What would a "pro-growth" rail agenda look like?

[Silenos]

Agree that any such policy would have to look at integrated public transport. That includes the sort of joined up thinking that builds in transport interchanges from the start in new developments, and supporting public transport to allow travel in and out of rural areas as well as conurbations. However, it seems inconceivable that any likely British government would develop and promote such a policy, any more than they are going to develop and implement an effective green industrial strategy. We should rather be asking what sort of strategy is needed to cope with the inevitable shrinkage and decline in public transport in favour of a largely car-based system, because that’s what we are going to end up with.

 

[London Trains]

Anyone who thinks train fares aren't too expensive don't know the reality - the amount of people that would travel by train all the time but don't often because of the price is ridiculous, and that's just from personal experience.

I fully believe if all off-peak train fares were halved and time restrictions removed, with advance and anytime fares removed (both would be redundant with off peak tickets becoming anytime and advance fares having no advantage with cheaper open tickets), after a couple of weeks of promoting the cheaper fares, passenger figures would more than double and the railways would be making more money than they do now.

My post from another thread that is also relevant here.

 

[Dr Day]

Ask people why they don't use the train and the number one reason is always fares, far above anything else.

Maybe for journeys where rail is on the table as an option, but for an awful lot of journeys (even longish distance ones) rail simply isn't an option, even if it was free. Plenty of railway employees with free travel perks still need a car.

 

[LOL The Irony]

If I were to say what a pro-growth rail agenda would look like, it'd be;

• Commitment to HS2 in full and HS3
• Construction of a HS1 - HS2 rail link
• A feasibility study into extending HS2 from Golborne to Glasgow
• Introduction of a levy on internal, non connecting flights between cities served by HS2
• Electrification of all possible lines before 2050
• Better integration with other public transport
• Lowering of fares to make trains more competitive with coach travel and to make you reconsider using the car
• Feasibility studies into all closed lines that haven't yet received one to discover the most appropriate
• Increasing capacity and service levels on lines and in areas that need it
• Partial devolution of rail services within major population centres to the local authority
• Standardising ticketing across the country to make it less complicated
• Raising of the adult ticket age from 16 to 18
• Introducing an Avanti superfare style system to all InterCity operators for the money conscious passenger
• Focusing on customer service by increasing platform staff numbers and making the guard more visible
• Sack off as many travel """"safe"""" officers as possible
• Make all serving politicians take the train where the journey is possible

 

[eldomtom2]

Maybe for journeys where rail is on the table as an option, but for an awful lot of journeys (even longish distance ones) rail simply isn't an option, even if it was free. Plenty of railway employees with free travel perks still need a car.

Maybe, but I always hear complaints about the fares and not so much complaints about a lack of service.

 

[wilbers]

Depends. Where there’s an obvious railhead for bus services to connect into then yes it has, examples include the connections at Garsdale and Kirkby Stephen. Could be better, and can’t always work, but there has been an effort.

Spotted this about 3 weeks ago. Monday-Friday it goes from Penrith-Appleby and back a few times, then used as a school bus at the appropriate times of day. Doesn't need to do a school run on a Saturday so its going to Kirkby Stephen as well as Appleby. No idea how well the timetable of it fits in with the Settle-Carlisle line as I always park at Langwathby for that.

New Saturday bus service connecting communities in Penrith and Kirkby Stephen | Westmorland and Furness Council

Stagecoach have added a new Saturday service to their Monday to Friday 563 bus route, connecting residents and visitors of Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and surrounding areas to Penrith.

www.westmorlandandfurness.gov.uk

If a Government really wanted to make a splash and get some on trains that rarely/never used them, then a one off free off-peak ticket up to the value of say £30 or £50 for everyone in the country would get bums on seats. Unlikely to ever happen, and only a non-zero chance of it in the run up to a general election - probably possible to calculate a fairly accurate estimate how much those newspaper headlines would cost (or £0 if the party with that policy wasn't elected).

 

[JonathanH]

Lowering of fares to make trains more competitive with coach travel

Why? Trains are already competitive with coach travel, because on almost all routes they are quicker.

The coach market is absolutely tiny compared with the railway.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe for journeys where rail is on the table as an option, but for an awful lot of journeys (even longish distance ones) rail simply isn't an option, even if it was free. Plenty of railway employees with free travel perks still need a car.

That doesn't really negate the argument that price is a key factor for people who would otherwise see rail as an option.

It's certainly no excuse for sticking with an overpriced system that surpresses demand and deters people from undertaking economic activity.

 

[zwk500]

• HS3 - (Which one?)
• Construction of a HS1 - HS2 rail link
• Introduction of a levy on internal, non connecting flights between cities served by HS2
• Raising of the adult ticket age from 16 to 18
• Make all serving politicians take the train where the journey is possible

These wouldn't really be pro-growth as they're the wrong solutions to the problems people are facing. The HS1-HS2 link only makes sense if the UK joins Schengen, and that's simply never going to happen in my lifetime. They'd also be insanely expensive and therefore restrict the ability of the railway to make more meaningful investements

• Commitment to HS2 in full
• Better integration with other public transport
• Lowering of fares to make trains more competitive with coach travel and to make you reconsider using the car
• Increasing capacity and service levels on lines and in areas that need it
• Partial devolution of rail services within major population centres to the local authority
• Standardising ticketing across the country to make it less complicated

Yes

• A feasibility study into extending HS2 from Golborne to Glasgow

Either do it or don't. I personally would definitely do Preston-Carstairs with links on/off at Carlisle. Golborne-Preston may not need independent tracks (although it'd be good if it did).

• Electrification of all possible lines before 2050
• Feasibility studies into all closed lines that haven't yet received one to discover the most appropriate

These are impossibly broad and feasibility studies into basically all closed lines have been going every 10 years since they shut.

• Introducing an Avanti superfare style system to all InterCity operators for the money conscious passenger
• Focusing on customer service by increasing platform staff numbers and making the guard more visible
• Sack off as many travel """"safe"""" officers as possible

I can see how these would help customers/money but fail to see why this is really growth?

For me, a 'pro-growth' rail agenda can only mean 1 thing: Building a metric f***ton of housing within 15 minutes walk of every railway station. Housing is what is killing the UK's economy, and the railways need more passengers to compensate for the lower revenue per passenger it now receives relative to it's costs.

 

[snookertam]

My post from another thread that is also relevant here.

Peak fares will be removed from ScotRail services later this year for a trial period, so we will see if this has an impact.

 

[Trainbike46]

For me, a 'pro-growth' rail agenda can only mean 1 thing: Building a metric f***ton of housing within 15 minutes walk of every railway station. Housing is what is killing the UK's economy, and the railways need more passengers to compensate for the lower revenue per passenger it now receives relative to it's costs.

This is a really good point. There's quite a lot of railway stations that have the space to support housing (+plus some facilities like some shops), and it will help get people housing and make the railway the obvious way to travel for many people

 

[43066]

For me, a 'pro-growth' rail agenda can only mean 1 thing: Building a metric f***ton of housing within 15 minutes walk of every railway station. Housing is what is killing the UK's economy, and the railways need more passengers to compensate for the lower revenue per passenger it now receives relative to it's costs.

This is actually happening in many places, especially in the South East and the lower midlands (look at the development taking place along the MML for example), albeit probably not to the levels required to make a meaningful difference.

Homeowners, who still represent the majority of the electorate, don’t want to see property prices fall, of course, so it has to be managed carefully.

 

[Trainbike46]

I also think that longer trains are needed in a lot of places. Particularly XC is short of capacity, and there is an obvious solution available (in the form of the ex-avanti voyagers). Consideration should be given to the question of whether new 5/7car bimodes for XC could be cheaper on a per-sat basis compared to the existing voyagers though

This is actually happening in many places, albeit probably not to the levels required to make a meaningful difference.

Unfortunately, it is also being fought tooth and nail in a lot of places, as seen at TfLs proposals to build housing at the end of underground lines such as at Cockfosters

 

[zwk500]

This is actually happening in many places, especially in the South East and the lower midlands (look at the development taking place along the MML for example), albeit probably not to the levels required to make a meaningful difference.

Homeowners, who still represent the majority of the electorate, don’t want to see property prices fall, of course, so it has to be managed carefully.

The Local elections demonstrated a very stark divide between pro- or anti-housing groups. Funnily enough, the Tories managed to get it completely wrong by not building enough houses for ambitious young professionals and by building too many houses for middle-aged homeowners.

 

[Irascible]

Funnily enough, the Tories managed to get it completely wrong by not building enough houses for ambitious young professionals and by building too many houses for middle-aged homeowners.

They're the ones who already have the money! young pros don't have anything except debt.

If we do agree it's housing throttling the economy then it's all very well ballooning communities - watching Cullompton explode has been a wry fascination - the transport at the places they want to go has to be sorted out & included in the planning, not just the area around the houses.

 

[zwk500]

They're the ones who already have the money! young pros don't have anything except debt.

Young pros includes a wide cross-section many of whom are really struggling to afford even flatshares, let alone purchasing property

If we do agree it's housing throttling the economy then it's all very well ballooning communities - watching Cullompton explode has been a wry fascination - the transport at the places they want to go has to be sorted out & included in the planning, not just the area around the houses.

Indeed. It needs a concerted plan and serious action from national and local governments as well as private money. Unfortunately this government doesn't have the next clue what it's doing so instead of actually trying to address 20-year-old structural problems it's MPs are hosting quasi-fascist conferences.

 

[43066]

The Local elections demonstrated a very stark divide between pro- or anti-housing groups. Funnily enough, the Tories managed to get it completely wrong by not building enough houses for ambitious young professionals and by building too many houses for middle-aged homeowners.

I’m not sure what the split has been between new build family large houses versus small houses/flats etc. that might be more suitable for young professionals.

Of course a big impediment has been the strong affordability criteria and the need for a large deposit - especially in the south east and home counties. If you’re a young professional working for an investment bank or top flight law firm, probably doable, but if you’re a teacher/nurse/junior doctor, forget it without serious help via inheritance, gifts from parents etc.

 

[Trainbike46]

I’m not sure what the split has been between new build family large houses versus small houses/flats etc. that might be more suitable for young professionals.

Of course a big impediment has been the strong affordability criteria and the need for a large deposit - especially in the south eat and home counties. If you’re a young professional working for an investment bank or top flight law firm, probably doable, but if you’re a teacher/nurse/junior doctor, forget it without serious help via inheritance, gifts from parents etc.

I do think there's been too much housing constructed at the larger/more expensive end of the market and not enough at the smaller/cheaper end for a long time now. Similarly, not enough council housing has been build, leading to the situation that many people who should be able to get a council house simply can't get one

 

[43066]

Unfortunately this government doesn't have the next clue what it's doing so instead of actually trying to address 20-year-old structural problems it's MPs are hosting quasi-fascist conferences.

Looking on the bright side, if it gets bad enough, the infighting might actually bring forward a GE. The Tory party is busy eating itself alive and has been since they got rid of Johnson…

 

[zwk500]

I’m not sure what the split has been between new build family large houses versus small houses/flats etc. that might be more suitable for young professionals.

Tbh at this point the market is so constrained that any new build is helpful because a large family house allows a family to move out of a small starter home that a young person can then move into.

Of course a big impediment has been the strong affordability criteria and the need for a large deposit - especially in the south eat and home counties. If you’re a young professional working for an investment bank or top flight law firm, probably doable, but if you’re a teacher/nurse/junior doctor, forget it without serious help via inheritance, gifts from parents etc.

The cost of living in London now means even people working for high-paid jobs can't afford sensible housing. And you're absolutely right that people need assistance to get a deposit, which is why any housing is good - allowing Mum & Dad to move out of the 3/4-bed house and into a smaller bungalow would release not only housing stock but a lot of equity which young people could use to purchase their own places.

Looking on the bright side, if it gets bad enough the infighting might actually bring forward a GE.

A Phyrric victory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I also think that longer trains are needed in a lot of places. Particularly XC is short of capacity, and there is an obvious solution available (in the form of the ex-avanti voyagers). Consideration should be given to the question of whether new 5/7car bimodes for XC could be cheaper on a per-sat basis compared to the existing voyagers though

If growth was desired for XC, you would make it a premium long distance product designed for people to make good use of the longer journeys involved, which means longer trains with comfortable, lower density interiors, good catering etc so people can read, work, watch films etc comfortably. The standard 80x interior, bar the good old Sophia, isn't *too* bad for this and is used on comparable long trips like the Chieftain and the Penzance services, and it very much looks like the Avanti 805s and 807s will have the sort of interior I'm talking about based on pictures I've seen.

If you wanted to do it on the cheap, you could reform 22x to 7 or 8-car units, scrapping a load of cabs, and change the seating layout accordingly.

If growth was desired for places where XC carries substantial local flows, e.g. around Birmingham, electrification and 8 or even 12-car EMUs would be running just in front or just behind on those substantial local flows, avoiding XC being overcrowded and providing a better experience for everyone. If those key busy flows did have alternatives provided, it may even be that 5 or 6.80x would be fine for most XC services (though it's unlikely 4-car Voyagers are suitable for anything). An example of this is Manchester to Bolton, where the 6-car Northern EMUs are the main people-shifter, and crowding onto the shorter Scotland TPE service is discouraged, in this case by way of pick up/set down restrictions. Were this found to be the case, you could well consider a new build of 9-car 80x for GWR, transferring the 5s to XC and improving the interiors.

 

[Pdf]

More services like Lumo (in operation rather than ownership) which target getting people to switch from flying to taking the train. No one should be flying from London to Edinburgh, let alone London to Manchester.

 

[A0wen]

More services like Lumo (in operation rather than ownership) which target getting people to switch from flying to taking the train. No one should be flying from London to Edinburgh, let alone London to Manchester.

Except Lumo is a low cost operation running at very set times with restricted stopping patterns. No doubt the only but of Lumo you actually want is the cheap fares, but with the flexibility or coverage of LNER - which frankly would simply increase costs and subsidy demands even more.

On the flights - alot of Manchester flyers are on connecting flights to Heathrow - what you're saying is "no, you can't check in locally to you, you *have* to get the train to Euston then go to Heathrow" - and many people would reply by telling you to take a long walk off a short pier.

With Edinburgh the train still isn't - and never will be - time competitive - example, the 0830 from Kings X takes 6 hours to get to Edinburgh with stops at Peterboro, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Berwick.

If you live in, Stevenage, for example and want to go to Edinburgh, that means you're on for a 6.5 hour journey *at best* - or you can drive to Luton Airport (30 mins), the flight is 1h 15m and you can check in 30 mins before - so less than 2.5 hours after leaving home, you're in Edinburgh.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you live in, Stevenage, for example and want to go to Edinburgh, that means you're on for a 6.5 hour journey *at best* - or you can drive to Luton Airport (30 mins), the flight is 1h 15m and you can check in 30 mins before - so less than 2.5 hours after leaving home, you're in Edinburgh.

While it's true that if you live near an airport you'll get places quicker by flying (who'd have thunk it?) that's disingenuous. Driving to Luton Airport may well take 30 minutes, but you absolutely can't arrive at LTN's closest car park 30 minutes before a flight and not miss it unless you're very lucky and an Olympic sprinter. The whole "three hours beforehand" thing is false, but with hand luggage only you would need to arrive at the door to the terminal at the *absolute latest* 45 minutes before to be sure of catching the flight taking into account security and that it could be at the most distant gates. Thus if you're parking up at the multi storey (very high cost) you would probably need to be pulling on your handbrake one hour before. If using a taxi you might need to leave longer as they have a habit of not showing up exactly when booked.

You then need to get from the airport to where you're going in Edinburgh, which as a visitor is likely the centre (unless working for RBS at Gogarburn or something), so add on about half an hour for a bus, tram or taxi transfer (all take about the same amount of time, I've done all three). Plus time to get through the airport.

I'd agree it's quicker than the train for people living in the Home Counties (though Lumo, with its Stevenage stop then fast to Newcastle*, will be narrowing the gap), but 2.5 hours is grossly optimistic, it'll be nearer 4, maybe 3.5 if you're very lucky and everything goes perfectly. And yes, I've done it a number of times, and I also live 30 minutes' drive from LTN.

* This is why I think HS2 should have had an M25 Parkway designed in; central London isn't a good origin for most of the Home Counties.

 

[A0wen]

While it's true that if you live near an airport you'll get places quicker by flying (who'd have thunk it?) that's disingenuous.

However Stevenage *is* on the East Coast Mainline - so much closer than Luton Airport - try harder.

For somewhere like Chelmsford or Amersham it would still be quicker to fly (from Stansted or Luton respectively) despite the rail links both have into London.

You then need to get from the airport to where you're going in Edinburgh, which as a visitor is likely the centre (unless working for RBS at Gogarburn or something), so add on about half an hour for a bus, tram or taxi transfer (all take about the same amount of time, I've done all three). Plus time to get through the airport.

Same is true of the train though, unless your destination is central Edinburgh in the vicinity of Waverley station. I don't think you can argue that one has the advantage over the other.

I'd agree it's quicker than the train for people living in the Home Counties (though Lumo, with its Stevenage stop then fast to Newcastle*, will be narrowing the gap), but 2.5 hours is grossly optimistic, it'll be nearer 4, maybe 3.5 if you're very lucky and everything goes perfectly. And yes, I've done it a number of times, and I also live 30 minutes' drive from LTN.

I know people who have flown Luton to both Edinburgh and Glasgow regularly - their view is 30-40 minutes before the flight leaves providing you only have hand luggage is eminently reasonable.

And with the DART now open, parking at Luton Airport Parkway station and using that will be ~15 mins from parking - which offsets the time driving up the hill to the airport nicely, especially if you're arriving in Luton from J10 of the M1.

 

[Trainbike46]

With Edinburgh the train still isn't - and never will be - time competitive - example, the 0830 from Kings X takes 6 hours to get to Edinburgh with stops at Peterboro, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Berwick.

I have no clue where you got this KGX to EDB time, but that is certainly not representative (maybe there are engineering works on the day you checked)? The fastest train I could find was 4h 20 minutes, and all trains are timetabled at less than 5 hours normally

Same is true of the train though, unless your destination is central Edinburgh in the vicinity of Waverley station. I don't think you can argue that one has the advantage over the other.

Waverley is closer to the university, most offices, old & new town, all museums, the botanic gardens, and the vast majority of housing, so I think it is absolutely fair to argue that Waverley is better located for most people travelling to Edinburgh. From memory of when I lived in Edinburgh, there is only a very small number of companies that are closer to the airport than to Waverley, and literally no other facilities are closer

 

[Bletchleyite]

However Stevenage *is* on the East Coast Mainline - so much closer than Luton Airport - try harder.

Don't forget that driving to a suitable station is an option too. Many people in the Home Counties wanting to go to Manchester do so by driving to MKC and parking up there, for instance, and the idea that someone in the Home Counties might, rather than going via London, drive to Stevenage and take Lumo (say) is not at all far fetched - people *do* do that. Airports aren't the only transport hubs you can drive to.

If you consider driving to the airport fair game, so is driving to a suitable station when making a comparison. If you don't consider driving to a suitable station fair game, then public transport should be used to get to the airport, and that rather changes things.

Same is true of the train though, unless your destination is central Edinburgh in the vicinity of Waverley station. I don't think you can argue that one has the advantage over the other.

This might work for Glasgow, but Edinburgh is quite a small and an anti-car city and as such is laid out in a very traditional "city centre centric" manner, with almost everything a visitor is likely to want to go to in the city centre, and (unless being picked up or taking a taxi) that being a better way to access most of the suburbs by bus too.

Thus unless you're visiting someone living in Corstorphine, Ratho or surrounds, or going for a work trip to RBS Gogarburn, the airport, despite being quite close in to the city centre compared with most cities, isn't likely to be a useful destination.

That may flip round (see Luton) if you're travelling *from* Edinburgh of course - the general pattern for business trips (say) is suburb to city centre or suburb to business park.

I know people who have flown Luton to both Edinburgh and Glasgow regularly - their view is 30-40 minutes before the flight leaves providing you only have hand luggage is eminently reasonable.

It's probably doable if everything goes perfectly, but does carry a significant risk of missing the flight. Interestingly with BA at Heathrow you'd be turned away - if you don't scan your boarding card at security 35 minutes before scheduled departure, they offload you. I'd stick with walking through the terminal door 45 minutes before, which as the car park is a short walk from the terminal means handbrake on one hour before, is the minimum sensible to ensure you're going to make the flight.

But even so it still isn't two and a half hours, you've missed way too much out of that.

And with the DART now open, parking at Luton Airport Parkway station and using that will be ~15 mins from parking - which offsets the time driving up the hill to the airport nicely, especially if you're arriving in Luton from J10 of the M1.

That's possible at the moment (and I've done it when the buses operated), but I suspect once people start getting wind of that possibility the car park will become rail users only with a need to show proof of rail travel, as it'll get so full rail users won't get a space. Of course that, in practice, means pulling on your handbrake maybe 1h10 before departure, as there is a short walk from the DART terminal to the actual terminal and you need to take account of the fact that you may just miss one. If you are wanting to cut things super-fine just to prove a point, the short stay multi storey is the only sensible choice.

The actual approach road hasn't been seriously congested since it was dualled and the airport end improved, by the way, so you wouldn't save much there.

But none of this tweaking around the edges detracts from the point I'm making, which is: yes, it's quicker to fly, but it's not *that* much quicker, and if you take into account stuff like potentially being able to work on the train (far less so with the bitty time available in each place when flying) it can be the case that train is preferable despite taking a bit longer.

 

[HSTEd]

If you want to grow the railway, probably the best option available is to build Crossrail 2.

If it even approaches the success of the original it will do more to boost railway traffic than anything else.

Beyond that probably modernisation to allow more passengers to be hauled at lower cost and with fewer personnel.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

If you want to grow the railway, probably the best option available is to build Crossrail 2.

If it even approaches the success of the original it will do more to boost railway traffic than anything else.

Beyond that probably modernisation to allow more passengers to be hauled at lower cost and with fewer personnel.

Hasn't the CR2 team been disbanded?

 

[A0wen]

If you want to grow the railway, probably the best option available is to build Crossrail 2.

If it even approaches the success of the original it will do more to boost railway traffic than anything else.

Beyond that probably modernisation to allow more passengers to be hauled at lower cost and with fewer personnel.

How do you work that out ?

Crossrail's main objective was to increase capacity across London - a good number of the journeys on there would still have been made except people would have had to use the Central / Met / Hammersmith & City / Circle for part of the journey. Has any analysis been done on the impact of passenger numbers on those lines since Crossrail opened ?