Poor quality passenger rail service increases demand for private car purchases

[johncrossley]

Not because they banned strikes though. I'm really unsure what your proposing, specifically.

That's the point. Swiss Railways didn't ban strikes, yet they don't have them. I'm proposing that we create the same scenario here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2023 ==

Stadler have been working to rule at GA & have now received an impressive pay deal

Is Greater Anglia a Swiss TOC now? Obviously I know Stadler is Swiss based.

 

[Scott1]

That's the point. Swiss Railways didn't ban strikes, yet they don't have them. I'm proposing that we create the same scenario here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2023 ==

How?

 

[johncrossley]

How?

I'd like to know how as well.

 

[dk1]

Is Greater Anglia a Swiss TOC now? Obviously I know Stadler is Swiss based.

Of course not. Why do you say that?

 

[Scott1]

I'd like to know how as well.

Not to labour the point, but it was your suggestion.

 

[The Ham]

Remote assistance can’t guide you to the platform if you can’t see it. Remote assistance can’t assist if you can’t find the button to call it. I wouldn’t know if remote assistance can remotely operate a TVM for those that can’t use them as I always use the ticket office!

At the sort of stations which would likely not have staff because the one ticket window is permanently closed, the member of staff trends to only work for the morning (or part of it), as such it's unlikely that the loss of such staff is going to impact on many people and those it does is going to be likely only for one direction of their travel.

It may well cut costs more than revenue and reduce the amount of subsidy required though?

It may do, but it also may not. Hence why cuts should be evidence based (like we do for reopenings).

I'd like to know how as well.

Maybe because the railways are seen as a public service and so there isn't the ongoing argument about how much it costs in subsidy. Rather railways are seen as an investment which are considered as how they help grow the economy (which generated taxes which pays for the railways).

 

[philosopher]

That's the point. Swiss Railways didn't ban strikes, yet they don't have them. I'm proposing that we create the same scenario here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2023 ==



Is Greater Anglia a Swiss TOC now? Obviously I know Stadler is Swiss based.

I'd like to know how as well.

The only explanation I think of is that they have a legal No Strike Agreement where ongoing disputes are resolved through entirely through the courts and both sides have agreed to abide by the court’s decision.

 

[Peter Sarf]

My son used to use trains regularly for weekends away with his son at various locations. With the first strikes he was forced to find an alternative.

He booked a coach and found it cleaner, cheaper, air conditioned. He has never used the train since and probably never will again.

Just sayin'

I find the coaches I use peasant enough. I prefer a coach to the harsh aircon on a Pendolino and as for Voyagers.

But one of the big issues on trains now is overcrowding. It's not like people aren't using trains.

Leisure travel demand in particular is bigger than ever. The commuter traffic has dipped but a huge amount of the workforce are still dependent on trains to get to work.

A bigger problem is the bulk of rail investment goes into the South East and the other regions have substandard local services, or Cross Country services that don't go through London.

I think the bulk of investment might be going where the bulk of demand is. London is an obscenely large place.

Precisely, and why some of this scaremongering nonsense about rail travel disappearing is just that.

But rail travel has reduced and it is the more lucrative travel that is hit hardest.

It may well cut costs more than revenue and reduce the amount of subsidy required though?

This is the problem. Risk of a decline of the railways. If the railways are to survive at their current size then efficiencies have to be found.

Your suggestion that people stay away from trains is a wind up because it's a crucial mode of transport. Governments don't want congested cities and trains, it's why public transport exists.

But rail is no longer such a crucial mode of transport (I wish it was). The danger is the passengers will consider alternatives when the fares go up and/or the service gets poorer to pay for the pay rises - the savings to achieve better pay need to come from efficiency gains. Its a loss making business that gets handouts.

 

[miklcct]

But rail is no longer such a crucial mode of transport (I wish it was).

Rail is a crucial mode of transport. I find it a pain taking road transport when I need to get to Richmond or Hackney from NW London when the North London Line is not available.

 

[Dai Corner]

This is the problem. Risk of a decline of the railways. If the railways are to survive at their current size then efficiencies have to be found.

The railways' mindset needs to move away from "how can we maximise the amount of money we get from the Government?" towards "how can we minimise our dependence on subsidies and the whims of politicians?"

 

[Peter Sarf]

The railways' mindset needs to move away from "how can we maximise the amount of money we get from the Government?" towards "how can we minimise our dependence on subsidies and the whims of politicians?"

I agree. We will never shake off government interference if we want so much money from the state. At least lets try and reduce the dependence as much as possible thus reducing the excuse for interference. Rail needs to try and attract custom from the roads - we only need a bit of what the roads stand to lose. Either that or accept the railways are run by the state and understand that a subsidy will not be paid for services that are no longer needed.

 

[Thirteen]

This is the problem. Risk of a decline of the railways. If the railways are to survive at their current size then efficiencies have to be found.

But rail is no longer such a crucial mode of transport (I wish it was). The danger is the passengers will consider alternatives when the fares go up and/or the service gets poorer to pay for the pay rises - the savings to achieve better pay need to come from efficiency gains. Its a loss making business that gets handouts.

I think a lot of scaremongering in many places is this idea that we risk not having a railway in Britain which is frankly unrealistic because no G7 country is without some form of rail transportation. Decline, yes but no railway at all, not a chance.

 

[yorkie]

I think a lot of scaremongering in many places is this idea that we risk not having a railway in Britain which is frankly unrealistic because no G7 country is without some form of rail transportation. Decline, yes but no railway at all, not a chance.

We had a thread on that subject: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/is-rail-travel-in-the-uk-sleepwalking-into-oblivion.240715/

 

[coppercapped]

Rail use in 1920 is exceptional and almost a one off (2.1bn), with only 1921 being higher (2.2bn), however pre war use was 1.5bn and post war it didn't fall below this until 1926 (1922 was circa 1.8bn)

Ah, yes...

You have missed the point entirely. With the rising standards of living between the wars, even including the post-war slump and the Great Depression, the middle classes could now afford personal transport and tour the country.

Previously this would have been by train but now people could visit all the places that were difficult to reach by train - look at, for example, the explosion in the number of Shell Guides describing the counties of Britain. 2,000,000 motorists and companions spent a lot of money.

The point is that the railways did not benefit from any of this expenditure. A new market had grown up which they missed entirely.

If we want reform, the thing to do is use railways in the ways which we want then to be used. For example not using ticket offices.

The one thing I would say is that many residents don't actually result in headcount reductions.

TfL closing ticket offices had the same staff at (broadly) the same stations or TVM with remote staff assistance means staff in a central location covering multiple stations, but needing several staff to cover the whole day.

 

[Snow1964]

The railways' mindset needs to move away from "how can we maximise the amount of money we get from the Government?" towards "how can we minimise our dependence on subsidies and the whims of politicians?"

Yes, the old saying beggars can't be choosers is appropriate.

Should be obvious (but clearly isn't to some), if you want their money, play by their rules and do what they say. Or Improve, cut subsidies, and then you are less dependent on their whims.

 

[yorksrob]

What amazes me is that other countries must have similar challenges in terms of rebuilding passenger revenue, Germany and Austria are developing genuinely innovative products such as the climate ticket and The Netherlands certainly aren't contemplating major cuts.

Why is our government incapable of making such a leap. Perhaps our subsidy profile has been unrealistic for the last forty years, and if you want decent public transport, you have to pay a larger subsidy.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think a lot of scaremongering in many places is this idea that we risk not having a railway in Britain which is frankly unrealistic because no G7 country is without some form of rail transportation. Decline, yes but no railway at all, not a chance.

Compare to the USA ?.

What amazes me is that other countries must have similar challenges in terms of rebuilding passenger revenue, Germany and Austria are developing genuinely innovative products such as the climate ticket and The Netherlands certainly aren't contemplating major cuts.

Why is our government incapable of making such a leap. Perhaps our subsidy profile has been unrealistic for the last forty years, and if you want decent public transport, you have to pay a larger subsidy.

The railways in the UK have always been treated a little differently to most of Europe. We don't even have an integrated transport policy at a UK level - can argue the major conurbations do. But there is a risk (my fear) the difference will get so great that is will make UK railways look more like American railways.

 

[yorksrob]

Compare to the USA ?.

The railways in the UK have always been treated a little differently to most of Europe. We don't even have an integrated transport policy at a UK level - can argue the major conurbations do. But there is a risk (my fear) the difference will get so great that is will make UK railways look more like American railways.

That's precisely the problem. We always seem to be looking in the wrong direction for ideological reasons when it comes to public transport solutions.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Rail is a crucial mode of transport. I find it a pain taking road transport when I need to get to Richmond or Hackney from NW London when the North London Line is not available.

But rail is not so crucial across the whole of the UK. You are only looking at a large conurbation. Yes London is hard to get around by road but a sobering thought is Londons buses carry more passengers than rail does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railways in the UK have always been treated a little differently to most of Europe. We don't even have an integrated transport policy at a UK level - can argue the major conurbations do. But there is a risk (my fear) the difference will get so great that is will make UK railways look more like American railways.

We might lose some branch lines, but I can't see that happening, not in a million years, unless you mean them being like the Long Island Rail Road or the relatively high intensity services around major cities in which case I can't see a massive problem as they look like ours bar the massive loading gauge

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's precisely the problem. We always seem to be looking in the wrong direction for ideological reasons when it comes to public transport solutions.

Sadly. Leaving Europe has, I expect, sent sent a clear message to our leaders. We will be looking across the Atlantic far more than we used to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's precisely the problem. We always seem to be looking in the wrong direction for ideological reasons when it comes to public transport solutions.

Would help if we did in urban terms. US large cities have far better reach and integration than we do, and vastly lower fares. Deregulated buses and standalone rail services are more like what you see in underdeveloped South East Asian cities, for example.

The US isn't all bad at public transport, it is actually reasonably good at it when you look at places equivalent to the size and population of the UK. If the UK took 5 days to drive across then we'd probably mostly do long distance travel by air too.

 

[Peter Sarf]

We might lose some branch lines, but I can't see that happening, not in a million years, unless you mean them being like the Long Island Rail Road or the relatively high intensity services around major cities in which case I can't see a massive problem as they look like ours bar the massive loading gauge

Yes. I would hope for a decent sized core network. So maybe losing less than 20% of the whole network. Trouble is it is then the start of a new trend and people investing in cars does nothing to stop that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. I would hope for a decent sized core network. So maybe losing less than 20% of the whole network. Trouble is it is the then the start of a new trend.

I think 20% is at the very high end of what we'd lose in England. Scotland and Wales are politically different; even though it arguably should, the Far North, say, is going nowhere.

5% maybe, if that. And we're gaining too, e.g. EWR.

 

[yorksrob]

Sadly. Leaving Europe has, I expect, sent sent a clear message to our leaders. We will be looking across the Atlantic far more than we used to.

Possibly true, although it would be foolish for them to conclude that the wish for more control over border and economic policy that seems to have driven the Brexit vote, translates to a desire for a USA style public transport desert.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Possibly true, although it would be foolish for them to conclude that the wish for more control over border and economic policy that seems to have driven the Brexit vote, translates to a desire for a USA style public transport desert.

Places in the US that look like the UK aren't public transport deserts. You can't even really compare rural Texas with the Highlands.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes. I would hope for a decent sized core network. So maybe losing less than 20% of the whole network. Trouble is it is then the start of a new trend and people investing in cars does nothing to stop that.

We already cut to below the size of the "core" network in the 1970's/80's.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Would help if we did in urban terms. US large cities have far better reach and integration than we do, and vastly lower fares. Deregulated buses and standalone rail services are more like what you see in underdeveloped South East Asian cities, for example.

The US isn't all bad at public transport, it is actually reasonably good at it when you look at places equivalent to the size and population of the UK. If the UK took 5 days to drive across then we'd probably mostly do long distance travel by air too.

You have a point there. Long time since I have looked but major US cities do seem to be as joined up as London. Its the longer distance stuff that seemed to me to be really just a freight network with a few passenger services ambling along in among the freight.

 

[yorksrob]

Places in the US that look like the UK aren't public transport deserts. You can't even really compare rural Texas with the Highlands.

True - its more a passenger rail desert. Public transport is served by the airlines.

To follow such a policy here would be to deny basic geography.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You have a point there. Long time since I have looked but major US cities do seem to be as joined up as London. Its the longer distance stuff that seemed to me to be really just a freight network with a few passenger services ambling along in among the freight.

And I'm sure the UK would be like that too if it took 5 days to get from Manchester to London. In US, Canadian or Aussie terms that's outersuburban.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jan 2023 ==

True - its more a passenger rail desert. Public transport is served by the airlines.

To follow such a policy here would be to deny basic geography.

I see no evidence of any proposal to follow that policy here. Maybe to close a few basket case branch lines, but no mainlines will be closed, and we're in the middle of building a new one too!