Hitachi report passengers want more direct trains (35%) and faster trains (34%)

[Snow1964]

New report from Hitachi (who as train builders so obviously keen to get more orders)

• 36% of UK passengers expect to travel more by train in the next five years.
• Direct journeys (35%) and faster journeys (34%) most likely factors to encourage modal shift to rail in the UK.
• Findings are part of Hitachi Rail’s third global survey and report into public transport trends – Better Connected.

LONDON, May 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Britain wants to travel more by train, with direct and faster journeys driving consumer preference, with 36% of Brits expect to travel more by train in the next five years. These insights comes from Hitachi's latest annual global survey on public transport trends.

The global Hitachi survey revealed that in the UK the two most likely factors to encourage British passengers to switch to rail are direct journeys (35%) and faster journeys (34%). Meanwhile, overcrowding is seen as the biggest barrier.

As one of the UK’s leading train manufacturers, Hitachi can provide solutions that improve connectivity, journey times and increase capacity. Hitachi Rail’s pioneering battery technology, with a range of 100-150km, can travel on non-electrified routes and connect stations. This can increase flexibility and unlock more direct routes. Hitachi has recently secured its first UK battery train order, which will also increase seat availability by about 20% on Grand Central routes.

The study also found public appetite for creating a level playing field to encourage a shift from air travel to train travel. In the survey, 48% supported increasing air taxes to fund more rail alternatives, while 38% opposed the idea. Additionally, 57% were in favour of stopping short-haul flights where rail alternatives exist in the UK.

Hitachi is already witnessing this demand for alternatives to air travel in UK, with intercity travel on the East Coast Mainline now higher than pre-Covid levels. Services on this route regularly provide a greener alternative to flying between London and Edinburgh, Aberdeen, or Inverness.

These insights come from the third instalment of Hitachi’s global survey into attitudes towards public transport. The survey, carried out by SavantaComres, collected data from 11,000 people across the world, including The US, Canada, the UK (and London), Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Arab Emirates.

UK passengers want more direct and faster rail journeys

36% of UK passengers expect to travel more by train in the next five years.Direct journeys (35%) and faster journeys (34%) most likely factors to encourage...

www.globenewswire.com

Clearly in UK opposite has generally happened over last few years, lower frequency, slower journey times, less through trains so requiring passengers to change. Guess they have been led by what DfT thinks best, even if it is different to what passengers providing revenue want and would increase volume for. Any thoughts ?

 

[The Planner]

Quite simply if you want more direct and faster trains, as well as the connectivity you are building significant amounts of infrastructure.

 

[The exile]

To be honest, I’m surprised the figures are that low. A bit like wanting “nice sunny weather” (until plants start dying in my garden) and “less traffic” (except for me)

 

[30907]

Clearly in UK opposite has generally happened over last few years, lower frequency, slower journey times, less through trains so requiring passengers to change.

It depends what period you are considering, but if you ignore post-Covid reductions which are gradually being reversed, which are the routes with lower frequency? with slower generalised journey times? with fewer through trains?

BTW I am surprised "more frequent trains" isn't on the Hitachi list. Or lower fares...

 

[MarkyT]

New report from Hitachi (who as train builders so obviously keen to get more orders)

UK passengers want more direct and faster rail journeys

36% of UK passengers expect to travel more by train in the next five years.Direct journeys (35%) and faster journeys (34%) most likely factors to encourage...

www.globenewswire.com

Clearly in UK opposite has generally happened over last few years, lower frequency, slower journey times, less through trains so requiring passengers to change. Guess they have been led by what DfT thinks best, even if it is different to what passengers providing revenue want and would increase volume for. Any thoughts ?

High frequency and direct journeys from everywhere to everywhere are often opposing concepts on rail, with common trunk segments perhaps struggling to handle the traffic density reliably and the economics of such frequency being questionable. The air industry also has to cope with this trade-off. Hubbing usually offers more destinations with a greater choice of departure times, at the expense of interchange. I think railways need a healthy balance of frequent inter-hub express services along the mainline trunks for short-notice general-purpose travel including work and business, supplemented by targeted through trains to other notable destinations usually at extremities of the network, often catering more for the bargain advanced-booked leisure market. In UK we largely had that before COVID and often it is the already less well served direct destinations that have been chopped by TOCs making economies ever since, incidentally creating more niches for new open access operators. This news release from Hitachi connects the findings with opportunities for more direct services using the off-wire capabilities of their battery-equipped trains.

 

[NCT]

Never trust stated preferences.

Running a lot of direct trains everywhere to everywhere is a recipe for disaster. Where the market naturally supports a high frequency, simplifying services making interchanges reliable and easy to plan is shown to attract passengers in places like Switzerland, Netherlands and London.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Everyone wants frequent direct trains from where they are to where they want to go. Of course they do, who doesn’t?

“No, I’d much rather change at Birmingham New Street!”

It doesn’t mean it is feasible, practicable, or sensible to do it. The railways, like airlines, really work best on a hub-and-spoke model.

 

[zwk500]

Clearly in UK opposite has generally happened over last few years, lower frequency, slower journey times, less through trains so requiring passengers to change.

Only if you're looking from 2020 on, can't think why services might have reduced then?

Guess they have been led by what DfT thinks best, even if it is different to what passengers providing revenue want and would increase volume for. Any thoughts ?

The DfT generally has been specifying higher service levels. But, as @The Planner says, you need infrastructure to run more on the busiest sections.

 

[HSTEd]

New report from Hitachi (who as train builders so obviously keen to get more orders)

UK passengers want more direct and faster rail journeys

36% of UK passengers expect to travel more by train in the next five years.Direct journeys (35%) and faster journeys (34%) most likely factors to encourage...

www.globenewswire.com

Clearly in UK opposite has generally happened over last few years, lower frequency, slower journey times, less through trains so requiring passengers to change. Guess they have been led by what DfT thinks best, even if it is different to what passengers providing revenue want and would increase volume for. Any thoughts ?

Rail industry manufacturing conglomerate presents research that supports giving lots and lots of additional money to rail industry manufacturing conglomerates. News at ten.

More seriously, the railway industry does seem to be having something of an identity crisis in recent years.
Personally I don't think the railway should pretend to be an airline, but that seems to be the direction of travel in many cases.

We have ample evidence that the primary drivers of traffic levels are frequency and journey time, but predominantly the former. I think metroisation of the railway is the best way to achieve that in the UK, but that might require new trains but probably fewer "direct" trains.

The raliway's opponent is not the airlines, it is the car. And to beat the car we need journeys that don't require looking at timetables, and which are fast enough to beat the car end to end.

 

[Sorcerer]

I think it's fairly obvious passengers want journeys to be as fast and direct as possible, but truthfully I think they'd be just as content with an efficiently well connected system. That said it does at least put a slam-dunk on people saying that HS2 is a waste of money just to shave a few minutes off the journey time to London (the actual reasoning for it aside). Part of why I support East West Rail is so I could make a journey to future Universal Studios Bedford with just one change at Milton Keynes Central rather than simply wanting a direct train to Bedford even if it would be a bit more convenient. Well-connected trains are just as good as direct ones in my opinion.

 

[Technologist]

Everyone wants frequent direct trains from where they are to where they want to go. Of course they do, who doesn’t?

“No, I’d much rather change at Birmingham New Street!”

It doesn’t mean it is feasible, practicable, or sensible to do it. The railways, like airlines, really work best on a hub-and-spoke model.

Airlines are moving steadily away from hub and spoke, ultimately going point to point results in higher plane utilisation and better services for passengers.

In the next few decades electric aircraft going point to point will be a massive competitor for rail. Their lower noise, lower operating cost and short or vertical take off capabilities will mean that flying will will keep it's direct speed and cost advantages over rail travel, but also lose the disadvantage of environmental impact whilst also removing the friction of going to a remote airport and going through security (for 20 seat internal flights security is basically down to the flight crew's judgement).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Airlines are moving steadily away from hub and spoke, ultimately going point to point results in higher plane utilisation and better services for passengers.

In the next few decades electric aircraft going point to point will be a massive competitor for rail. Their lower noise, lower operating cost and short or vertical take off capabilities will mean that flying will will keep it's direct speed and cost advantages over rail travel, but also lose the disadvantage of environmental impact whilst also removing the friction of going to a remote airport and going through security (for 20 seat internal flights security is basically down to the flight crew's judgement).

I think air will electrify which like bus provides an environmental challenge to a railway that still burns a lot of diesel. But the idea that everyone will be flitting around in 20 seat aircraft direct between small towns and major destinations is fanciful. It simply won't happen. It's like the "flying car" stuff that people thought in the 70s we'd have by now.

 

[yorksrob]

I find it hard to believe that price isn't a bigger motivating factor for modal shift than either faster/more direct trains.

 

[ShadowKnight]

I find it hard to believe that price isn't a bigger motivating factor for modal shift than either faster/more direct trains.

I think that most people would prefer to take a direct train for £35 rather than a £25 journey with two changes and varying wait times at each change.

 

[signed]

will will keep it's direct speed and cost advantages over rail travel

What cost advantage in a scenario where people main transport is point to point in 20 seaters?

Buying a plane (especially using a unproven as it may be technology) per passenger is always going to be massively more expensive per passenger than rail, and that's not counting the massive amount of flight crew needed.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that most people would prefer to take a direct train for £35 rather than a £25 journey with two changes and varying wait times at each change.

But would they still prefer a direct train at £50, £70 .... etc.

It's easy to underplay the effect of cost on demand, if there's a motivation to.

 

[ShadowKnight]

But would they still prefer a direct train at £50, £70 .... etc.

It's easy to underplay the effect of cost on demand, if there's a motivation to.

I'd suppose such higher costs just turns a prospective rail user off and would rather travel some other way or not at all. This seems quite clearly more about the long distance leisure traveller that could go somewhere else with a direct link.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But would they still prefer a direct train at £50, £70 .... etc.

It's easy to underplay the effect of cost on demand, if there's a motivation to.

It's likely they'll make it a direct train by railheading by car.

Of course if we made connections actually reliable in the UK...nobody baulks at changing Tube line.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd suppose such higher costs just turns a prospective rail user off and would rather travel some other way or not at all. This seems quite clearly more about the long distance leisure traveller that could go somewhere else with a direct link.

It's likely they'll make it a direct train by railheading by car.

Of course if we made connections actually reliable in the UK...nobody baulks at changing Tube line.

Well, they do specifically mention modal shift in the article.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Airlines are moving steadily away from hub and spoke, ultimately going point to point results in higher plane utilisation and better services for passengers

They’re not.

Low-cost short haul carriers are moving away from offering same-ticket connections, primarily because EU/UK261 rules apply to same-ticket missed connections, but that isn’t the same thing at all.

They are all increasingly moving to the hub and spoke model. Airlines will fly from a hub to a point and then fly back to the hub. Airlines may have more than one hub- the likes of Ryanair and EasyJet have countless hubs- but it’s still a hub and spoke model. All of their routes have a base at one end of them.

 

[The exile]

Of course if we made connections actually reliable in the UK...nobody baulks at changing Tube line.

Actually, plenty of people do. They then avoid London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, plenty of people do. They then avoid London.

People don't visit London because they might have to change between Tube lines? Aside from people for whom that might be impractical due to disabilities, I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And now The Telegraph is in on it, explaining how reinstating direct trains from *checks notes* Bradford to Morecambe will “revitalise Britain”.

Seven cross-country rail routes that would revitalise Britain

It should be easy to explore the UK by train, so why do so many of us find it a pain? Now’s the time to revive some treasured tracks

www.telegraph.co.uk

The whole article is comedy gold and you should read all of it (turn off JavaScript or use Reader Mode if you get the paywall) but this bit is best

There’s no reason why someone can’t offer a Penzance to Thurso/Wick service, using diesel- (or steam-) powered rolling stock. It would be a magnet for European rail fans and, at around 970 miles, would outclass many single-country lines for length. The UK’s Trans-Siberian, in short, with Unesco sites at either end and the full gamut of towns, cities, landscapes, accents, cuisines and culture en route. Londoners can do a version of this trip on their handy Caledonian and Night Riviera sleeper trains. Why should everyone else have to drive or change 10 times to cross the nation?

I don’t even know where to begin!

 

[The exile]

People don't visit London because they might have to change between Tube lines? Aside from people for whom that might be impractical due to disabilities, I find that very hard to believe.

Maybe I should have made that clearer - I know plenty of people who when travelling by train will make great efforts to avoid travelling via London because of the tube and changing.
As far as visiting goes, I agree, I doubt anyone would choose not to visit London solely for that reason.

 

[Sorcerer]

They are all increasingly moving to the hub and spoke model. Airlines will fly from a hub to a point and then fly back to the hub. Airlines may have more than one hub- the likes of Ryanair and EasyJet have countless hubs- but it’s still a hub and spoke model. All of their routes have a base at one end of them.

Hub-and-spoke in the airline context might be slightly different to railway context. The hub-and-spoke model for airlines, as I understand it, is generally having smaller airports where people will take short planes and fly to a major large airport (such as Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle) and connect to a bigger plane for the bulk of their journey to another hub halfway around the world.

This model has reduced significantly in recent years with airlines such as Emirates connecting to traditionally smaller airports such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle from Dubai rather than having passengers connect at Heathrow. It's a much more efficient business model than traditional hub-and-spoke which just made journey times longer and less efficient.

Though it wasn't the sole reason for it, part of why the A380 didn't work out is because it was designed for this very model at a time when the market favoured more point-to-point travel. It's easier to do this with airlines because they are not bound by capacity anywhere near to the same extent as railways are (in fact it frees up spaces at big major airports to some degree). For them the sky is practically the limit.

 

[Brubulus]

Hub-and-spoke in the airline context might be slightly different to railway context. The hub-and-spoke model for airlines, as I understand it, is generally having smaller airports where people will take short planes and fly to a major large airport (such as Heathrow or Charles de Gaulle) and connect to a bigger plane for the bulk of their journey to another hub halfway around the world.

This model has reduced significantly in recent years with airlines such as Emirates connecting to traditionally smaller airports such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle from Dubai rather than having passengers connect at Heathrow. It's a much more efficient business model than traditional hub-and-spoke which just made journey times longer and less efficient.

Though it wasn't the sole reason for it, part of why the A380 didn't work out is because it was designed for this very model at a time when the market favoured more point-to-point travel. It's easier to do this with airlines because they are not bound by capacity anywhere near to the same extent as railways are (in fact it frees up spaces at big major airports to some degree). For them the sky is practically the limit.

Emirates is pretty much the definition of a hub and spoke airline, all their routes are to or from a single airport. For the railway hub and spoke is obviously a stronger solution, given the lower catchment areas of railway stations compared to commercial airports, therefore making direct trains to everywhere unfeasible, along with the higher frequencies offered by the railway.

The issue with connecting through London is that it usually involves going from one termini to another via the tube, therefore effectively being 2 changes or more instead of one. For example someone travelling by rail from Cambridge to High Wycombe would have to travel to Kings Cross, take 2 tube journeys then take a train from Marylebone. Not to mention difficulties of travelling with luggage on the tube when it's busy.

 

[Sorcerer]

Emirates is pretty much the definition of a hub and spoke airline, all their routes are to or from a single airport. For the railway hub and spoke is obviously a stronger solution, given the lower catchment areas of railway stations compared to commercial airports, therefore making direct trains to everywhere unfeasible, along with the higher frequencies offered by the railway.

Emirates is the exception because Dubai International is very conveniently placed to be within seven hours of most destinations across three or four continents. I think even then some prefer to use Singapore for connecting to Australia and it's probably only a matter of time before that becomes less necessary with direct flights.

But traditional hub and spoke for airlines would have them connecting passengers at Heathrow using an Airbus A380 rather than going straight to somewhere like Glasgow or Edinburgh with a Boeing 777. For the railways though you are correct, hub and spoke is indeed a stronger solution which is why I think connectivity is just as important as new routes like HS2 and East West Rail.

The issue with connecting through London is that it usually involves going from one termini to another via the tube, therefore effectively being 2 changes or more instead of one. For example someone travelling by rail from Cambridge to High Wycombe would have to travel to Kings Cross, take 2 tube journeys then take a train from Marylebone. Not to mention difficulties of travelling with luggage on the tube when it's busy.

This is why I support East West Rail. It gives better connectivity to people from the north without needing to change in London. As I've mentioned before, it'll give me much better connections to Bedford for when the Universal Studios park opens by letting me connect at Milton Keynes Central (hopefully) rather than travelling into London and doubling back on myself after a walk or tube journey to St. Pancras.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This model has reduced significantly in recent years with airlines such as Emirates connecting to traditionally smaller airports such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle from Dubai rather than having passengers connect at Heathrow. It's a much more efficient business model than traditional hub-and-spoke which just made journey times longer and less efficient.

Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad are all still hub-and-spoke though, it’s just that their hub is in the Middle East.

It’s also not a new model. When I was flying to Australia in the 90s from Manchester I flew with either Cathay Pacific via Hong Kong or with Singapore Airlines via Singapore, both on 747s.

It just happens that in the UK BA’s hub is Heathrow. It isn’t for other airlines. In reality the biggest hub for regional UK air traffic is probably Schiphol, given KLM serves more local UK airports than BA do. BA don’t bother with the local spoke, they just expect everyone to travel to Heathrow.

I’d say the railways need to focus more on having multiple hubs, rather than channelling everything through London. This means frequent and appropriately sized trains (i.e. not 220s) running on corridors through Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol. From there you can take local trains to your destination. I can’t see it happening any time soon though!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Quite simply if you want more direct and faster trains, as well as the connectivity you are building significant amounts of infrastructure.

Great!

 

[Sorcerer]

Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad are all still hub-and-spoke though, it’s just that their hub is in the Middle East.

It’s also not a new model. When I was flying to Australia in the 90s from Manchester I flew with either Cathay Pacific via Hong Kong or with Singapore Airlines via Singapore, both on 747s.

Emirates, Qatar and Etihad flying from their hub to a smaller airport like Edinburgh or Glasgow would fall under the point-to-point travel rather than hub-and-spoke because they aren't having you connect to smaller or bigger flights at major airports like traditional hub-and-spoke. Manchester, Hong Kong and Singapore are all major hubs and the 747 was built for this sort of business model.

I’d say the railways need to focus more on having multiple hubs, rather than channelling everything through London. This means frequent and appropriately sized trains (i.e. not 220s) running on corridors through Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol. From there you can take local trains to your destination. I can’t see it happening any time soon though!

I think that we can definitely agree on this at least. When I look at InterCity services serving London such as those on the WCML you have 9 or 11-coach long trains, while those that don't such as CrossCountry are left with regional length trains covering journeys they aren't suited for. I would hope that Avanti's former Voyagers will be able to double the length of some CrossCountry ones to bring them up to 8 or 9 coaches per service by coupling two sets together.