Controversial opinion: The UK has a pretty decent rail system

[Planesandtrain]

Thinking of Germany the ticketing system is a lot more comprehensive (too comprehensive at times especially on city networks) with differentiation between regional and long distance services, whereas here we tend to throw every service in one boot but then have operator restrictions on tickets (despite being part of the same franchise???)

 

[Eccles1983]

But Northern rail is itself an artificial construct. Why not merge the part of it centred around Manchester with the WCML, and see the subsidy magically reduce ! True, WC would deliver less money to the treasury, but they would only have to pay it out in subsidy otherwise.

It's impossible to run a decent public transport system without subsidy somewhere.

Spot on.

The subsidy stick used to beat Northern with is not balanced.

Most of the profit making parts have been syphoned off to other TOC's. It's is simply made up of several unprofitable parts of railway, with the liv-man-leeds corridor being the exception.

But that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[anme]

The primary reason for rail is to reduce congestion and pollution, so if people are still driving because fares are too high then it goes against that. Rail also provides transport for those without a car and provides additional transport capacity, but that is incidental.

I'm not sure that's true. For example, in London the primary purpose of rail is to get large numbers of people from the surrounding areas into and out of the city for work and leisure, and rail has a market share of 80/90%+ for these journeys. It's not a case of reducing congestion - it would be impossible for such a large movement of people to happen without the railways. The roads do not have the capacity. In the rush hour, one train may carry as many people as 500-1000 cars!

Rail is not incidental to London. The city could not exist in its current form without it.

 

[radamfi]

I'm not sure that's true. For example, in London the primary purpose of rail is to get large numbers of people from the surrounding areas into and out of the city for work and leisure, and rail has a market share of 80/90%+ for these journeys. It's not a case of reducing congestion - it would be impossible for such a large movement of people to happen without the railways. The roads do not have the capacity. In the rush hour, one train may carry as many people as 500-1000 cars!

Rail is not incidental to London. The city could not exist in its current form without it.

But in the case of London, rail is already "winning" by default as there is no alternative. The real battle is where the car is an option.

 

[anme]

But in the case of London, rail is already "winning" by default as there is no alternative. The real battle is where the car is an option.

I agree. My point is that the "primary reason for rail" isn't the same everywhere.

 

[Mikey C]

But in the case of London, rail is already "winning" by default as there is no alternative. The real battle is where the car is an option.

But then with limited resources, should money be spent trying to "convert" people in quieter areas of the country where driving is easier, OR used to increase capacity where there is massive and growing demand already?

After all, on the roads any major expenditure is to increase capacity on busy roads (M25, M1, M6 etc), similarly Heathrow will (eventually) get a 3rd runway, rather than building a new airport in Wiltshire.

 

[daccer]

It is a Curate's egg to be sure but that is also one of its strengths. The railway can be all things to all people from the suited and booted through to the great unwashed off to the beach on a summer Saturday. I think the real litmus test is coming for how popular the railways are and how far they can go to provide an essential service that is worthy of subsidy. Areas that have traditionally lacked investment (The North, Wales, South West) are going to be receiving an influx of new/newer/newish trains which will offer a stepup in both comfort and capacity. if usage goes up accordingly then an argument can be made that there is untapped latent demand in all areas and this will provide a forceful justification for ongoing investment and development. If all the investment doesn't lead to some sort of step change in demand then maybe the railways have peaked and we will go back to a regime of manage and renew.

 

[anme]

It is a Curate's egg to be sure but that is also one of its strengths. The railway can be all things to all people from the suited and booted through to the great unwashed off to the beach on a summer Saturday. I think the real litmus test is coming for how popular the railways are and how far they can go to provide an essential service that is worthy of subsidy. Areas that have traditionally lacked investment (The North, Wales, South West) are going to be receiving an influx of new/newer/newish trains which will offer a stepup in both comfort and capacity. if usage goes up accordingly then an argument can be made that there is untapped latent demand in all areas and this will provide a forceful justification for ongoing investment and development. If all the investment doesn't lead to some sort of step change in demand then maybe the railways have peaked and we will go back to a regime of manage and renew.

For me, this is not the complete story. We also need to think about the kind of places we want to live and work in. If we promote industrial development in towns and cities rather than "out of town" locations, that will tend to be good for railways and other public transport, which are better at serving more heavily populated areas than low density sprawl (and conversely are less favourable for cars). The same apples for residential development.

To put it another way - demand for rail travel is not just dependent on the quality of the service, but also how we plan where we live and work.

 

[Mikey C]

For me, this is not the complete story. We also need to think about the kind of places we want to live and work in. If we promote industrial development in towns and cities rather than "out of town" locations, that will tend to be good for railways and other public transport, which are better at serving more heavily populated areas than low density sprawl (and conversely are less favourable for cars). The same apples for residential development.

To put it another way - demand for rail travel is not just dependent on the quality of the service, but also how we plan where we live and work.

Agreed. If I ever took a job working in one of those business parks in the M40-M3 belt, I would almost certainly have to drive there as those types of developments were designed around the car.

 

[yorksrob]

It is a Curate's egg to be sure but that is also one of its strengths. The railway can be all things to all people from the suited and booted through to the great unwashed off to the beach on a summer Saturday. I think the real litmus test is coming for how popular the railways are and how far they can go to provide an essential service that is worthy of subsidy. Areas that have traditionally lacked investment (The North, Wales, South West) are going to be receiving an influx of new/newer/newish trains which will offer a stepup in both comfort and capacity. if usage goes up accordingly then an argument can be made that there is untapped latent demand in all areas and this will provide a forceful justification for ongoing investment and development. If all the investment doesn't lead to some sort of step change in demand then maybe the railways have peaked and we will go back to a regime of manage and renew.

Indeed, although new investment will fail to attract the passengers if the price isn't right.

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

Considering the constant political meddling, I think our railways are just fine. I dont even mind commuting with all the fun that can ensue with the Cross City service. I even willingly use trains for leisure. I must be bonkers.

 

[radamfi]

But then with limited resources, should money be spent trying to "convert" people in quieter areas of the country where driving is easier, OR used to increase capacity where there is massive and growing demand already?

After all, on the roads any major expenditure is to increase capacity on busy roads (M25, M1, M6 etc), similarly Heathrow will (eventually) get a 3rd runway, rather than building a new airport in Wiltshire.

We want to minimise road traffic because of its obvious environment and social problems.

 

[Greg Read]

The other side to that is that a 4-car train every 15 minutes is a lot more attractive to most people than an 8-car train every half an hour, so going to fewer, longer, trains, would undoubtedly cause the loss of some passengers. And I'm dubious how much loss of reliability is actually caused by the high frequencies causing knock on effects. Sure, there's probably a fair amount of trains being delayed 5 minutes or so because of waiting for other trains/lack of capacity, but 5-10 minutes isn't really going to put many people off travelling. I'm fairly sure the really serious problems (when you get lots of cancelled trains, or trains being an hour late, etc.) almost invariably would have other causes (industrial action, problems on the line, those badly planned timetable changes, etc.) and so wouldn't be helped much by running fewer trains.

You only have to read the commuters FB rants, to see that even 3 or 5 mins late is the end of the world, and a franchise should be stripped away !

 

[IceAgeComing]

They would either not apply for a job in London in the first place, or move to London and share a house with several others and pay about £100-£150 a week in rent.

Longer distance rail commuters are typically high earning.

where on earth are you renting in London where you can share with that many people and only pay £150/month in rent?

 

[Bletchleyite]

where on earth are you renting in London where you can share with that many people and only pay £150/month in rent?

He said per week.

 

[IceAgeComing]

...this is why you shouldn't get up early on a Saturday morning!