How will the rail companies entice passengers back after this is all over?

[StephenHunter]

Mandate face masks seems to be the option that many countries in Europe are going for.

 

[theironroad]

.....

 

[yorkie]

The thread title is How will the rail companies entice passengers back after this is all over? ; it is not a thread about how the railways will cope during the pandemic; there are many other threads that already discuss some of the off-topic issues being discussed here.

Other threads available include:

• Exit strategy predictions
• Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?
• Cloth masks, scarves and bandanas to be 'encouraged' with no compulsion

 

[js1000]

The government should instruct businesses to do split shifts starting from 7am, 9am and 11am to mitigate overcrowding on public transport and traffic jams (assuming more people are going to be driving anyway). That would help enormously. The train at get at 8 o'clock it is absolutely rammed. I've got the one just before 7 and at half 9 and it's quiet. Let's stop this madness.

 

[The Ham]

I would assume the government (who after all has all the TOC's on management contracts) will not want to encourage unnecessary travel until such time a vaccine is found. After that I would assume it would drift back and find its own level which may well be lower if more WFH and vastly higher unemployment rates prevail.

Indeed, however it should also be noted that there will be some for whom car ownership is then not affordable or necessary.

Given that rail accounts for 10% of travel a 20% fall in rail use would result in an overall fall of travel of 2%, this could be offset by 2.5% of road travel switching to rail (road transport is 80% of total travel).

However a 20% fall in rail travel would require 50% of all rail travel to be commuting with then the average number of working from home days a week being 2.

Whilst that's possible, it would also impact road travel significantly. If you are not using your car (other than for perhaps local travel) for 2 days a week, then the cost of that car on a per mile basis increases.

Whilst other car usage likely to fall (why go shopping when you can order online and it be delivered to your home on one of your WFH days?) that's going to further reduce the need for a car for many people. That's likely to lead to more occasional rail travel (such as visiting family and holidaying in the UK).

Such occasional travel can often be the equivalent of several days (or in some cases a few weeks) of full time commuting.

Someone doing 15 miles a day for commuting can fairly easily average 60 miles a month for visiting family and going on holiday in the UK (in fact doing a single 180 mile round trip, which is the same as going somewhere 90 miles away, would be 1/4 of that annual total).

A shift from road to rail for 3 of 5 days travel pulls 60 miles a month would be 3,000 miles of extra rail travel a year or about 1/2 that of an average person.

As such it's possible, although probably not in the short term, rail travel could reverse any falls we are currently witnessing without the rail companies doing a whole lot.

It's in fact possible that rail could see further growth (i.e. there being more passengers than the was before).

However, there will be a desire to get to that point faster. Therefore there's likely to be a lot of offers for a fairly short time in the medium term.

 

[Hadders]

The government should instruct businesses to do split shifts starting from 7am, 9am and 11am to mitigate overcrowding on public transport and traffic jams (assuming more people are going to be driving anyway). That would help enormously. The train at get at 8 o'clock it is absolutely rammed. I've got the one just before 7 and at half 9 and it's quiet. Let's stop this madness.

Good luck with this on some lines though. Some trains are busy all of the time!

 

[SuperNova]

The government should instruct businesses to do split shifts starting from 7am, 9am and 11am to mitigate overcrowding on public transport and traffic jams (assuming more people are going to be driving anyway). That would help enormously. The train at get at 8 o'clock it is absolutely rammed. I've got the one just before 7 and at half 9 and it's quiet. Let's stop this madness.

Businesses should have been doing this for years. The benefits of it for their workers, the environment and even their businesses are fantastic. Childcare issues would reduce, car rush hours would subside, more evenly distributed loads on trains and greater coverage for companies - rather than having entire teams stop work at 5pm.

This would really benefit the railway with reduced overcrowding and would help get back those who've abandoned using trains.

 

[The Ham]

Good luck with this on some lines though. Some trains are busy all of the time!

Indeed, trains or of Waterloo can have people standing at many times during the day, depending on the destination, however can include long distance services. This can also be true for services at Woking, so it's not just a short hop to Clapham Junction which is the problem.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Maybe sell a general ticket for a (low-mid) three-digit sum, but unlike the All Line Ranger allow a month or a few months to travel. No peak restrictions at first but if commuter numbers increase into London and other major cities, enforce a morning peak ban.

 

[js1000]

Good luck with this on some lines though. Some trains are busy all of the time!

It will certainly help on most rail lines to have three government-mandated shifts from 7am, 9am and 11am that all companies have to divide employees into. The rail industry and unions should be moving earth and heaven to make it happen. It will keep both passengers and conductors happier to not have everyone crammed in like sardines.

 

[The Ham]

The thing which is likely to change the most is flexible season tickets, it could end up looking something like:
- 10 single trips to use within a month (same price per trip as a weekly ticket)
- 20 single trips to use within 3 months (same price per trip as a monthly ticket)
- 500 single tickets to use within 3 years (same price per trip as an annual ticket)

 

[HH]

Indeed, however it should also be noted that there will be some for whom car ownership is then not affordable or necessary.

Given that rail accounts for 10% of travel a 20% fall in rail use would result in an overall fall of travel of 2%, this could be offset by 2.5% of road travel switching to rail (road transport is 80% of total travel).

Isn't this a repeat of an earlier post?

It's not any more true now than it was then, because you have failed to say why there should be a switch from road to rail, even if road fell. It's more likely that there will simply be less total travel, and that rail will take a bigger hit than other modes.

 

[The Ham]

Isn't this a repeat of an earlier post?

It's not any more true now than it was then, because you have failed to say why there should be a switch from road to rail, even if road fell. It's more likely that there will simply be less total travel, and that rail will take a bigger hit than other modes.

Can I ask why you think that rail will be hit harder than other modes? As whilst I think it will during the short term in the medium to long term it's not so clear.

The reason why there would be some switch from road to rail is that whilst overall travel will fall there's still going to be some travel which people consider essential.

For instance if you are going to see family and don't own a car then for some they are going to "switch" from road to rail for such travel.

Likewise if you previously went to a nearby town/city for specific reasons (football, shopping, culture, etc.) then if you've reduced to one car then there going to be done so will then use rail to undertake such a trip.

If you are going on holiday rather than driving to an airport and then flying abroad then some will use trains to get to where they are staying.

Another possibility is that people may be able to get a good enough job (in pay terms, especially given that saving £3,000 from not having to run a car can enable you to take a pay cut of a bit more than this and still have the same standard of living from your take home pay) much more locally to their home, so that they walk/cycle to get to/from work. This would would also likely result in more of the above types of rail travel for some.

Finally, and probably where most of the offset in rail travel will come from, is that if you only need to go into the office a few days a week then rail travel is likely to be cheaper than running a car whose primary purpose is for that travel. As such there will be some who then it to use rail who currently don't. Part of what may attract some to do so would be that the trains wouldn't be so rammed.

As an example, if in 2019 it was impossible to get a seat on a service which was going to take you an hour to get somewhere then you're likely to pay over the odds for your car. However if by use falling by 10% you ended up with a better than 50:50 chance of getting a seat (and probably higher still in the evening) then that premium starts to be harder to justify. Especially if that's only 3 days a week and/or you have more flexibility with your start time so that you can avoid the worse of the congestion (say, going on at lunchtime).

Again it's not going to be suitable for everyone, but then I'm only taking about a 2.5% shift. However that shift need not be at the same time (i.e. weekends Vs work days and term time Vs school holidays).

Now what the virus is still a major factor (i.e. pre vaccine) then rail use is likely to be low, however I also suspect that the recommendation to work from home if you can would remain until then anyway. As such, there's a good chance that quite a significant number of the rail users from last year would still be working from home until then anyway. As such they aren't likely to be scared off using public transport once they've had their vaccine, however would likely keep rail use low enough that it's still an option for those who need it until then.

Then there's other factors. Such as major cities (including London) deliberately increasing highway space from general traffic to active users (walking/cycling) and public transport. That's likely (and it would likely be true even if they weren't doing so) to lead to make congestion if any extra (above the baseline of last year) traffic starts using the roads to drive.

That's because congestion is normally only generated by their being small changes in traffic volumes. For instance, a road which sees 900 vehicles an hour using it during the school holidays will have little congestion. Yet term time it may only see 1,000 vehicles, yet this will result in significant delays.

Traffic modelling is a fairly rough tool (not least due to the +/- 2% daily variation in traffic between comparable days), but it does tend to give a fairly good idea as to what will happen. It tends to show that there's often a number of factors which influence travel options of people. From those who only need a tiny nudge to change to those who you'll have to push to bankruptcy before they'll even think about of they could use their car a little less.

As such a 2.5% shift isn't that big a deal and could be seen. Even if it's not that large it's probably not going to be very far away, probably enough to get within 5% of previous levels. However having said that it's entirely possible that we could see rail use go higher than before within the next 5 years.

 

[HH]

I'm not going to repeat that (over-)long post and I'll try to keep my reply short.

The reason that rail will take a larger hit than other modes in the medium term is simple - the biggest effect will be to commuting (from increased WFH) and the biggest area where that will happen is London, and commuting to London is where rail has it's greatest share. Moreover, there will be a lot bigger modal shift from rail to road than 2%, because (1) people will be scared of travel, especially public transport, and it will take a long while for that to go away, and (2) because roads will also see less travel, then road journeys will become more pleasant and encourage increased use. That is happening already.

Now it is possible that government, for the first time ever, will see sense and encourage rail travel at the expense of road, through where it puts its money. I really can't see it, but I hope I'm wrong. However, even if that does happen, we'll still see a drop in rail travel.

All the other "possibilities" are just small beer. They may happen, but they won't make a hill of beans difference.

 

[backontrack]

Could there be a small degree of intermodal switch to trains from buses?

 

[HH]

Could there be a small degree of intermodal switch to trains from buses?

For that to happen surely trains would need to be less crowded than buses. Where is this likely to happen?

 

[backontrack]

For that to happen surely trains would need to be less crowded than buses. Where is this likely to happen?

Trains aren't necessarily less crowded, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a difference in mindset between trains and buses. It probably won't happen though.

 

[HH]

Trains aren't necessarily less crowded, but I'd be willing to bet that there's a difference in mindset between trains and buses. It probably won't happen though.

There is. In many cases the passengers are quite different. There will be places where there is real competition, but it's hard to see how covid will affect that.

 

[yorksrob]

I can think of many journeys in my area where a train is likely to be less crowded than a bus.

There's also the layout of a train - I'd feel that there's more chance of keeping my distance on a two carriage train with four sets of doors, than a bus where you have one door to file past the driver and the inevitable knot of people at the front with prams etc.

 

[HH]

I can think of many journeys in my area where a train is likely to be less crowded than a bus.

There's also the layout of a train - I'd feel that there's more chance of keeping my distance on a two carriage train with four sets of doors, than a bus where you have one door to file past the driver and the inevitable knot of people at the front with prams etc.

Will the prams still be on the bus (and will the front gaggle still be there)? What's the reason that people use the bus now (and will that change)? It's not so easy as rail being a more pleasant experience. That was the same pre-covid.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not going to repeat that (over-)long post and I'll try to keep my reply short.

The reason that rail will take a larger hit than other modes in the medium term is simple - the biggest effect will be to commuting (from increased WFH) and the biggest area where that will happen is London, and commuting to London is where rail has it's greatest share. Moreover, there will be a lot bigger modal shift from rail to road than 2%, because (1) people will be scared of travel, especially public transport, and it will take a long while for that to go away, and (2) because roads will also see less travel, then road journeys will become more pleasant and encourage increased use. That is happening already.

Now it is possible that government, for the first time ever, will see sense and encourage rail travel at the expense of road, through where it puts its money. I really can't see it, but I hope I'm wrong. However, even if that does happen, we'll still see a drop in rail travel.

All the other "possibilities" are just small beer. They may happen, but they won't make a hill of beans difference.

The point that I'm making is that for rail to see a fall of 2% of all travel would mean that it sees a fall in 20% of those who use it.

I don't doubt that could happen in the short term, however once things return to normal WFH will also impact road travel and air travel. However if you see a shift of total travel of 2% from rail to road then on a quiet day it would be as bad as a bad day beforehand. Much more than that and traffic congestion would act as a break.

You have also assumed that everyone will go back to work at once, that's unlikely. Chances are office workers will be working (full time) from home as much as they can until there's a vaccine, unless that's going to be 2+ years away.

Also even if road travel is impacted less (say 10% of its total), there's still going to be some who then opt for rail for some of their journeys (probably mostly due to reduced numbers of cars being owned within individual households).

However I think that the big difference in view is that you are thinking about whilst the virus is a threat, what I'm suggesting what will happen once this has diminished significantly.

 

[yorksrob]

Will the prams still be on the bus (and will the front gaggle still be there)? What's the reason that people use the bus now (and will that change)? It's not so easy as rail being a more pleasant experience. That was the same pre-covid.

It might and it might not. However, there would still be circumstances where I'd be less likely to be crowded in on a two carriage train with four sets of doors.

 

[Andrew S]

because roads will also see less travel, then road journeys will become more pleasant and encourage increased use. That is happening already.

Less road travel = increased use?

FWIW road traffic in my area is already almost back to normal levels.

 

[HH]

Less road travel = increased use?

I'll go more slowly. There will be less travel of all varieties, because, for example, of increased WFH. However, the reduction in road traffic will make it more attractive to some and therefore there will be a modal shift from other forms of transport. It will also see modal shift from rail because of covid worries, and for some that will be a permanent change.

P.S. Levels of traffic here are not even close to school holiday levels, but they are getting noticeably busier by the day.

 

[The Ham]

I'll go more slowly. There will be less travel of all varieties, because, for example, of increased WFH. However, the reduction in road traffic will make it more attractive to some and therefore there will be a modal shift from other forms of transport. It will also see modal shift from rail because of covid worries, and for some that will be a permanent change.

P.S. Levels of traffic here are not even close to school holiday levels, but they are getting noticeably busier by the day.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that it will be the case in the short term.

However there's a factor which will likely limit the growth of car traffic.

That being that of capacity. Even with an increase in WFH there's likely to be too many wishing to travel to be able accommodate them all by car.

That's before you consider those cities who realise this and are actively making changes to their roads to facilitate more walking and cycling. Why are they doing this, shouldn't they be creating more road capacity?

Well they are, the average loading of a car is 1.6 people. That means, parked up with 5 cars there's 8 people. That takes up 60m2. However as soon as you start moving the space required increases significantly, not least due to generally needing more width to facilitate the passing of larger vehicles, for instance a queue of cars on a main road (6.1m wide to allow buses to pass) increases the area to 76m2. You also need the same space again (plus manoeuvring space) to park the cars once they get where they are going.

8 cyclists, all practicing social distancing between their cycles (i.e 2m between the front and rear wheels of consecutive cycles and allowing a 1.5m wide corridor to cycle song) need 46m2 when in a single line. In fact, within the same area as those parked cars you could fit 10 cyclists. That's 25% more people.

However when you really start to win is the space required to park those cycles, as rather than needing all that space you can fit them within a space about 20m2, that's before you even consider the ability to have double height storage. That's about the same as one parked car.

You also need a lot less manoeuvring space to park the cycles.

When it comes to pedestrians that gets even better on space saving.

Therefore by reallocating highway space to cycling and walking there's more capacity for people to travel.

That's before you consider that there's some people who car shared before, from separate households, who would likely not wish to do so currently.

 

[HH]

Very interesting Ham, but you're going off topic.

Based on what Grant said yesterday, it might be the subject for another thread on active travel, but this thread is about rail.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

When the government allows non-essential travel, all those people who have held off visiting friends and relatives, going to town to shop, going to the seaside, etc etc will jump at the chance. If the government is not careful, it will be like Easter on steroids. Road jams galore, packed trains.....

I struggle to see how the government is going to manage it. If you think they will be doing anything to encourage travel, you are sadly mistaken.

I disagree. The "Stay at home" message has proved too successful to the extent that according to recent surveys, a majority of people are terrified of using public transport again, even though for most of us the risk remains minimal.

I certainly think TOCs will need to offer some discounted fares to grow their leisure travel markets, though it'll be a long time before loadings revert to pre-lockdown levels, if ever.

From a personal point of view I'm itching to get back out into the country at weekends; I must have walked every path and cycled every road within 10 miles of my house and could do with, quite literally, a change of scenery!

 

[HH]

I disagree. The "Stay at home" message has proved too successful to the extent that according to recent surveys, a majority of people are terrified of using public transport again, even though for most of us the risk remains minimal.

On which risk and precisely what evidence?

 

[westv]

I disagree. The "Stay at home" message has proved too successful to the extent that according to recent surveys, a majority of people are terrified of using public transport again, even though for most of us the risk remains minimal.

Terrified seems rather OTT. "Concerned" or "unsure" sound more likely.

Edit: So the word used in the survey was "uncomfortable". Hardly "terrified"!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

On which risk and precisely what evidence?

UK lockdown TOO successful as public now too scared to leave house

MINISTERS have been told their stay at home warnings may have been too successful because most of the public is now too nervous to head out when lockdown is eased.

www.express.co.uk

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the country has passed the peak of the disease and promised to set out plans to loosen restrictions next week. But 61 percent of Britons admit they would be uncomfortable using public transport or going to a pub or restaurant. That rose to 67 percent for mass events, such as sporting fixtures or concerts, an Ipsos Mori study found.