Isn’t there an opposite view on this though - we will actually need more capacity to move fewer passengers whilst only using a percentage of the available seats? Even if passenger numbers increase to only half of ‘normal’ levels - social distancing would be an issue
I agree, but I can't see HM Govt wearing this for much longer - eg running a railway service with limited occupancy at vast subsidy for a small degree of necessary travel. As Treasury seeks to get the economy 'back to normal' some tough questions will be asked of departments - and I am sure they will find way to meet any desired lower occupancy levels by traditional 'rationing' of demand - ie jack up prices and ration via ending walk up railway (aren't LNER going reservation compulsory already?). They might even do things like issue railcards to certain 'key workers' etc to sweeten the pill. Ultimately govt only funds a rail network for a combination of social reasons and to facilitate UK economic activity (same for roads), and if they feel it is not needed to achieve that then they will scale back.
"Is your journey really necessary?" wartime mantra will come on big time - and thinking about some of the core passenger groups I see on Inter City trains:
Students and young people: "your college is delivering all the teaching on line, you don't need to travel"
Off peak retired passengers: "you are vulnerable group - you should not be traveling about - we're not subsidising that"
Office workers and business travel: "you have shown you can work adequately on-line / from home, keep doing that"
etc etc
OK I may be wrong but.....(but this is getting off topic)