow line services should stop everywhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The commuters will continue to be the main source of revenue for the rail industry even post covid.

If you mean "daily commuters typically holding monthly or longer seasons", I'd be surprised if they were when taking into account the whole railway's income, though they may well be for some TOCs with a lot of short distance routes around cities.

Homogenising the service also enables significant increase in frequency and capacity without huge infrastructure improvements. Far too much capacity is eaten up on our mixed traffic lines because certain stations are seen as too important to have to use the stopping service, so have a fast service, which destroys paths. On many lines it would be better to close a few very minor stations, and then run a frequent metro-style all stations service. This is especially the case on 4 track lines - fast line services should go straight through, with all services stopping at all principle stations, and slow line services should stop everywhere.

The best way to do that is to pair by direction and have island platform interchanges where the fast-line trains stop a la New York Subway. Costly to implement if not already like that, though. That allows interchange if journey time is your priority or staying put on the stopper if a direct journey is more important to you.

 

[Bald Rick]

Only if you persist in running short trains around the place. It would not be hard, for instance, to near double the capacity of XC - obtain and run 10-car trains instead of silly short ones. This is true all over the (non-London-commuter) railway, even on parts of the IC network where 5-car trains run.

Trouble is, that pre-Covid, nearly 70% of all passengers on the network were on the London commuter railway, which was largely full in the peak.

Doubling cross country capacity (which, unfortunately, isn’t practical everywhere) would add 2% capacity to the network.

 

[A0wen]

If there were high speed trains running 2-4 times per hour from London to Edinburgh in under 3 hours, at a decent cost, practically noone would drive or fly. Equally, if Manchester had a public transport system of a similar quality to London, there would be little reason for anyone to drive into the city.

LNER currently run approx an hourly service to Edinburgh - and I doubt more than 20% of those on board travel the full distance. Are you seriously saying there is enough demand to travel from London - Edinburgh to run a train every 15 minutes ? I very much doubt that. And you're missing something - if you live north of London, let's pick somewhere like Stevenage as a good example, if you want to go to Edinburgh you can drive it - it will take you about 7 hours, so that kind of suggests you won't be doing it for a day trip, but it will work well if you've got the kids and the dog in tow and the luggage.

You can take the train - it'll do it in 5 hours but you'll have to change somewhere. You could just about go out and back in a day. And HS 2 won't help, because you'll still have a 30 minute trip to London to get to HS2.

Or you can drive to Luton in about 30 mins and Easyjet in about an hour each way. Do-able for a day trip.

Even post HS2 if you're time constrained and need to do Stevenage to Edinburgh in a day, the plane will be the only viable option, unless you're going to start telling people they can't fly for such journeys meaning they'll either have a longer journey or an overnight stop - which as these are business travellers means less time at home with their families - so it's not a very family friendly approach is it ?

 

[HSTEd]

If HS2 reaches Toton, the entire southern MML just becomes a short/medium line that essentially terminates at Nottingham.

If capacity on it is a problem you can revert to an intensive metro-style two stopping pattern operation.
Tilting trains would actually be useful there because there would be no capacity issue if all trains on a given pair of lines are tilting.

But the point is, railways are a bulk solution.

We need to treat them as such - I think operationally we should look more towards the London Underground or the New York City Subway than we should look towards the railways of yesteryear.

Intensive operation, simple timetables, pile it high and sell it cheap.

 

[Bald Rick]

If you mean "daily commuters typically holding monthly or longer seasons", I'd be surprised if they were when taking into account the whole railway's income, though they may well be for some TOCs with a lot of short distance routes around cities.

It’s safe to assume that Passengers holding monthly or longer seasons have never been the ‘main’ source of income for the railway, ever.

Passengers travelling to work / education (regardless of ticket type held) are however, and will continue to be.

 

[A0wen]

Trouble is, that pre-Covid, nearly 70% of all passengers on the network were on the London commuter railway, which was largely full in the peak.

Doubling cross country capacity (which, unfortunately, isn’t practical everywhere) would add 2% capacity to the network.

Can I just clarify that, do you mean because of the proportion of services cross country run ? Or is usage included in that i.e. London commuter services run much closer to full than cross country or rural ? Just trying to understand that statement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Intensive operation, simple timetables, pile it high and sell it cheap.

Frequent services, yes. Long trains, yes. Takt, yes. Keep fares down and simple, yes. But don't sacrifice comfort. At least half tables in each coach and legroom fit for more than dwarves (the 80x layout is about right here), and no 3+2 anywhere.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can I just clarify that, do you mean because of the proportion of services cross country run ? Or is usage included in that i.e. London commuter services run much closer to full than cross country or rural ? Just trying to understand that statement.

Roughly in terms of passenger journey capacity. Cross Country carries about 2% of passenger journeys. If you assume that you double capacity you provide the opportunity to double passenger numbers, then that’s the 2%.

 

[A0wen]

Roughly in terms of passenger journey capacity. Cross Country carries about 2% of passenger journeys. If you assume that you double capacity you provide the opportunity to double passenger numbers, then that’s the 2%.

Got it ! Thanks for clarifying.

Frequent services, yes. Long trains, yes. Takt, yes. Keep fares down and simple, yes. But don't sacrifice comfort. At least half tables in each coach and legroom fit for more than dwarves (the 80x layout is about right here), and no 3+2 anywhere.

Brilliant - so some people will end up standing so others can have a table. Or so there aren't 3+2 (which you don't like) but actually works quite well on short distance journeys and works well for families (that you claim you want to attract).

 

[Bald Rick]

Got it ! Thanks for clarifying.

Conversely, GTR carry 20% of passengers. Unfortunately, doubling capacity there would be a trifle difficult!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Brilliant - so some people will end up standing so others can have a table. Or so there aren't 3+2 (which you don't like) but actually works quite well on short distance journeys and works well for families (that you claim you want to attract).

With vastly reduced commuting it should be possible to provide everyone a seat.

 

[A0wen]

Conversely, GTR carry 20% of passengers. Unfortunately, doubling capacity there would be a trifle difficult!

Double deck 700s perhaps ? (I am joking of course, most of the tunnels on TL and GN would put pay to that). But in all seriousness that shows the challenge of the "modal shift" argument. Where the capacity would be best used is in many respects the most difficult to achieve it - you can't just "double up" all the London commuter services, you can't just "build" new commuter lines into London - not least because the land cost would be astronomical.

 

[AM9]

Family leisure tickets are also often discounted, usually by virtue of having a railcard - add in such 'leisure' journeys will usually be two or three times a year, not a couple of hundred times a year.

Many times when I make a leisure journey using my Senior railcard, I rue the fact that I am prevented from travelling towards home between 16:30 and 19:00 even though I am paying about the same as season ticket holders for their Anytime (lack of) restrictions.

The commuters will continue to be the main source of revenue for the rail industry even post covid.

Ah, that old (sub) Urban myth again so often quoted by commuters who don't know how well off they are:

Providing excess capacity just for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening is very expensive in terms of trains that may only do about one or two short journeys on 5 days per week. The rest of the day they are parked in sidings near the town end of their journey.​

Extending platforms, duplicating track, and providing grade separated junctions, all of which is only justified by the high volume demand of commuting.​

Not a very good business model, hence requiring lots of public subsidy.

 

[A0wen]

With vastly reduced commuting it should be possible to provide everyone a seat.

I think you're wrong - the reason the 700s were put on the TL and GN lines was to provide capacity, with most of it being driven by standing for some distance. The 12 car 700s have 666 seats but can take a further 1088 standing (wikipedia) - some of those units were running full pre-Covid. Even a 50% drop would still see standing passengers on those.

 

[HSTEd]

not least because the land cost would be astronomical.

This is one of the reasons I follow developments in tunneling and especially high capacity vertical transport solutions (otherwise known as lifts, but also escalators).

The potential capacity of a new line is enormous though, that much is clear. Just look at Crossrail relative to every other commuter line in existance, except maybe Thameslink

 

[AM9]

Double deck 700s perhaps ? (I am joking of course, most of the tunnels on TL and GN would put pay to that). But in all seriousness that shows the challenge of the "modal shift" argument. Where the capacity would be best used is in many respects the most difficult to achieve it - you can't just "double up" all the London commuter services, you can't just "build" new commuter lines into London - not least because the land cost would be astronomical.

Double deck (if it were possible) might increase the capacity per train metre length by about 40%, but the service on a high frequency route would not increase much if at all, because dwells would be extended, thereby increasing the necessary headways.

 

[A0wen]

Many times when I make a leisure journey using my Senior railcard, I rue the fact that I am prevented from travelling towards home between 16:30 and 19:00 even though I am paying about the same as season ticket holders for their Anytime (lack of) restrictions.


Ah, that old (sub) Urban myth again so often quoted by commuters who don't know how well off they are:

Providing excess capacity just for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening is very expensive in terms of trains that may only do about one or two short journeys on 5 days per week. The rest of the day they are parked in sidings near the town end of their journey.​

Extending platforms, duplicating track, and providing grade separated junctions, all of which is only justified by the high volume demand of commuting.​

Not a very good business model, hence requiring lots of public subsidy.

Yes, but you're travelling once or twice a year and have the choice whether to travel. Commuters travel a hundred times more often and in many respects don't have a choice about doing so (on the basis they need a job to pay the bills).

 

[Wolfie]

It's difficult to see new capacity schemes being authorised on the railway, unless there is a wider economic interest (eg on East West Rail, or NPR).
HS2 (phases 1/2a) probably just got through in time. For phase 2b I guess it will depend on its interrelationship with NPR.
Money is more likely to be spent on renewals and modernisation generally, where operational savings can be achieved.
Train fleets will be under review, and we may be in a "new train famine" for some time.
But the railway has more on its hands than just a usage problem - it urgently has to sort out its organisation and methods as well (Williams, franchises, costs etc).
We have annual Treasury spending reviews at the moment, so it all depends on Sunak's view of railway investment.
I'd expect cost reductions to go with any new investment.

Re your penultimate para, l am a Civil Servant and we understand that the next Spending Review will be multi-year. Last year was a one off in exceptional circumstances.