Rail travel encouragement

[bramling]

Most motorist have little interest in climate change and most people are not interested in travelling by any other means.

Nail on head.

I suspect it would be easier to get motorists to abandon some discretionary journeys altogether than get them to change modes.

That could be achieved by bumping up the cost of motoring, but then people will moan that this will affect some people more than others (ie those with shallower pockets), so it feels like we can’t win.

 

[D821]

Cost and convenience are king for me, personally.
I spent 8 years doing a 50-60 minute drive to work as the alternative was 2 hours on the train, including 40 minutes of walking and a sprint to make the connection at Lime Street.

For my current job, it would probably take me a similar amount of time to get into Liverpool city centre by car or train. Given the choice of paying for the tunnel & parking and having the stress of the traffic, I'll take 25 minutes sat on a train reading a book any day.

 

[miklcct]

The actual reality is that the incentives to mode shift for passengers from their cars to rail are as weak as ever. In some ways they're weaker than they've been for years. The government are pretty happy with that situation though because it means they can keep collecting tax revenue from fuel and air passenger duty, and justify their decisions to strip back capital spending on railways.

Make more higher speed rails (200 km/h) such that for all long distance travel it will faster than driving.

 

[Shrop]

Most motorist have little interest in climate change and most people are not interested in travelling by any other means.

You're absolutely right, but times are changing. Not so long ago smoking was permitted in most indoor places, even restaurants. Drink driving wasn't that serious, mobile phones didn't exist etc., and working from.home was rare. Today it's not just talk that cars are moving towards being electric, petrol cars won't even be made in just 9 years' time. The days of petrolheads appear to be numbered ...

 

[seagull]

... to be replaced by electricheads...

 

[Deafdoggie]

With electric and hybrid cars the environmental benefits of rail don't exist.
With very cheap/free charging of electric cars, rail prices are even more expensive.
Within, mystic deafdoggie predicts, 10 years, self-driving cars will be here. If people can get in a car that costs little or nothing to run, isn't causing pollution and don't have to drive, what can rail offer?
Rail has no choice if it wants to survive, it has to excel at customer service. Going on strike, charging people hundreds of pounds for honest mistakes, not working Sundays and cancelling trains are all contributing to its downfall. It needs to get a grip.
We have hundreds of miles of underused canals, in a few decades we will have hundreds of miles of underused railways too. Like it or not, change is coming. Rail really needs to get on board with it.

 

[D821]

Self driving cars don't solve congestion, though.

 

[JonathanH]

Self driving cars don't solve congestion, though.

...or tyre debris pollution

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/195595/worlds-first-device-capture-harmful-tyre/

A group of Imperial students have invented a device to collect tyre particles from vehicles, a major contributor to the world’s air pollution.

Every time a vehicle brakes, accelerates or turns a corner, the tyres wear down and tiny particles become airborne, producing half a million tonnes of tyre particles annually in Europe alone.

 

[Kite159]

You're absolutely right, but times are changing. Not so long ago smoking was permitted in most indoor places, even restaurants. Drink driving wasn't that serious, mobile phones didn't exist etc., and working from.home was rare. Today it's not just talk that cars are moving towards being electric, petrol cars won't even be made in just 9 years' time. The days of petrolheads appear to be numbered ...

The "Petrolhead" will simply switch to a more sporty electric vehicle. They won't consider using the train, after-all using the train is a high chance of catching the virus according to adverts they saw last year.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Self driving cars don't solve congestion, though.

I suspect they'll "talk" to each other and work ways round it, they'll also be able to optimise flow, in a similar way to smart motorways but on all roads.

 

[D821]

Yes, I'm sure there are ways they could be more efficient than traditional cars, I'm not sure they are a perfect solution, though.

 

[the sniper]

I suspect they'll "talk" to each other and work ways round it, they'll also be able to optimise flow, in a similar way to smart motorways but on all roads.

You also suspect they'll remain free to use? And overlook that they certainly won't be free to acquire.

 

[matacaster]

With electric and hybrid cars the environmental benefits of rail don't exist.
With very cheap/free charging of electric cars, rail prices are even more expensive.
Within, mystic deafdoggie predicts, 10 years, self-driving cars will be here. If people can get in a car that costs little or nothing to run, isn't causing pollution and don't have to drive, what can rail offer?
Rail has no choice if it wants to survive, it has to excel at customer service. Going on strike, charging people hundreds of pounds for honest mistakes, not working Sundays and cancelling trains are all contributing to its downfall. It needs to get a grip.
We have hundreds of miles of underused canals, in a few decades we will have hundreds of miles of underused railways too. Like it or not, change is coming. Rail really needs to get on board with it.

But building that electric car involves a huge carbon footprint. Rail is competing against a marginal cost. Once youve bought that £50k car and the journey cost is very small, you aren't going to foresake your car. It's the running costs of a car which must be increased to levels significantly above that of rail tickets.

 

[Shrop]

The "Petrolhead" will simply switch to a more sporty electric vehicle. They won't consider using the train, after-all using the train is a high chance of catching the virus according to adverts they saw last year.

Sadly yes, there's a huge amount of work to be done to make railways more attractive to passengers. As for the virus though, pandemics are generally a 2 year thing, like Spanish Flu. It's still around many years later, but so is other flu etc, it's just become one of many less scary nuisances. Covid will be progressively less of an issue by this time next year I suspect.
Cars will always have a place in our transport system and rightly so, they just need to be slightly less of a default choice, which they could be if our railways were a bit less expensive to use, unreliable, overcrowded etc.

 

[Deafdoggie]

But building that electric car involves a huge carbon footprint. Rail is competing against a marginal cost. Once youve bought that £50k car and the journey cost is very small, you aren't going to foresake your car. It's the running costs of a car which must be increased to levels significantly above that of rail tickets.

If you've spent £50K on a car you were ripped off. Although clearly there will always be top of the range models, prices start much more modestly and second hand electric cars are available

You also suspect they'll remain free to use? And overlook that they certainly won't be free to acquire.

I suspect more places will become free to charge as an encouragement to go there. My local Tesco offers free charging, so now ASDA have too, surprise, surprise, Aldi are now putting in free charge points. It will get more and more widespread, and probably become the norm.

 

[Starmill]

Worth remembering most of the fare structure has been in place pre privatisation - there were advance fares, there were time limitations, there were specific fares - the big difference is that since privatisation the internet has taken hold so it's visible to the public, whereas previously you were sold whatever ticked the bloke at the counter told you about.



Not personally, but a good friend of mine lives near Crewe and travelled regularly into London and MK at peak times - he varied his route between both Liverpool (Crewe) and Stoke (Manchester) services - and I don't think they were deserted from what he told me.

To give you an idea, in one period in 2019 on average Wednesdays the 1840 ran at 49% standard class load, the 1900 ran at 124% standard class load and the 1920 at 100% standard class load. On Thursdays the 1900 ran at "only" 108% on average because the 1857 relief runs. On Fridays, without peak fares, the 1900 ran at 78%.

They have been desperately trying to get people not to use those trains which run at >100% standard capacity for a long time, with everything from warnings on the screens and the website to emails to people who book on it to offering more and much cheaper tickets on the later trains. But of course they are unsuccessful at persuading enough people to switch. Not that that's a massive shock given the price differential. The earlier ones, especially the 1520 and 1540 from London, for obvious reasons, were much quieter and carried nowhere near 50%.

I'd love to say more from the source but as I'm certain you appreciate Avanti don't exactly love this being public knowledge.

 

[neilmc]

Most motorist have little interest in climate change and most people are not interested in travelling by any other means.

Sorry but I don't think that's quite true. A lot of motorists MIGHT be tempted out of their car, if there were a reasonably priced, relatively frequent and reliable alternative. Mostly in the UK, outside of large cities with extortionate parking, there isn't.

To take a personal example, we often travel from Cumbria to Manchester. Yes, there is a train, but it's infrequent, expensive (especially if you have two passengers in the car), and parking at stations adds significantly to the cost. Of course, if the small WCML stations had remained open as local hubs, the train might have had a look in but these were arrogantly all closed in the late 1960s. So it's the car for us. But what about the horrendous cost and hassle of taking a car into Manchester? No problem, we use a free Metrolink car park and take the tram from the suburbs, but that's just for a few miles, 90% of the journey is still done by car.

Also with a car you can carry STUFF which gets very difficult by train. The vast majority of people who live outside cities NEED a car and will continue to do so, they do not have a choice. At some point they may well be unable to drive and may have to sell up and move into a town, unless they can rely on neighbours, demand everyone comes to them to visit or can use what remains of the local bus network. I do use the local bus which runs to the great frequency of once a week, but I have to alternate what I can do/carry in the space and time afforded by this, with an extra shop by car to buy heavy stuff or from business not in the town centre or when I have an appointment which isn't on a Tuesday - I try to be green, honest, but still need the car!

Oh, and very rarely I or my wife will use the train, simply for events where one of us needs to be away for a few days somewhere relatively accessible and the other needs the car in the meantime, on the proviso that the car-keeper does the long drive to the station both ways - we did have TWO cars but gave one up! But that hasn't been in the last two years.

 

[HowardGWR]

Apart from commuting, now much reduced, the main use of rail on trips over 10 miles is for discretionary travel. Under 10 miles, for the majority of trips, the car, if available, will always win, unless drastic legislation forces it not to win.
That legislation will never be passed without some form of cultural revolution taking place.

For the longer trips, the self-driving electric car will have no equal competitor. Even the people forced to use public transport at present (handicapped, children, elderly, etc) will have no impediment to using these vehicles, except capital cost. Phoning up for a hire car that arrives at one's house, a bit like the white bicycles, will solve that one, not requiring one to incur capital cost.

Edit: I should have mentioned that "the majority of trips" are under 10 miles. So the contribution of car travel to overall traffic by any vehicle is immense and the new technology will only reinforce that.

 

[Taunton]

But building that electric car involves a huge carbon footprint.

Apparently it does. But who cares?

It's the running costs of a car which must be increased to levels significantly above that of rail tickets.

This attitude, where everyone else must be taxed/charged extra just to benefit the railway industry, is one of the things that will lead to the railway's downfall. For the vast majority of car journeys done the railway is nowhere near offering any sensible alternative.

 

[Starmill]

Sorry but I don't think that's quite true. A lot of motorists MIGHT be tempted out of their car, if there were a reasonably priced, relatively frequent and reliable alternative. Mostly in the UK, outside of large cities with extortionate parking, there isn't.

To take a personal example, we often travel from Cumbria to Manchester. Yes, there is a train, but it's infrequent, expensive (especially if you have two passengers in the car), and parking at stations adds significantly to the cost. Of course, if the small WCML stations had remained open as local hubs, the train might have had a look in but these were arrogantly all closed in the late 1960s. So it's the car for us. But what about the horrendous cost and hassle of taking a car into Manchester? No problem, we use a free Metrolink car park and take the tram from the suburbs, but that's just for a few miles, 90% of the journey is still done by car.

Also with a car you can carry STUFF which gets very difficult by train. The vast majority of people who live outside cities NEED a car and will continue to do so, they do not have a choice. At some point they may well be unable to drive and may have to sell up and move into a town, unless they can rely on neighbours, demand everyone comes to them to visit or can use what remains of the local bus network. I do use the local bus which runs to the great frequency of once a week, but I have to alternate what I can do/carry in the space and time afforded by this, with an extra shop by car to buy heavy stuff or from business not in the town centre or when I have an appointment which isn't on a Tuesday - I try to be green, honest, but still need the car!

Oh, and very rarely I or my wife will use the train, simply for events where one of us needs to be away for a few days somewhere relatively accessible and the other needs the car in the meantime, on the proviso that the car-keeper does the long drive to the station both ways - we did have TWO cars but gave one up! But that hasn't been in the last two years.

And that's after very large resources have been committed in recent years to improving the service between Cumbria stations and Manchester.

From the new timetable Lancaster to Manchester will at long last have a combined 2tph all day, for what I believe is the first time ever. But of course even that doesn't make at all good use of capacity. One of the trains is an electric train at least, but they're all formed of only five coaches, which offers no scope to cut prices. The other service is already generally full in and out of Manchester as it is diesel all the way and all formed of only three coaches. Again with no scope for lengthening, and no scope for decarbonisation without massive further costs. Typically UK.

 

[miklcct]

Apart from commuting, now much reduced, the main use of rail on trips over 10 miles is for discretionary travel. Under 10 miles, for the majority of trips, the car, if available, will always win

I disagree with your statement. Taking one-stop train journeys between Bournemouth and Branksome for shopping purpose will win the car, because the train wins by speed. The train takes 5 minutes but the car takes 7 minutes.

 

[the sniper]

If you've spent £50K on a car you were ripped off. Although clearly there will always be top of the range models, prices start much more modestly and second hand electric cars are available

I suspect more places will become free to charge as an encouragement to go there. My local Tesco offers free charging, so now ASDA have too, surprise, surprise, Aldi are now putting in free charge points. It will get more and more widespread, and probably become the norm.

I wonder if we'll have supermarkets by the time self driving cars are trying to hone in on them for replenishment...

As for costs and electric cars, beyond purchase and upkeep, the question is how the state will make you pay for them.

While some may put great faith in self driving cars being able to accommodate each other better than human drivers, if the argument is that they'll make public transport redundant, you're going to need to accommodate a lot more vehicles movements/journeys. Even with optimum road utilisation, ignoring when/how a big switch over to full automated vehicles is achieved to reach the optimum road utilisation required, our existing road infrastructure is going to need massive investment. It'll need to be funded somehow. Personally I very much doubt automated vehicles will be able to deliver the solutions some predict. Should make Motorway use more efficient though.

For the longer trips, the self-driving electric car will have no equal competitor. Even the people forced to use public transport at present (handicapped, children, elderly, etc) will have no impediment to using these vehicles, except capital cost. Phoning up for a hire car that arrives at one's house, a bit like the white bicycles, will solve that one, not requiring one to incur capital cost.

It'll be interesting to see when we get to the point that manufacturers are so confident in the foolproof infallibility of their technology/programming that they're willing to accept the responsibility for their operation in the very varied real world, one where humans exist and roam freely, where they are the operator responsible for the transportation of unlicensed passengers such as and including children.

Even the railway could run reliably without humans and legacy infrastructure...

 

[Deafdoggie]

I wonder if we'll have supermarkets by the time self driving cars are trying to hone in on them for replenishment...

As for costs and electric cars, beyond purchase and upkeep, the question is how the state will make you pay for them.

While some may put great faith in self driving cars being able to accommodate each other better than human drivers, if the argument is that they'll make public transport redundant, you're going to need to accommodate a lot more vehicles movements/journeys. Even with optimum road utilisation, ignoring when/how a big switch over to full automated vehicles is achieved to reach the optimum road utilisation required, our existing road infrastructure is going to need massive investment. It'll need to be funded somehow. Personally I very much doubt automated vehicles will be able to deliver the solutions some predict. Should make Motorway use more efficient though.



It'll be interesting to see when we get to the point that manufacturers are so confident in the foolproof infallibility of their technology/programming that they're willing to accept the responsibility for their operation in the very varied real world, one where humans exist and roam freely, where they are the operator responsible for the transportation of unlicensed passengers such as and including children.

Even the railway could run reliably without humans and legacy infrastructure...

They had the same fears moving from horses to cars. Indeed horses to trains too. New technology always brings out fear in people. But it doesn't stop it happening, noone insists on someone with a red flag walking in front anymore.
Once the technology is proven, I suspect insurance premiums will drop as the human factor is removed (most accidents now are human error) thus increasing for those still driving themselves and thus pushing forward self drive even more.
I doubt anyone will own one, they'll optimise usage by doing as little empty mileage as possible, you simply summon one on the app and the closest one appears. They'll take themselves off for charging when needed. Yes, there may be long streams of them, but knowing where they are all going will be a big help. And they can be made cheaper if you choose to share.

 

[Starmill]

Make more higher speed rails (200 km/h) such that for all long distance travel it will faster than driving.

Journey time improvements tend to be the most expensive interventions there are sadly.

 

[the sniper]

They had the same fears moving from horses to cars. Indeed horses to trains too. New technology always brings out fear in people. But it doesn't stop it happening, noone insists on someone with a red flag walking in front anymore.
Once the technology is proven, I suspect insurance premiums will drop as the human factor is removed (most accidents now are human error) thus increasing for those still driving themselves and thus pushing forward self drive even more.
I doubt anyone will own one, they'll optimise usage by doing as little empty mileage as possible, you simply summon one on the app and the closest one appears. They'll take themselves off for charging when needed. Yes, there may be long streams of them, but knowing where they are all going will be a big help. And they can be made cheaper if you choose to share.

It's not a question of fear, it's a matter of liability, when we get to that point.

 

[Shrop]

And what percentage of the total number of trains was that?
Has Covid been taken into account?
Have mechanical problems been taken into account?


Is it? I've used that route in the last two weeks and it was never crowded.


Are they? I wouldn't believe everything you hear on that radio station!


But are they really?
I suspect it isn't the case but it does make a good sound bite.

There's little point in answering your questions. You seem to be interested only in defending a service that repeatedly lets passengers down, whereas my objective was to find ways to provide a service that is more attractive to use.

 

[Llanigraham]

There's little point in answering your questions. You seem to be interested only in defending a service that repeatedly lets passengers down, whereas my objective was to find ways to provide a service that is more attractive to use.

All I was doing was providing another and different view to the situation on the Cambrian than the one you show.
Plus I happen to know drivers, guards and signallers that work the line and tell me what they see, which doesn't tally with your view, plus they also tell me the effects the things I have questioned are having and that you seem to have ignored.

 

[PeterC]

There are a lot of things that can be done to make rail more attractive but none are silver bullets.

For me the main driver towards using the car is actually accessing the railway for the trunk haul. Why railhead to a Home Counties station when just the cost of parking for the weekend would pay for at least 150 miles of driving before even thinking about the fare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are a lot of things that can be done to make rail more attractive but none are silver bullets.

For me the main driver towards using the car is actually accessing the railway for the trunk haul. Why railhead to a Home Counties station when just the cost of parking for the weekend would pay for at least 150 miles of driving before even thinking about the fare?

Parking charges certainly discourage railheading, but quite a lot of stations offer a cheaper weekend rate to offset this a bit.

 

[PeterC]

Parking charges certainly discourage railheading, but quite a lot of stations offer a cheaper weekend rate to offset this a bit.

I used the weekend rates at my nearest main line station in my estimate assuming three nights away which was the trip that I made in the car last weekend