• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Rail accounts for only 2% of all trips made

Status
Not open for further replies.

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
From the Williams Review, The role of the railway in Great Britain - Evidence Paper

Demand for rail services has more than doubled over the last 20 years, increasing faster than for any other transport mode. Despite this growth, rail still accounts for only 2% of all trips made and 8% of distance travelled in England. By comparison, car travel accounts for 61% of trips and 78% of distance.

That massively overstates the position for local rail services outside the south-east where the figure is higher than 2% to make up for much smaller shares elsewhere. Nationally traffic flows to and from London will also dominate the percentages for long distance travel, those numbers likely to be over 2% from all major cities in England and Wales.

Now if we could double the passengers numbers again in the next 20 years (a quite likely prediction for many lines and stations given the increasing mobility of 21st Century society) how could we cope with them all? And why stop there?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
One slightly concerning aspect of this is the question, which I am sure will be asked - how can we justify subsidising rail for 2% of trips when we have withdrawn bus subsidy in most cases, with that being used for far more trips?
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
What does a "trip" count as in this situation? For example, is me walking round the corner to get milk a trip?

Quite probably not? But if you get on your bike to go a mile to your local Sainsbury's or the car to go 5 miles to Tesco's it maybe does!

If I go for a 14 mile hike in the hills, what's that? But if I walk 7 miles to work and back it must count?

However, the 2% proportion, nationally, doesn't sound so far from perceptions gained from car commuting and car trips to visit friends, nationwide.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
One slightly concerning aspect of this is the question, which I am sure will be asked - how can we justify subsidising rail for 2% of trips when we have withdrawn bus subsidy in most cases, with that being used for far more trips?
I suppose a partial answer would be that buses amount for less distance than rail, because the average bus trip is much shorter than the average train trip. And that the majority of bus trips aren't subsidised (unless you count concessions, but let's not go there again). But I agree it's anomalous, and I believe we could get a lot more people out of cars by spending more on buses than by spending the same extra amount on rail. Despite the assertion that car users won't use buses.

Another consequence of this sort of figure is that if you double the useage of the rail network by getting people out of cars, the relative decrease in car journeys is pretty small.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
One slightly concerning aspect of this is the question, which I am sure will be asked - how can we justify subsidising rail for 2% of trips when we have withdrawn bus subsidy in most cases, with that being used for far more trips?

Subsidising free taxis or mini-buses in some rural areas might be cheaper and more helpful for users than rail branch lines!
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,766
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Quite probably not? But if you get on your bike to go a mile to your local Sainsbury's or the car to go 5 miles to Tesco's it maybe does!

If I go for a 14 mile hike in the hills, what's that? But if I walk 7 miles to work and back it must count?

However, the 2% proportion, nationally, doesn't sound so far from perceptions gained from car commuting and car trips to visit friends, nationwide.
The 2% sounds reasonable if it includes going into town to go shopping or other short-distance trips to which the train is not really a consideration in most parts of the world.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Subsidising free taxis or mini-buses in some rural areas might be cheaper and more helpful for users than rail branch lines!

Quite possibly so, and you might find that there is actually an overall benefit from closing a small village station receiving a few trains per day and instead providing, on demand, a free taxi to the nearest railhead that gets 1tph, allowing the overall service to be sped up.

The problem with this is politics - a railway line is something physical and long-term and will rarely go away, but free taxis are an easy cut.

This is true of buses too - if you close a railway line it's hard to get it back, while if you stop a bus service if money becomes available you only have to wait 56 days to start it again.
 

JB_B

Established Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,411
Quite probably not? But if you get on your bike to go a mile to your local Sainsbury's or the car to go 5 miles to Tesco's it maybe does!

If I go for a 14 mile hike in the hills, what's that? But if I walk 7 miles to work and back it must count?

However, the 2% proportion, nationally, doesn't sound so far from perceptions gained from car commuting and car trips to visit friends, nationwide.


The OP refers to this paper

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...he-railway-in-great-britain-an-evidence-paper

( I think that the OP has tried to provide a link but it seems to be broken - for me at least.)

At note 8 that refers to ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2017

... which is where the 2% (of trips) / 8% (of distance) figures come from

Which gives the following definition of trip..

"What is a trip?

The basic unit of travel in the NTS is a trip, which is defined as a one-way course of travel with a single main purpose."
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
Doing some basic number crunching
  • The average rail journey is four times longer than the average journey
  • The average car journey is 28% longer than the average journey
  • All other journeys, accounting for 14% of mileage and 27% of trips, are barely half of the average length
That says to me that rail's place is for longer journeys, cars are adaptable, and other transport (presumably buses, taxis, cycling and walking) predominantly for shorter journeys. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, really.

The issue with this kind of statistic is that the flexibility and ubiquity of cars means they dominate the headline figures. To understand it properly, you really need to disaggregate cars into the types of journeys that compete with other modes of transport. Trying to do that would be extremely challenging, I suspect.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,066
Doing some basic number crunching
  • The average rail journey is four times longer than the average journey
  • The average car journey is 28% longer than the average journey
  • All other journeys, accounting for 14% of mileage and 27% of trips, are barely half of the average length
That says to me that rail's place is for longer journeys, cars are adaptable, and other transport (presumably buses, taxis, cycling and walking) predominantly for shorter journeys. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, really.

The issue with this kind of statistic is that the flexibility and ubiquity of cars means they dominate the headline figures. To understand it properly, you really need to disaggregate cars into the types of journeys that compete with other modes of transport. Trying to do that would be extremely challenging, I suspect.
I agree about disaggretating car journeys. For example how many are simply "dad's taxi" delivering and collecting people because there is no sensible public transport option available? Probably not a massive proportion but a misleading one as the vehicle and driver make double the number of trips actually wanted.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
"What is a trip?

The basic unit of travel in the NTS is a trip, which is defined as a one-way course of travel with a single main purpose."

That is a very open ended description and one that to me make me query the figures.
For example, today I have made a "trip" to Machynlleth, but to do that I had to go by car because there is no public transport directly to there, and if I had wanted to go by train I would have had to use the car to get to the station, again because there is no bus that goes there.
The purpose of my trip: to buy a train ticket for tomorrow!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
The issue with this kind of statistic is that the flexibility and ubiquity of cars means they dominate the headline figures. To understand it properly, you really need to disaggregate cars into the types of journeys that compete with other modes of transport.

Quite, if a teenager walks to and then from a youth group that's probably 2 trips of 0.5 miles. Whilst a parent making the trip by car to pick up/drop off could be justified as any of the following depending on how you count a trip and if you are considering the number of people making the trip as well:
- two trips of 1 mile
- four trips of 0.5 miles
- six trips of 0.5 miles (2 for teenager and 4 for the parent)
- two trips of 1 mile and two trips of 0.5 miles (for the parent/teenager)
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
We can spend a lot of time debating branch lines and whether Beeching was right or wrong about them, but the bigger issue is with the growth in long distance traffic. My own local station, opened in 1872, has seen 8% growth in the last year, more than doubled in the last 8 years, trebled in the last 12 years, and more than quadrupled in the last 20 years.

The issue that must concern all wanting to see better links at lowest cost to the planet is how do we squeeze ever more trains down basically the same infrastructure? Or maybe we should be actively discouraging all travel, of all types? Too drastic? Probably.

It's well over 100 years ago since underground railways were first introduced. Electric railways weren't long after. It's 200 years since Richard Trevithick in Cornwall and George Stephenson in Killingworth were producing steam locomotives to run on rails.

I'm biased by geography and origins in favour of Stephenson, however I feel sure early pioneers like Hudson and Brunel would be very frustrated to see how recent progress has been so slow. As an example, the Hope Valley route between Sheffield and Manchester includes 3 tunnels totalling about 7 of its 41 miles, all built over 100 years ago. It's only 31 miles as the crow might fly (about the same as Shenfield to Southall). There's not a hope of anyone coming up with the cash to build an almost level, straight, tunnel between the city centres, to provide a non-stop journey of less than 25 minutes. That would be way better than the distant dream of a 40 minute best time, eventually, possibly, on the current congested Victorian infrastructure, if we can make improvements here and there, and after public inquiries and consultations. A totally new line like that would leave minimal, if any, blots on the surface landscape. The Swiss, Japanese, Norwegians are all adept at such tunnelled projects - and we invented underground railways. No money. No business case.

For long distance travel above ground the obstructions of existing rail infrastructure, urban buildings and rural landscapes will always mitigate against efficient transport links in a crowded island like ours. Much as I'd prefer to look out of the window I can't help noticing that the majority of fellow rail travellers today are looking at screens, or are asleep!

We need to seriously look at the extremes. More subsidised frequent mini bus routes to more places than where we have infrequent subsidised rail services. More vision to create truly fast inter-city routes, leaving existing tracks for intermediate stations. HS2 isn't proving to do that as well as originally intended.

I'll go back to sleep now. Most of my likely journeys will be walking or driving my car - or seeking taxis when independence is lost. 2% is probably on the high side at present, rail enthusiast or not.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
The OP refers to this paper

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...he-railway-in-great-britain-an-evidence-paper

( I think that the OP has tried to provide a link but it seems to be broken - for me at least.)

At note 8 that refers to ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2017

... which is where the 2% (of trips) / 8% (of distance) figures come from

Which gives the following definition of trip..

"What is a trip?

The basic unit of travel in the NTS is a trip, which is defined as a one-way course of travel with a single main purpose."

Link in OP fixed!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Quite probably not? But if you get on your bike to go a mile to your local Sainsbury's or the car to go 5 miles to Tesco's it maybe does!

If I go for a 14 mile hike in the hills, what's that? But if I walk 7 miles to work and back it must count?

However, the 2% proportion, nationally, doesn't sound so far from perceptions gained from car commuting and car trips to visit friends, nationwide.

Unless it specifically defines what a journey is, the statistic is pretty meaningless.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
We can spend a lot of time debating branch lines and whether Beeching was right or wrong about them, but the bigger issue is with the growth in long distance traffic. My own local station, opened in 1872, has seen 8% growth in the last year, more than doubled in the last 8 years, trebled in the last 12 years, and more than quadrupled in the last 20 years.

The issue that must concern all wanting to see better links at lowest cost to the planet is how do we squeeze ever more trains down basically the same infrastructure? Or maybe we should be actively discouraging all travel, of all types? Too drastic? Probably.

It's well over 100 years ago since underground railways were first introduced. Electric railways weren't long after. It's 200 years since Richard Trevithick in Cornwall and George Stephenson in Killingworth were producing steam locomotives to run on rails.

I'm biased by geography and origins in favour of Stephenson, however I feel sure early pioneers like Hudson and Brunel would be very frustrated to see how recent progress has been so slow. As an example, the Hope Valley route between Sheffield and Manchester includes 3 tunnels totalling about 7 of its 41 miles, all built over 100 years ago. It's only 31 miles as the crow might fly (about the same as Shenfield to Southall). There's not a hope of anyone coming up with the cash to build an almost level, straight, tunnel between the city centres, to provide a non-stop journey of less than 25 minutes. That would be way better than the distant dream of a 40 minute best time, eventually, possibly, on the current congested Victorian infrastructure, if we can make improvements here and there, and after public inquiries and consultations. A totally new line like that would leave minimal, if any, blots on the surface landscape. The Swiss, Japanese, Norwegians are all adept at such tunnelled projects - and we invented underground railways. No money. No business case.

For long distance travel above ground the obstructions of existing rail infrastructure, urban buildings and rural landscapes will always mitigate against efficient transport links in a crowded island like ours. Much as I'd prefer to look out of the window I can't help noticing that the majority of fellow rail travellers today are looking at screens, or are asleep!

We need to seriously look at the extremes. More subsidised frequent mini bus routes to more places than where we have infrequent subsidised rail services. More vision to create truly fast inter-city routes, leaving existing tracks for intermediate stations. HS2 isn't proving to do that as well as originally intended.

I'll go back to sleep now. Most of my likely journeys will be walking or driving my car - or seeking taxis when independence is lost. 2% is probably on the high side at present, rail enthusiast or not.

In answer to the first part, wiring up trans pennine and running 12 and 8 carriage trains that split to serve different destinations is the answer.

Unfortunately electrification is "out of fashion' with the establishment.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
In answer to the first part, wiring up trans pennine and running 12 and 8 carriage trains that split to serve different destinations is the answer.

Indeed. The obsession with running short trains around on excessively high frequencies is a joke. Demand in the North, including suppressed demand, is starting to grow to be more like that in the South, and the railway needs to match that with long trains like those run in the South.

The funding for "Northern Powerhouse Rail" would be better spent on electrifying, longer platforms and longer rolling stock on existing routes. Why for instance are we not running at least 160m trains on every service along the Hope Valley?
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
In answer to the first part, wiring up trans pennine and running 12 and 8 carriage trains that split to serve different destinations is the answer.

I'd agree, but for that to work we need a lot better reliability to make sure splits join up on time. Overhead wires down, signal failure, points failure, crew out of position, train fault, weather, track congestion, landslide, broken rail, over running engineering work, the list is so long.

There seems to be an aversion to reinstalling loops even when the track bed is available. More points may mean more to go wrong and limit speed? Tripling and quadrupling of tracks to add possible bi-directional running may have the same problems, plus extra signalling complexity.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Indeed. The obsession with running short trains around on excessively high frequencies is a joke. Demand in the North, including suppressed demand, is starting to grow to be more like that in the South, and the railway needs to match that with long trains like those run in the South.

The funding for "Northern Powerhouse Rail" would be better spent on electrifying, longer platforms and longer rolling stock on existing routes. Why for instance are we not running at least 160m trains on every service along the Hope Valley?

I think a part of it is a fear of joining and splitting trains. Some say this adds an element of risk to the timetable, however eventhough half the train might have to wait for a while, the part through the busiest section would have been delayed anyway if the other half of the train is delayed.

It's managed on the Southern, so I don't see why it can't be done on the Pennine network.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I'd agree, but for that to work we need a lot better reliability to make sure splits join up on time. Overhead wires down, signal failure, points failure, crew out of position, train fault, weather, track congestion, landslide, broken rail, over running engineering work, the list is so long.

There seems to be an aversion to reinstalling loops even when the track bed is available. More points may mean more to go wrong and limit speed? Tripling and quadrupling of tracks to add possible bi-directional running may have the same problems, plus extra signalling complexity.

In terms of wiring, this seems to be more of a problem on windswept areas of the East Coast. Even if the hilly contours of the Standedge route do suffer similar levels of wind turbulence, the use of portals would surely help to overcome this.

I'm sure that many of the potential unreliabilities you mention are widespread on our 9-12 carriage network, so I don't see as though this would be that much different on TPE with longer trains.

I agree with your point about loops on TPE. It seems to me that those Westbound at Mirfield and Marsden are long and useful for dynamic overtaking, whilst those at Diggle and Dewsbury for Eastbound services are short and require a lot of waiting around.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think a part of it is a fear of joining and splitting trains. Some say this adds an element of risk to the timetable, however eventhough half the train might have to wait for a while, the part through the busiest section would have been delayed anyway if the other half of the train is delayed.

It's managed on the Southern, so I don't see why it can't be done on the Pennine network.

Indeed, and it's rather unhelpful that the new rolling stock has been ordered with the intention *not* to do this.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,271
Location
N Yorks
Buses - yuk. hate them. They are the only form of transport that makes me travel sick.

The big disincentive to the train is the huge costs of tickets, especially when 2 or more travelling together. Compare that to a car which has been bought, insured and taxed anyway. The marginal cost is tiny compared to rail.

I am sure new trains are too expensive. A Mk3 was just a tube with seats and some bits bolted on the bottom for aircon and the like.
but new trains are very complicated, with power to all axles, lots of complicated tech.
German railways run trains of a loco, some trailers and a driving trailer. All the complicated bits in the loco. And easy to add in an extra vehicle if required.

Some pix of german R trains with a loco
https://www.europebyrail.eu/site/assets/files/1409/db_regional.jpg
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/B1E0R4/be...in-locomotive-engine-at-the-modern-B1E0R4.jpg
 

Adlington

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2016
Messages
1,039
What does a "trip" count as in this situation? For example, is me walking round the corner to get milk a trip?
From the Glossary section: "Trips - A one-way course of travel with a single main purpose". So walking round the corner to get milk would count, but getting milk and visiting your sister - not. And I have no idea whether walking with a single (or multiple) main purpose(s) counts at all.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
Indeed. The obsession with running short trains around on excessively high frequencies is a joke. Demand in the North, including suppressed demand, is starting to grow to be more like that in the South, and the railway needs to match that with long trains like those run in the South.

The funding for "Northern Powerhouse Rail" would be better spent on electrifying, longer platforms and longer rolling stock on existing routes. Why for instance are we not running at least 160m trains on every service along the Hope Valley?

Simple answer at present. 3 TOCs on the Hope Valley route.

TPE plan to operate 2 x 185 as soon as they are released when new stock is operational elsewhere. Some are already operating, although that's merely soaking up the crush on the busiest trains. It may need more than 6 carriages on those trains within 10 years.

EMT are also short of units but are managing to provide 2 x 158 for most trains in peak periods. What their successors will provide is anyone's guess. Whether that will be remapped to TPE or Northern, and when, must impact on that. 6 cars must be provided for before much longer.

Northern are increasingly providing 150s, or even a 156 or 158, instead of 142 Pacers. At evening peaks out of Piccadilly they're being doubled up. The service is still not hourly east of New Mills so that's a higher priority at present! Skip stops are a pain.

Lack of capacity and poor timekeeping are materially impacting on use of all 3 TOC's services at present.
 
Last edited:

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,271
Location
N Yorks
Simple answer at present. 3 TOCs on the Hope Valley route.

TPE plan to operate 2 x 185 as soon as they are released when new stock is operational elsewhere. Some are already operating, although that's merely soaking up the crush on the busiest trains. It may need more than 6 carriages on those trains within 10 years.

EMT are also short of units but are managing to provide 2 x 158 for most trains in peak periods. What their successors will provide is anyone's guess. Whether that will be remapped to TPE or Northern, and when, must impact on that. 6 cars must be provided for before much longer.

Northern are increasingly providing 150s, or even a 156 or 158, instead of 142 Pacers. At evening peaks out of Piccadilly they're being doubled up. The service is still not hourly east of New Mills so that's a higher priority at present! Skip stops are a pain.

Lack of capacity and poor timekeeping are materially impacting on use of all 3 TOC's services at present.


...
and poor timekeeping can be caused by overloaded trains stopping at stations for too long while people squeeze on.

I guess you watch on Oxford Road and see how much quicker a 4 car 319 copes than a 2 car 158
Enough train and 1/3 and 2/3 doors instead of narrow end doors.

The 'super' sprinters were designed for a much quieter railway, not for crush loads on stopping services.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
The obvious point is surely that you can't make a 'trip' by rail unless there is a station where you're starting, and a station where you're going?
For example, when I lived in Kent, I lived midway between two stations, one in the town centre, and one in the nearby village. So if I wanted to go into town, there's no point getting the train because it's just as easy to walk (or get a bus, or ride a bike) to town than to get to the village station!
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
...
and poor timekeeping can be caused by overloaded trains stopping at stations for too long while people squeeze on.

I guess you watch on Oxford Road and see how much quicker a 4 car 319 copes than a 2 car 158
Enough train and 1/3 and 2/3 doors instead of narrow end doors.

The 'super' sprinters were designed for a much quieter railway, not for crush loads on stopping services.

Absolutely, and it happens with 185s as well as 158s when there are so many bikes and luggage you can't get to the doors. The 7.14 TPE from Dore & Totley to Manchester Airport may have 6 coaches but the platform was shortened to take only 4 in 1985. Allowed a minute it takes 2 or 3 minutes to load as the last 3 carriages can only be entered from the 4th carriage. If it turns up as 3 cars it takes as long to jam everyone in! The platform may be lengthened by 2022.

There will be very many other detailed and nonsensical situations across the nation that cry out for early attention if punctuality and comfort are to be improved.

There's a lot to be said for a locomotive with driving trailer capable of adding 1, 2, 3 or 4 carriages as needed. Fixed formations of 2, 3 or 4 cars make fine tuning to match demand more difficult.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top