Public perception of railways

[Falcon1200]

Remember that the man running down the railways had a financial interest in motorway construction.

An oft-repeated statement about Mr Marples, without doubt a most unsavoury character, but does anyone really believe that the motorway network would not have been built anyway, regardless of who was in Government? The rundown of the railways continued, well after both Beeching and Marples had gone, under both Conservative and Labour administrations. I do agree that closures went to far, in a few cases, but the fact remains that more and more people could afford a car, and once they had a vehicle their use of the railway would decline, if not end altogether - As per my post #387.

It shouldn't have taken until 1991 for the ECML to be fully electrified, it shouldn't have taken until 2016 before non-Heathrow electric trains started running out of Paddington. We shouldn't still have an unelectrified London termini.

With which I fully agree! But BR's botched Modernisation Plan did not exactly help make the case for investment in rail.

 

[3141]

An oft-repeated statement about Mr Marples, without doubt a most unsavoury character, but does anyone really believe that the motorway network would not have been built anyway, regardless of who was in Government? The rundown of the railways continued, well after both Beeching and Marples had gone, under both Conservative and Labour administrations. I do agree that closures went to far, in a few cases, but the fact remains that more and more people could afford a car, and once they had a vehicle their use of the railway would decline, if not end altogether - As per my post #387.

You beat me to it! Rail closures were already happening before Marples and Beeching. Many of the lines being closed, both pre- and post-Beeching, were ones with very low traffic and highly loss-making. They weren't going to be replaced by motorways, or in many cases by any other kind of new road. The motorway network had already started to be built before Beeching and much more was planned. I can well remember those years. People wanted better roads.

 

[Carlisle]

It shouldn't have taken until 1991 for the ECML to be fully electrified, it shouldn't have taken until 2016 before non-Heathrow electric trains started running out of Paddington.

If BR hadn’t electrified the ECML we’d almost certainly have had HSTs & Voyagers or similar until at least around 2015

 

[Western Lord]

An oft-repeated statement about Mr Marples, without doubt a most unsavoury character, but does anyone really believe that the motorway network would not have been built anyway, regardless of who was in Government? The rundown of the railways continued, well after both Beeching and Marples had gone, under both Conservative and Labour administrations. I do agree that closures went to far, in a few cases, but the fact remains that more and more people could afford a car, and once they had a vehicle their use of the railway would decline, if not end altogether - As per my post #387.

People should realise that Marples was hated by many motorists. Not for nothing were bridges on the M1 emblazoned with "Marples must go".

 

[D Williams]

Great Western Railway (GWR) has issued an announcement regarding possible route disruption and cancellations this weekend. The train service is urging anyone expected to travel on Sunday to be prepared, and even consider travelling today (Saturday) if possible.

In the announcement, GWR says: "Train crew availability is expected to cause disruption and some cancellations on the following routes tomorrow (Sunday, October 27)."

These routes are so far listed as:

• Between London Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads
• Between London Paddington and South Wales
• Between London Paddington and the South West
• Between Cardiff Central and Portsmouth
• Between Cardiff Central and Weymouth

 

[Meerkat]

As for the wider point of whether taxpayers want to subsidise the railway and other areas, your own view is out of step with the majority; there are plenty or social attitudes surveys to show that people are generally willing to pay more for good public services.

No. People think public services should be better and someone else should be taxed to pay for it, as is very obvious from what both main political parties say and do.
And there is a huge credibility problem - taxes are higher than ever whilst services get worse, the NHS and railway (amongst many) just appear to be money pits.

 

[Krokodil]

I've never seen a thread complaining about delay updates. That's not remotely the same as tannoy spam about see-it etc.

I did see a post moaning about being told "we have stopped because we are at a red signal". The gist of the post being that the fact the train was at a red signal was surely obvious, tell us something we don't know.

 

[Magdalia]

The motorway network had already started to be built before Beeching and much more was planned.

When Beeching reported there was no motorway network, just the M1 from Watford to Rugby and a few bypasses built to motorway standard.

It took until 1972 to get to 1000 miles of motorway and something that resembled a network, when the M6 from Rugby to Carlisle was completed, all of the M4 joined up from London to South Wales, and the M5 joined up to link the M4 and the M6.

 

[WolvertonWorks]

I was attending an event in Oxford yesterday and a colleague was coming from Exeter to Oxford by train to also attend.

When she arrived she said she understood why people don't use trains - the journey from Exeter to Reading was fine, she had her booked seat.

But the one stop Reading to Oxford was on a XCountry and she said it was a very short train and heaving with people, so much that people were having to clamber over luggage to even attempt to get to a space to stand.

She said she felt very sorry for a woman with two young children who were all travelling by train for the first time - an adventure they had been looking forward to. The woman basically said that she would never catch a train again after experiencing the overcrowding but would always drive.

 

[urbophile]

She said she felt very sorry for a woman with two young children who were all travelling by train for the first time - an adventure they had been looking forward to. The woman basically said that she would never catch a train again after experiencing the overcrowding but would always drive.

I feel for her too and especially for the children.There is something very wrong with a railway network that can't cope with fluctuating passenger numbers. But there is a paradox here: for everyone who says 'I won't travel by train because of the overcrowding', there are ten people who do and hence cause the overcrowding. If rail were as unpopular as some people claim, trains would be empty all the time.

 

[geoffk]

I find it quite amazing that people managed to cope with such events in the days before public address systems were built into trains. Such fortitude and patience.

But in the days before p.a. we could lean out of the window and see the signal for ourselves, not that it would have helped much.

 

[TUC]

No. People think public services should be better and someone else should be taxed to pay for it, as is very obvious from what both main political parties say and do.
And there is a huge credibility problem - taxes are higher than ever whilst services get worse, the NHS and railway (amongst many) just appear to be money pits.

Very much agree. Money is not the answer and, if the current government does pour more money in despite this and there are no significant improvements, at least it will help prove this.

 

[Dr Hoo]

When Beeching reported there was no motorway network, just the M1 from Watford to Rugby and a few bypasses built to motorway standard.

It took until 1972 to get to 1000 miles of motorway and something that resembled a network, when the M6 from Rugby to Carlisle was completed, all of the M4 joined up from London to South Wales, and the M5 joined up to link the M4 and the M6.

(I am conscious that there probably needs to be another Marples/Beeching historical thread rather than a continuing sub-discussion in a thread about current perceptions. Nevertheless...)
Beeching issued the Re-shaping Report in March 1963. A document called 'The Roads Programme' was apparently issued in 1960 and included an appendix with a map showing broadly how the GB motorway network would extend. supposedly this is very similar to what has actually happened, albeit relatively slowly. Unfortunately I have been unable to find a link to it anywhere.

There was no doubt that motorways were seen as the future. The first post-war Labour government had passed the Special Roads Act in 1949. The then-Prime Minister, MacMillan, had personally opened the Preston Bypass as the 'first motorway' in 1958.

Despite endless (and lazy) repetitions that the Marples-Ridgway construction company 'built motorways' I am far from clear that that was actually the case. Notwithstanding the rather strange list that appears on Wikipedia, most of the schemes listed were built after 1964 when the company was taken over. The Hammersmith Flyover is attributed by some but that seems to have been designed and constructed by someone else. The Chiswick Flyover wasn't built as a motorway and the first section had opened even before Marples was given the transport brief. So whilst there was undoubtedly a lack of transparency about Marples business interests and personal finances it isn't obvious that there was some direct 'conflict of interest' between Marples 'building motorways' and authoring the withdrawal of some passenger services.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I feel for her too and especially for the children.There is something very wrong with a railway network that can't cope with fluctuating passenger numbers. But there is a paradox here: for everyone who says 'I won't travel by train because of the overcrowding', there are ten people who do and hence cause the overcrowding. If rail were as unpopular as some people claim, trains would be empty all the time.

I think this is one of the major problems on the railway of today, the capacity is designed to match demand so precisely that the moment something happens to increase demand then it all goes wrong from passenger eyes. Prime example is 158s Norwich to Liverpool service, leaving in Norwich the coaches are busy so any future stops will involve families not getting seats together etc. that's a normal day so if there is an event then there is no capacity to soak up. With loco hauled stock adding a couple of coaches would cost next to nothing and therefore not matter to run as a 4 coach rather than 2 all the way. Adding a second 158 of there were enough available would cost substantially more as you have the engines adding miles to

 

[Falcon1200]

But the one stop Reading to Oxford was on a XCountry and she said it was a very short train and heaving with people, so much that people were having to clamber over luggage to even attempt to get to a space to stand.

That also highlights an issue with how our railways operate however; XC services on that route are long distance Bournemouth/Manchester trains, yet are also used for the 27.5 mile hop between Reading and Oxford (where there are also 2 Great Western fast trains every hour). Personally I don't even consider using XC when making that particular journey.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

That also highlights an issue with how our railways operate however; XC services on that route are long distance Bournemouth/Manchester trains, yet are also used for the 27.5 mile hop between Reading and Oxford (where there are also 2 Great Western fast trains every hour). Personally I don't even consider using XC when making that particular journey.

But it's not something the average punter would know

 

[Bikeman78]

I find it quite amazing that people managed to cope with such events in the days before public address systems were built into trains. Such fortitude and patience.

I remember going on EPBs without public address. The refurbs had it so all Central division sets had it from the mid 80s. South Eastern had unrefurbished sets until early 1995 and they they were formed randomly. So no guarantee if PA until the Networkers took over.

 

[Dr Hoo]

That also highlights an issue with how our railways operate however; XC services on that route are long distance Bournemouth/Manchester trains, yet are also used for the 27.5 mile hop between Reading and Oxford (where there are also 2 Great Western fast trains every hour). Personally I don't even consider using XC when making that particular journey.

Part of this is because on-line journey planners and automatic announcements will simply ‘advise’ of the ‘next train’ rather than ‘knowing’ that the first one is totally rammed whereas one a few minutes later might have plenty of room. A human announcer might provide more bespoke advice.
Having said that, the old adage of ‘a train in the platform is worth two on the departure board’ still applies. I still remember letting a full Underground train go because there was one ‘1 min’ away. Even as it was pulling out, Inspector Sands was urgently required and everyone bundled out of the station. Missed my main line connection thanks to that.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Part of this is because on-line journey planners and automatic announcements will simply ‘advise’ of the ‘next train’ rather than ‘knowing’ that the first one is totally rammed whereas one a few minutes later might have plenty of room. A human announcer might provide more bespoke advice.
Having said that, the old adage of ‘a train in the platform is worth two on the departure board’ still applies. I still remember letting a full Underground train go because there was one ‘1 min’ away. Even as it was pulling out, Inspector Sands was urgently required and everyone bundled out of the station. Missed my main line connection thanks to that.

Automatic announcements aren't quite there yet, the information is all there including the loading of the train but not shared and taken into account.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Not much use if your ticket is tied to a particular train as many are these days although that means you have a reserved seat on the train if the TOC does seat reservations.

 

[uglymonkey]

I did see a post moaning about being told "we have stopped because we are at a red signal". The gist of the post being that the fact the train was at a red signal was surely obvious, tell us something we don't know.

I was attending an event in Oxford yesterday and a colleague was coming from Exeter to Oxford by train to also attend.

When she arrived she said she understood why people don't use trains - the journey from Exeter to Reading was fine, she had her booked seat.

But the one stop Reading to Oxford was on a XCountry and she said it was a very short train and heaving with people, so much that people were having to clamber over luggage to even attempt to get to a space to stand.

She said she felt very sorry for a woman with two young children who were all travelling by train for the first time - an adventure they had been looking forward to. The woman basically said that she would never catch a train again after experiencing the overcrowding but would always drive.

Beeching abhorred the fact that the rails catered for the "peaks" ( adding a few coaches to a "service" train and running a" relief" when required). As most of the time the coaches and trains were not needed and lay stored in sidings for months at a time. This to the good Doctor was a waste of money. The summer holiday trains were a case in point.

The railways these days are run on a "just in time basis" there is no additional capacity that can be factored in at short notice, hence massive overcrowding on some services.

Its also not helped by having rolling stock that can't travel anywhere, incompatible couplings, interior designs without thought for sufficient luggage space and 4 car units which should have been ordered as 5 or 6. Its all crazy. You have also got the opposite of 12 coach Thameslink services - big wide gangways and lobbies designed for standing, running around 2/3rd s empty during the day, as the intended use was ordered precovid and it's still not up to everyone being back in the "office" 5 days a week instead of 2 or 3.

 

[trainophile]

I think this is one of the major problems on the railway of today, the capacity is designed to match demand so precisely that the moment something happens to increase demand then it all goes wrong from passenger eyes. Prime example is 158s Norwich to Liverpool service, leaving in Norwich the coaches are busy so any future stops will involve families not getting seats together etc. that's a normal day so if there is an event then there is no capacity to soak up. With loco hauled stock adding a couple of coaches would cost next to nothing and therefore not matter to run as a 4 coach rather than 2 all the way. Adding a second 158 of there were enough available would cost substantially more as you have the engines adding miles to

Two weeks ago I was booked on the EMR 10:56 from Norwich to Peterborough on the Lime Street route. Thank goodness NRE was co-operating that morning, and with the back-up of RTT I could see that the 09:55 was cancelled and the 10:56 was the usual two coaches. Quick thinking and acting meant I got the train from Great Yarmouth an hour earlier than I'd planned to, and stood on the platform at Norwich for half an hour to ensure I would get a seat as soon as the doors opened. Sure enough by the time my intended ex-GYM train arrived it was already standing room only, and was wedged by the time we departed.

People unaware of how to check for cancellations would have had a nasty surprise, at the very least you expect a seat when you're boarding at the start of a service, especially an inter city long distance one like that.

 

[Krokodil]

Beeching abhorred the fact that the rails catered for the "peaks" ( adding a few coaches to a "service" train and running a" relief" when required). As most of the time the coaches and trains were not needed and lay stored in sidings for months at a time. This to the good Doctor was a waste of money. The summer holiday trains were a case in point.

The railways these days are run on a "just in time basis" there is no additional capacity that can be factored in at short notice, hence massive overcrowding on some services.

In XC's case, it's not even down to seasonal loadings. The 174 standard class seats in a 220 are what you might expect on a DMU in rural Norfolk, it's utterly inadequate for a service connecting up our regional cities.

 

[TravelDream]

I think this is one of the major problems on the railway of today, the capacity is designed to match demand so precisely that the moment something happens to increase demand then it all goes wrong from passenger eyes. Prime example is 158s Norwich to Liverpool service, leaving in Norwich the coaches are busy so any future stops will involve families not getting seats together etc. that's a normal day so if there is an event then there is no capacity to soak up. With loco hauled stock adding a couple of coaches would cost next to nothing and therefore not matter to run as a 4 coach rather than 2 all the way. Adding a second 158 of there were enough available would cost substantially more as you have the engines adding miles to

Isn't the issue that a lot of non-London stock ordered from the 80s to the present day were and are too small for standard loadings?

CrossCountry operated services are a key example of this. Along the core network, overcrowding on normal days is a pretty normal event.
On ATW/TFW, many times I have traveled from Manchester to Cardiff and many times I have seen passengers not able to get on the 2-car 175 or 158. Many times we have been delayed as passengers struggle to get on and off. That, of course, is improving with new higher capacity rolling stock.

 

[43066]

No. People think public services should be better and someone else should be taxed to pay for it, as is very obvious from what both main political parties say and do.
And there is a huge credibility problem - taxes are higher than ever whilst services get worse, the NHS and railway (amongst many) just appear to be money pits.

No. People are happy to pay more for things to improve. Survey after survey has shown that, and if you disagree then your view is out of step. It’s inevitable in a progressive tax system that the majority of tax revenue will be paid by a minority of high earners. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that, many higher earners are perfectly fine with that and, in any case, they’re only a small % of the voting population.

Taxes are higher largely because of the Covid response and the state of the country’s finances, and will probably need to rise further. Both political parties are fully aware of this, hence why taxes have risen under the Tories (they just weren’t honest about it).

The NHS is a money pit and the amount spent on the railway pales in comparison, so it’s a rather odd comparison, although I note upthread you seemed to be suggesting that the NHS is underfunded, so there’s another inconsistency in your position.

Very much agree. Money is not the answer and, if the current government does pour more money in despite this and there are no significant improvements, at least it will help prove this.

Money very much is part of the answer, as years of austerity leading to wrecked public services has shown.

In relation to the railway many of the issues being complained about on this thread (expensive tickets, unreliability due to understaffing, inadequate rolling stock etc.) are a direct result of lack of funding.

 

[yorksrob]

No. People think public services should be better and someone else should be taxed to pay for it, as is very obvious from what both main political parties say and do.
And there is a huge credibility problem - taxes are higher than ever whilst services get worse, the NHS and railway (amongst many) just appear to be money pits.

As a non-motorist tax payer, I disagree with my taxes being squandered on the never-ending fuel duty freeze. I'd far rather some of that potential funding was spent on public services and infrastructure.

No. People are happy to pay more for things to improve. Survey after survey has shown that, and if you disagree then your view is out of step. It’s inevitable in a progressive tax system that the majority of tax revenue will be paid by a minority of high earners. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that, many higher earners are perfectly fine with that and, in any case, they’re only a small % of the voting population.

Taxes are higher largely because of the Covid response and the state of the country’s finances, and will probably need to rise further. Both political parties are fully aware of this, hence why taxes have risen under the Tories (they just weren’t honest about it).

The NHS is a money pit and the amount spent on the railway pales in comparison, so it’s a rather odd comparison, although I note upthread you seemed to be suggesting that the NHS is underfunded, so there’s another inconsistency in your position.



Money very much is part of the answer, as years of austerity leading to wrecked public services has shown.

In relation to the railway many of the issues being complained about on this thread (expensive tickets, unreliability due to understaffing, inadequate rolling stock etc.) are a direct result of lack of funding.

Personally I think passengers are paying too much for the service as it is. Being quoted £89 for a not particularly long or luxurious journey between Nottingham and Norwich is a case in point.

More generally, I find rail travel pleasant as long as its not too crowded. That tends to be the spoiler for me.

 

[oldman]

No. People are happy to pay more for things to improve. Survey after survey has shown that

Survey after survey has shown that people say they are happy to pay more for things to improve. Particularly if it's people 'who can afford it', i.e. someone else. There is a reason politicians are so wary when talking about taxation.

But in any case the question is where railways rate in political priority against health, care, benefits, education, policing, defence and of course potholes (there's a council by-election pending where I live).

 

[43066]

Personally I think passengers are paying too much for the service as it is. Being quoted £89 for a not particularly long or luxurious journey between Nottingham and Norwich is a case in point.

More generally, I find rail travel pleasant as long as its not too crowded. That tends to be the spoiler for me.

The issue here is that fares being lower would lead to far more crowding, so your two stated wants are somewhat contradictory . Limited capacity is the elephant in the room so, absent a major rethink, we are likely to end up with busier trains and paying more for them, so that the crowding increases at a slower rate.

Survey after survey has shown that people say they are happy to pay more for things to improve. Particularly if it's people 'who can afford it', i.e. someone else. There is a reason politicians are so wary when talking about taxation.

That’s true, the reason being fear of the right wing press perhaps. I happen to think a more honest approach would be better in this area, and Labour appear to have boxed themselves in somewhat. Nobody should really be surprised that high earners pay more tax, and the UK personal tax burden (while it has increased recently, notably under the Tories) is still only low to middling internationally.

But in any case the question is where railways rate in political priority against health, care, benefits, education, policing, defence and of course potholes (there's a council by-election pending where I live).

I’d suggest that isn’t a particularly meaningful question at a wider political level. Yes there are decisions to be made in terms of allocating funding, but the sort of politicians who give you crap railways will generally also give you crap everything else. That’s because they’re ideologically against public service and would rather shrink the state and give tax breaks to high earners etc.

That’s a perfectly rational political position for the very wealthy who don’t depend on public services at all, but it’s odd when those who aren’t in that category cheerlead for it (again that can perhaps be explained by certain elements of the press).

 

[ainsworth74]

As a non-motorist tax payer, I disagree with my taxes being squandered on the never-ending fuel duty freeze. I'd far rather some of that potential funding was spent on public services and infrastructure.

As a motorist tax payer I agree with you! It's barmy that fuel duty has been frozen for so long. And the cut that Sunak made was even more ludicrous. Its beyond time that fuel duty was increased again at least by the 5p that Sunak cut and then further in the future.

 

[Indigo Soup]

There was no doubt that motorways were seen as the future. The first post-war Labour government had passed the Special Roads Act in 1949. The then-Prime Minister, MacMillan, had personally opened the Preston Bypass as the 'first motorway' in 1958.

It needs to be understood that the attitude to transport planning then, and in fact until very recently, was one of 'predict and provide' - the job of the planners was to anticipate future traffic flows, and build a network to accomodate them.

For all the reasons discussed at length here and elsewhere, traffic was choosing to leave the railway in favour of private cars, buses, lorries, and the likes. This was forecast to continue. Therefore roads had to be built for all these motor vehicles to drive on. And, indeed, airports had to be built for long-distance passenger traffic. Whereas the railway network, seeing a reduction in traffic, ought to shrink to better match its costs to the demand for it.

The idea of using transport policy to influence the modal choice of customers is quite a modern one. At times, it would have been (and occasionally still is) seen as the government trying to interfere in the free market.