Could a train be built for Portsmouth to Waterloo services that commuters like?

[Dent]

Massive capital investment in changing the loading gauge, the track and station layout for longer trains or just changing the way we live so less people have to commute so far are the only solutions I can think of.

There is not really any "changing the way we live" that can change the fact that there are more jobs in city centres than there is affordable residential accommodation for all the employees in close proximity to the work.

 

[fowler9]

There is not really any "changing the way we live" that can change the fact that there are more jobs in city centres than there is affordable residential accommodation for all the employees in close proximity to the work.

Nah mate, I don't want to drag this off subject but there are cities in their own right that have become commuter towns of London. The fact that you have accepted them all as being affordable residential accomodation as opposed to cities explains the problem. City centres being, ahem, London. The British disease of everyone wanting a semi detached and a job in London can't go on forever. Massive infrasructure spending or a change in the way we run the country are the only possibly ways forward.

 

[Dent]

The British disease of everyone wanting a semi detached and a job in London can't go on forever. Massive infrasructure spending or a change in the way we run the country are the only possibly ways forward.

This is not people "wanting a semi detached and a job in London", it is a the practical reality that people have to work where work exists, have to live where residential accommodation exists, and have to get between where they live and where they work in order to earn a living.

Declaring the practical reality in which people have to live to be a "disease" doesn't solve anything. How exactly do you propose solving the mismatch between jobs and affordable hosing in each area?

 

[fowler9]

This is not people "wanting a semi detached and a job in London", it is a the practical reality that people have to work where work exists, have to live where residential accommodation exists, and have to get between where they live and where they work in order to earn a living.

Declaring the practical reality in which people have to live to be a "disease" doesn't solve anything. How exactly do you propose solving the mismatch between jobs and affordable hosing in each area?

I already said that I don't want to drag this off thread so please forgive me. There is no train that could be built for this service that would make everyone happy within the current constraints because too many want/need to commute this distance and the number of commuters is growing.

We can either spend a fortune on the infrastructure, be it loading gauge, platform length, gaps between junctions and signals etc. or we will have to change the fact that so many people have to work in London and if they want a nice semi they have to live a long way away (With complicated travel arrangements).

I really think I have made myself pretty clear.

It is partially a British disease because in many other countries in Europe people don't seem to judge themselves as a failure if they don't have a mortgage on a house with a garden. They seem to cope far better with rented apartments.

 

[AM9]

It's heritage DMUs which were 60ft/18m.

Weren't the 404s (Nelsons) which used to run around as 3x4-car units, formed of 66ft coaches. All MKI EMUs were 66ft for corridor stock, CEPs/CIGs/309s etc. subsurban units were 63-64ft per car.

The only commuter trains that I am aware of that run much more than are those in India, something like 20x75ft cars, with plenty of standing room. Even though they have a large enough structure gauge, they still don't bother with double-deck commuter trains, (excluding the roof seating area of course).

 

[Dent]

I already said that I don't want to drag this off thread so please forgive me. There is no train that could be built for this service that would make everyone happy within the current constraints because too many want/need to commute this distance and the number of commuters is growing.

We can either spend a fortune on the infrastructure, be it loading gauge, platform length, gaps between junctions and signals etc. or we will have to change the fact that so many people have to work in London and if they want a nice semi they have to live a long way away (With complicated travel arrangements).

I really think I have made myself pretty clear.

It is partially a British disease because in many other countries in Europe people don't seem to judge themselves as a failure if they don't have a mortgage on a house with a garden. They seem to cope far better with rented apartments.

If you think that the only reason anyone commutes into Central London is that they want mortgage on a house with a garden then you are out of touch with the problem.

There is simply not enough affordable accommodation of any type in Central London for everyone who works there to live near their work, and for that reason many people have to live in other areas.

Do you have practical proposal to solve that actual problem?

 

[AM9]

I already said that I don't want to drag this off thread so please forgive me. There is no train that could be built for this service that would make everyone happy within the current constraints because too many want/need to commute this distance and the number of commuters is growing.

We can either spend a fortune on the infrastructure, be it loading gauge, platform length, gaps between junctions and signals etc. or we will have to change the fact that so many people have to work in London and if they want a nice semi they have to live a long way away (With complicated travel arrangements).

I really think I have made myself pretty clear.

It is partially a British disease because in many other countries in Europe people don't seem to judge themselves as a failure if they don't have a mortgage on a house with a garden. They seem to cope far better with rented apartments.

The obsession with houses being an investment that you live in rather than a place to sleep in is not the whole problem. Most very large cities in the world have problems with commuting. The problem here is that rental of even small apartments near the major employment areas is a no no for anybody of average means, because dwellings for rent are part of another profit-driven culture. Municipal dwellings are becoming as rare as hens teeth.
So, back on topic, given that the above is the way it is and won't change much for decades at least, transport systems have to deal with the resulting tidal flows. Back to the microcosm that is the Portsmouth direct line crush:
1) the current demand effectively outstrips the capacity of the infrastructure to provide sufficient seats of any kind for all passengers (say) boarding inward of (or maybe including at) Guildford.
2) the demand is expected to increase over the next couple of decades or longer so the last seats may be filled at Haslemere, Petersfield or eventually even Havant/Portsmouth.
3) there is no political will (even from the Tories) to divert public funds at the levels required for increasing the basic infrastructure capacity.
4) for similar reasons, it is unlikely that the roads on the route will get much from public funds either.
5) the current rolling stock is either inefficient in seating capacity per path (class 444s) of maxed-out for seating capacity (class 450).
6) to increase the line's capacity, the only practical progressive steps can be:
a) increase all peak time trains to maximum length allowed for with current infrastructure, using SDO where necessary
b) replace the 444s with 450s (or similar) in high density seating configuration
c) to prevent passengers being unable to board, replace the 450s with stock that provides greater overall capacity but at the expense of some seating, (think a class 700 style of train).
7) A benefit of the progressive approach in 6) above is that rolling stock is at least re-deployable, so is not a dead loss when replaced. There are plenty of other lines in the UK that would be only too pleased to receive the Portsmouth direct line 'cast-offs' (especially if they were made OLE compatible) so they wouldn't be wasted.

 

[infobleep]

The obsession with houses being an investment that you live in rather than a place to sleep in is not the whole problem. Most very large cities in the world have problems with commuting. The problem here is that rental of even small apartments near the major employment areas is a no no for anybody of average means, because dwellings for rent are part of another profit-driven culture. Municipal dwellings are becoming as rare as hens teeth.
So, back on topic, given that the above is the way it is and won't change much for decades at least, transport systems have to deal with the resulting tidal flows. Back to the microcosm that is the Portsmouth direct line crush:
1) the current demand effectively outstrips the capacity of the infrastructure to provide sufficient seats of any kind for all passengers (say) boarding inward of (or maybe including at) Guildford.
2) the demand is expected to increase over the next couple of decades or longer so the last seats may be filled at Haslemere, Petersfield or eventually even Havant/Portsmouth.
3) there is no political will (even from the Tories) to divert public funds at the levels required for increasing the basic infrastructure capacity.
4) for similar reasons, it is unlikely that the roads on the route will get much from public funds either.
5) the current rolling stock is either inefficient in seating capacity per path (class 444s) of maxed-out for seating capacity (class 450).
6) to increase the line's capacity, the only practical progressive steps can be:
a) increase all peak time trains to maximum length allowed for with current infrastructure, using SDO where necessary
b) replace the 444s with 450s (or similar) in high density seating configuration
c) to prevent passengers being unable to board, replace the 450s with stock that provides greater overall capacity but at the expense of some seating, (think a class 700 style of train).
7) A benefit of the progressive approach in 6) above is that rolling stock is at least re-deployable, so is not a dead loss when replaced. There are plenty of other lines in the UK that would be only too pleased to receive the Portsmouth direct line 'cast-offs' (especially if they were made OLE compatible) so they wouldn't be wasted.

Assuming your comment that the Tories don't want to invest in Portsmouth line infrastructure is correct, and I'm not totally convinced, why would they be interested in infrastructure improve to elsewhere, such as HS2 and western mainline from Paddington and not Portsmouth?

 

[AM9]

Assuming your comment that the Tories don't want to invest in Portsmouth line infrastructure is correct, and I'm not totally convinced, why would they be interested in infrastructure improve to elsewhere, such as HS2 and western mainline from Paddington and not Portsmouth?

Because they can rely on sufficient votes in Surrey and (almost) always in Hants., especially from commuters working in central London.
The sort of investment I'm talking about is that necessary to give a significant increase in line capacity. AFAIK, there hasn't been any real development at any of the stations for decades, apart from removing the centre tracks at Havant and making both platforms bi-di. That's just tinkering to improve puctuality, not overall capacity.

 

[RobShipway]

Because they can rely on sufficient votes in Surrey and (almost) always in Hants., especially from commuters working in central London.
The sort of investment I'm talking about is that necessary to give a significant increase in line capacity. AFAIK, there hasn't been any real development at any of the stations for decades, apart from removing the centre tracks at Havant and making both platforms bi-di. That's just tinkering to improve puctuality, not overall capacity.

I do believe that Portsmouth has a conservative MP's now for both North and South of the area?

Since they have MP's in the area, it has always been my thought that political parties improve the areas where they have MP's based.

 

[AM9]

I do believe that Portsmouth has a conservative MP's now for both North and South of the area?

Since they have MP's in the area, it has always been my thought that political parties improve the areas where they have MP's based.

Only enough to keep them. They didn't win Portsmouth South because the commuter services were improved. I think that there were other more general reasons than transport. Portsmouth has always tended to have a right-facing electorate owing to the Navy establishments there. Now they are much reduced, the population still has Tory tendencies.
The MPs themselves would like to secure their tenure and of course further their image but central government usually seeks new areas of opposition-held marginals in which to develop more support.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only commuter trains that I am aware of that run much more than are those in India, something like 20x75ft cars, with plenty of standing room. Even though they have a large enough structure gauge, they still don't bother with double-deck commuter trains, (excluding the roof seating area of course).

Indian railways are very traditional - innovative isn't really their thing even though the purchase of a load of UIC gauge double deckers might not be a terrible idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is partially a British disease because in many other countries in Europe people don't seem to judge themselves as a failure if they don't have a mortgage on a house with a garden. They seem to cope far better with rented apartments.

It isn't affordable to live in a one bedroom flat in London, which can't be bought nor rented for anywhere near what I bought my 3 bedroom house for (yes, with garden) in Bletchley. And I can be at Euston in 30 minutes from MKC or 45 from Bletchley (ish), which isn't a whole lot longer than it takes to take the Tube in from zone 6. And I get a seat.

Unless it became affordable to live in Central London (i.e. within about zone 2) I'd be mad to consider it.

It's also worth noting that because we are not an apartment dwelling country, good quality large family 3-4 bed apartments with good balconies (the kind of thing people are living in in Germany) are simply not available. And if they were, they'd be no cheaper than terraced houses.

The only way to solve it is to get the jobs to move. The people moving is infeasible. I think increasing ability to work remotely a few days a week, and smartcard-based not-every-day season tickets might well help things, particularly if the price varied by day to encourage people to spread their work-from-home days out a bit rather than everyone choosing Friday.

 

[jopsuk]

Since they have MP's in the area, it has always been my thought that political parties improve the areas where they have MP's based.

Generally, only the marginals or areas where the MP is more likely to rebel! There's no reward for "safe seats" that return dull loyalists.

 

[fowler9]

Indian railways are very traditional - innovative isn't really their thing even though the purchase of a load of UIC gauge double deckers might not be a terrible idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It isn't affordable to live in a one bedroom flat in London, which can't be bought nor rented for anywhere near what I bought my 3 bedroom house for (yes, with garden) in Bletchley. And I can be at Euston in 30 minutes from MKC or 45 from Bletchley (ish), which isn't a whole lot longer than it takes to take the Tube in from zone 6. And I get a seat.

Unless it became affordable to live in Central London (i.e. within about zone 2) I'd be mad to consider it.

It's also worth noting that because we are not an apartment dwelling country, good quality large family 3-4 bed apartments with good balconies (the kind of thing people are living in in Germany) are simply not available. And if they were, they'd be no cheaper than terraced houses.

The only way to solve it is to get the jobs to move. The people moving is infeasible. I think increasing ability to work remotely a few days a week, and smartcard-based not-every-day season tickets might well help things, particularly if the price varied by day to encourage people to spread their work-from-home days out a bit rather than everyone choosing Friday.

Many apologies. I didn't say what I wanted to say very clearly at all. There is no train which will fit current infrastructure constraints that will be much of an improvement and this is a problem. The country being so centralised work wise is a problem. The price of property in this country and the thought of a house as an investment rather than a home is a problem. Without changing one or more of these things then I think there is no train on this particular route (Or many others) that commuters will really like at busy times. Sadly I feel there is no political or social will to change any of the problems I mentioned.

To add something further there will be many people crammed in to the trains they don't like that are not willing to make any changes to improve things.

 

[infobleep]

Many apologies. I didn't say what I wanted to say very clearly at all. There is no train which will fit current infrastructure constraints that will be much of an improvement and this is a problem. The country being so centralised work wise is a problem. The price of property in this country and the thought of a house as an investment rather than a home is a problem. Without changing one or more of these things then I think there is no train on this particular route (Or many others) that commuters will really like at busy times. Sadly I feel there is no political or social will to change any of the problems I mentioned.

I was on the late running 7.45 from Guildford to Waterloo.. I don't travel on it regularly but it seemed to be very busy, fourth carriage from the front. Almost like it had been short formed. It hadn't been. I thought this train use to be quieter.

If so and it is just passage German number increases that have less to this then things are bleak looking without some sort of change.

As I was only going to Woking and needed to head to platform 3 so I didn't go to the back of the train., where I'd expect to have some seats free.

 

[67018]

The only way to solve it is to get the jobs to move. The people moving is infeasible. I think increasing ability to work remotely a few days a week, and smartcard-based not-every-day season tickets might well help things, particularly if the price varied by day to encourage people to spread their work-from-home days out a bit rather than everyone choosing Friday.

Moving the jobs is hardly much easier - previous government policies to move jobs out of London didn't prove hugely successful. The clustering effect is a strong one, and of course we have to be careful that the jobs, if they do move, go elsewhere in the UK rather than abroad. Which means cities outside London have to be made more attractive - it sounds like Manchester might be getting there in that respect.

Weaning people off home ownership is also easier said than done, and risks a backlash. People who feel dictated to tend to react by voting for someone else!

There might be something in your comments on ticketing though. It's noticeable these days how variable the peaks are, from rammed solid on Mondays to half empty on Fridays; it's not always easy to justify investment in capacity that's only used a few hours a day, let alone when it's not every working day either. That's the reason why my work from home days are never Fridays - why pass up the chance of a much more pleasant commute

 

[swt_passenger]

If so and it is just passage German number increases that have less to this then things are bleak looking without some sort of change.

Could you please check your auto correct before posting? I just cannot work that lot out...

 

[fowler9]

Moving the jobs is hardly much easier - previous government policies to move jobs out of London didn't prove hugely successful. The clustering effect is a strong one, and of course we have to be careful that the jobs, if they do move, go elsewhere in the UK rather than abroad. Which means cities outside London have to be made more attractive - it sounds like Manchester might be getting there in that respect.

Weaning people off home ownership is also easier said than done, and risks a backlash. People who feel dictated to tend to react by voting for someone else!

There might be something in your comments on ticketing though. It's noticeable these days how variable the peaks are, from rammed solid on Mondays to half empty on Fridays; it's not always easy to justify investment in capacity that's only used a few hours a day, let alone when it's not every working day either. That's the reason why my work from home days are never Fridays - why pass up the chance of a much more pleasant commute

Ticketing doesn't come in to it in my opinion. I work shifts and have to be in work when I have to be in work. This country needs a massive modal shift which will include attitudes to home ownership, paying for public transport and where work is done or absolutely nothing will change other than increasing overcrowding.

 

[67018]

Ticketing doesn't come in to it in my opinion. I work shifts and have to be in work when I have to be in work. This country needs a massive modal shift which will include attitudes to home ownership, paying for public transport and where work is done or absolutely nothing will change other than increasing overcrowding.

Some people work shifts; very many don't, certainly in London, and this discussion was in the context of people who already work from home some of the time. Anyway, you don't have to move everyone to relieve congestion, just a percentage.

There's currently no strong incentive - apart from the unpleasantness of the journey - for many people to stagger their journeys or work from home on the busiest days - my season ticket costs the same whether I go into the office 230 days a year or 130.

I think home ownership is a red herring; renting in London is no more affordable than owning a property.

 

[fowler9]

Some people work shifts; very many don't, certainly in London, and this discussion was in the context of people who already work from home some of the time. Anyway, you don't have to move everyone to relieve congestion, just a percentage.

There's currently no strong incentive - apart from the unpleasantness of the journey - for many people to stagger their journeys or work from home on the busiest days - my season ticket costs the same whether I go into the office 230 days a year or 130.

I think home ownership is a red herring; renting in London is no more affordable than owning a property.

I don't think you are right. Was the discussion really from the perspective of people who work from home originally? The title was in relation to could a train be designed that commuters from Portsmouth to London would really like. Commuters from Portsmouth to London doesn't suggest to me people that work from home.

Home ownership isn't a red herring. People who rent in London are paying people who own the home they are renting. Being a member of the rentier class has been made attractive by house prices shooting up.

 

[67018]

I don't think you are right. Was the discussion really from the perspective of people who work from home originally? The title was in relation to could a train be designed that commuters from Portsmouth to London would really like. Commuters from Portsmouth to London doesn't suggest to me people that work from home.

Home ownership isn't a red herring. People who rent in London are paying people who own the home they are renting. Being a member of the rentier class has been made attractive by house prices shooting up.

My post was in response to this one:

The only way to solve it is to get the jobs to move. The people moving is infeasible. I think increasing ability to work remotely a few days a week, and smartcard-based not-every-day season tickets might well help things, particularly if the price varied by day to encourage people to spread their work-from-home days out a bit rather than everyone choosing Friday.

the key bit being 'increasing ability to work remotely a few days a week'. Nobody's expecting commuting to suddenly disappear as everyone works from home, but it is becoming increasingly feasible in some jobs, especially the service industry ones that London specialises in, and incentivising it through the ticketing system could add a bit of a nudge to help control demand and mitigate overcrowding.

As for home ownership, you now seem to be moving the goalposts from owner-occupiers to the buy-to let market. It all seems irrelevant to me; whether you buy or rent, costs are prohibitively high for many people which means they have to commute. And any politician who tries to restrict home ownership for the sake of making the trains less busy is going to be (a) pilloried and (b) out of a job pretty soon.

 

[Wolfie]

Home ownership isn't a red herring. People who rent in London are paying people who own the home they are renting. Being a member of the rentier class has been made attractive by house prices shooting up.

My bold

For many people it is not a matter of attractiveness but pragmatism. There are many people in London who can't get a mortgage (eg due to absence of a deposit) but end up paying more in rent (50%+ of their take home income in some cases) than they would for a mortgage had they been able to get one. Doing so is pretty much their only option if they wish to have a roof over their head...

 

[fowler9]

My bold

For many people it is not a matter of attractiveness but pragmatism. There are many people in London who can't get a mortgage (eg due to absence of a deposit) but end up paying more in rent (50%+ of their take home income in some cases) than they would for a mortgage had they been able to get one. Doing so is pretty much their only option if they wish to have a roof over their head...

Mate the rentier class aren't the people doing the renting, it is the people who own the property being rented. The rentiers are the people buying up the property being rented because they are able and then let it out at a profit pretty much adding nothing to society (Such as affordable housing).

Rentier: a person living on income from property or investments.