Making journey to assist mother what are current off peak passenger volumes like?

[Djgr]

Just to be curious, can I have some evidence to show studies that support that please?

I believe you, absolutely, and I am aiming to return to public transport hopefully after Easter, but I'm still curious to see any studies that prove that trains are a low risk environment for catching Covid.

There was an article in Rail magazine in the Summer last year that had details of a similar study. From memory on average you would have to catch a train every day for twenty years to catch the dreaded lurgy.

 

[RPI]

I did see a while back a study done in Germany and I cant for the life of me find the link, but basically to summarise, train was a lot safer than the media would have you belive.

Quote from Rail Magazine online from last year


"COVID-19 on railways have found that the chance of contracting the disease by travelling on a train is extremely low.

The RSSB (formerly the Rail Safety and Standards Board) estimates that the risk of infection per passenger journey is only 1-in-11,000 journeys.

The modelling is based on a Hitachi Class 800 carriage used by LNER, loading 44 passengers travelling for 30 minutes, with 22 passengers alighting and replaced by another 22, then travelling for a further 30 minutes. The figure does not include any mitigating effect of wearing face coverings.

RSSB is now developing scenarios involving different types of train, more complex journeys, and variations in the number of passengers travelling.

Meanwhile, a German study has found “little or no evidence” that the disease has been triggered by a train journey.

The research for German train operator Deutsche Bahn concluded: “We see remarkably few infections in trains. No infections occurred in persons on board with a stay of less than ten hours. Not a single contact tracing has been identified in Germany and Austria as having been triggered by an infection on the train journey.”

It also found that the infection rate in air-conditioned carriages was lower than in vehicles without air-conditioning. It reported: “The air flow is essentially vertical rather than horizontal, which makes direct distribution of the virus by the airflow rather unlikely.”

• For the FULL story, read RAIL 911, published on August 12, and available digitally from August 8.

 

[deltic]

Just to be curious, can I have some evidence to show studies that support that please?

I believe you, absolutely, and I am aiming to return to public transport hopefully after Easter, but I'm still curious to see any studies that prove that trains are a low risk environment for catching Covid.

Study undertaken by RSSB

Rail still safer than road during Covid-19

Passengers can be a lot more confident about travelling by train safely according to RSSB – with the risk of Covid-19 infection being less than 0.01% on an average journey.

www.rssb.co.uk

Passengers can be a lot more confident about travelling by train safely according to RSSB – with the risk of Covid-19 infection being less than 0.01% on an average journey.
Rail safety experts worry that people may be assuming the roads offer a less risky alternative during the pandemic, when in fact trains are safer and greener.
Analysis by the rail safety body has shown the risk of contracting Covid-19 while travelling by train is about 1 in 11,000 journeys. This is equivalent to a chance of less than 0.01%, based on an hour-long train journey in a carriage with no social distancing or face coverings.
The report also shows that the risk more than halves if passengers wear a face covering. These have been mandatory when travelling by train since June, unless exempt.
On safety alone, for an individual traveller per kilometre travelled, the car is 25 times less safe than rail. Cycling is 403 times, walking is 456 times, and travelling by motorcycle is 1,620 times less safe.
When the effect of the virus is taken into account and compared against the average road safety risk, the risks are almost the same (road is 1.14 times the risk of rail). Across all transport modes risks of catching the virus are very low, and certainly tolerable. Experts accept that most people will want to use a combination of different modes of transport to get around.
The infection risk findings have now been published by RSSB and verified by the Chief Scientific Adviser’s team at Department for Transport in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.*
Public transport had been perceived as an infection hotspot due to the vast number of people being in a close proximity. However, research is challenging this, showing that passengers are not as prone to infection as previously assumed, certainly not given the current underlying national infection rates, and people generally conforming with government Covid-19 guidelines.
To analyse the risk, RSSB’s model took a typical passenger journey focussing on the time spent waiting on platforms, boarding and alighting, and the time spent on the train itself.
Researchers then worked with crowd simulation software by Crowd Dynamics, combining data from train operator LNER and infection risk data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to get informed estimates of the risk.
The work forms part of a bigger programme of work led by RSSB to help policy makers understand the relationships between rail’s contribution to economic growth and the risks of infection by encouraging more passengers to use train services.
While some risks identified are obviously higher than if there were no virus at all, RSSB believes they are small enough for people to be able to use trains for both work and leisure with no major concerns. That is provided passengers adhere to government instructions on the use of face coverings.

Rail still safer than road during Covid-19

Passengers can be a lot more confident about travelling by train safely according to RSSB – with the risk of Covid-19 infection being less than 0.01% on an average journey.

www.rssb.co.uk

 

[Djgr]

I did see a while back a study done in Germany and I cant for the life of me find the link, but basically to summarise, train was a lot safer than the media would have you belive.

Quote from Rail Magazine online from last year


"COVID-19 on railways have found that the chance of contracting the disease by travelling on a train is extremely low.

The RSSB (formerly the Rail Safety and Standards Board) estimates that the risk of infection per passenger journey is only 1-in-11,000 journeys.

The modelling is based on a Hitachi Class 800 carriage used by LNER, loading 44 passengers travelling for 30 minutes, with 22 passengers alighting and replaced by another 22, then travelling for a further 30 minutes. The figure does not include any mitigating effect of wearing face coverings.

RSSB is now developing scenarios involving different types of train, more complex journeys, and variations in the number of passengers travelling.

Meanwhile, a German study has found “little or no evidence” that the disease has been triggered by a train journey.

The research for German train operator Deutsche Bahn concluded: “We see remarkably few infections in trains. No infections occurred in persons on board with a stay of less than ten hours. Not a single contact tracing has been identified in Germany and Austria as having been triggered by an infection on the train journey.”

It also found that the infection rate in air-conditioned carriages was lower than in vehicles without air-conditioning. It reported: “The air flow is essentially vertical rather than horizontal, which makes direct distribution of the virus by the airflow rather unlikely.”

• For the FULL story, read RAIL 911, published on August 12, and available digitally from August 8.

Yes 1 in 11,000 journeys. How many people on this forum are going to hit that figure anytime soon?!

 

[route101]

I don't have any problem using the train right now. Actually quite like the space with fewer passengers. Never come across police asking if my journey was non essential, which a few recently werent.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Thanks for the advice.

I will start with normal buses, and then by hopefully June, start leisure train journeys as well.

 

[ic31420]

Just to put this one to bed.

Traveled today, by train. Was one of only 3 people in the carriage. Nobody seemed interested in why I was travelling.

What really surprised me was how much the timetable has been hacked back, understandably so given the light numbers I was expecting it to be far busier. That and how slow the 319 is compared to the 331 which i don't think was at all being pushed hard. The 331s are really growing on me, even the bogie banging doesnt seem so bad.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes 1 in 11,000 journeys. How many people on this forum are going to hit that figure anytime soon?!

That's not how probability works.

 

[Djgr]

That's not how probability works.

I'm not saying it is.

I am just quoting from the article and highlighting the point that 11,000 is a lot of journeys.

 

[Watershed]

That's not how probability works.

I'm not saying it is.

I am just quoting from the article and highlighting the point that 11,000 is a lot of journeys.

Probability can be a bit confusing, but in essence, 11,000 journeys isn't "wrong". If there is a probability of 1 in 11,000 of catching Covid on any given journey, that means it would take 11,000 journeys for the likelihood of catching Covid to be 1 (i.e. 100%).

Of course, that doesn't mean you will catch Covid on your 11,000th journey.

I suspect the odds are rather lower than 1 in 11,000; the odds probably vary quite a bit depending on the general incidence rates of Covid.

 

[Ianno87]

Probability can be a bit confusing, but in essence, 11,000 journeys isn't "wrong". If there is a probability of 1 in 11,000 of catching Covid on any given journey, that means it would take 11,000 journeys for the likelihood of catching Covid to be 1 (i.e. 100%).

Of course, that doesn't mean you will catch Covid on your 11,000th journey.

I suspect the odds are rather lower than 1 in 11,000; the odds probably vary quite a bit depending on the general incidence rates of Covid.

No, the Expectation is that after 11,000 trips, on one of them you will have caught Covid from. Could be the first one, could be the 9,999th one Or could happen on more than one trip. But as you say, Expectation does not imply guarantee.

A bit like tossing a fair coin 100 times; you would Expect 50 Heads and 50 Tails. But confidence intervals mean that a range of actual results as far as (something like) 45/55 either way would be probable, without it being reasonable to conclude that the coin is biased.

 

[Djgr]

Probability can be a bit confusing, but in essence, 11,000 journeys isn't "wrong". If there is a probability of 1 in 11,000 of catching Covid on any given journey, that means it would take 11,000 journeys for the likelihood of catching Covid to be 1 (i.e. 100%).

Of course, that doesn't mean you will catch Covid on your 11,000th journey.

I suspect the odds are rather lower than 1 in 11,000; the odds probably vary quite a bit depending on the general incidence rates of Covid.

Of course the 1 in 11,000 was before the vaccination of essentially all vulnerable people.

Given the vaccination is not 100% effective and you cannot know your own personal effectiveness attribute, we can play the probability game again but also include this additional variable.

That said if, as AZ recently claimed based on clinical trials, vaccination reduces the likelihood of death to 0 then it is all pretty moot anyway.