What would a "pro-growth" rail agenda look like?

[zwk500]

Hasn't the CR2 team been disbanded?

Was there ever a proper CR2 team?

 

[algytaylor]

Personally, I'd see any pro-rail agenda to be almost indistinguishable from a pro-public transport agenda. The way to increase rail usage is simply to make it the best / most attractive method of getting from A to B. As of such, I'd be inclined to think ...

a) Making the service door-to-door as much as possible would be a good thing. So you can buy your journey ticket on a local bus (maybe just tapping a smartcard, or use QR codes for printed tickets), use that local bus to get to the station, use the train to do the trunk of the journey, then the bus at the other end. It's not massively different from the PlusBus offering, but make it 'as standard' on every journey

b) Integrated rail/bus hubs wherever possible, prioritising passenger experience. Liverpool South Parkway is an excellent example of a station where it's genuinely pleasant to change trains or transport modes - it's really clear how to get around, and I'd happily tell my 70-something year old mum, who travels on her own at most a couple of times a year, to change trains there. Birmingham New Street, probably not - it's quite difficult to change trains there if you're not a seasoned visitor, I find - more so since the Grand Central "improvements". For the few places where you effectively interchange buses, make it a pleasant place to interchange - which could be anything from a full bus station, down to - in rural locations - just a bus shelter, bench, and passenger information system (could be a paper timetable and a digital clock!)

c) Onboard information systems for trains and buses where feasible. It should _always_ be a smooth transition between modes, where you get off the train knowing exactly which bus stand to go to and how long you'll have to wait, or alternatively get off the bus knowing which platform you need to go to for your train. Likewise, folk who are first-time travellers to a particular area (on bus especially) should be confident that they'll get off at the stop they want to get off at!

d) Have it so that it's possible to either work or be entertained on the train (and to a lesser extent bus) that you're on. Folk can bring their own entertainment, but simple things like providing plug sockets, tables which have phone/tablet/.. rests, and so on. I'd be inclined to add that catering on some trains could be improved, e.g. by using things like vending machines where it isn't possible to have a full trolley or buffet service.

e) More frequent services, everywhere. The more frequent a service, the more it fits in to your own schedule, so the better option it is for travelling. That's really what your average person wants, I think - an easy journey with is fast, frequent, and ideally involves minimising the number of times they have to get out of their seat and standing around (i.e. changing trains/buses/modes). I imagine with details from (a) giving you a good idea of how people make entire journeys, you could use that to optimise which direct rail services were offered - it wouldn't be a case of sheer guesswork.

 

[eldomtom2]

That's really what your average person wants, I think - an easy journey with is fast, frequent, and ideally involves minimising the number of times they have to get out of their seat and standing around (i.e. changing trains/buses/modes).

As I've said before, if you go to places where non-rail enthusiasts discuss rail what will quickly become obvious is that what they want is cheap rail travel.

 

[TheBigD]

With Edinburgh the train still isn't - and never will be - time competitive - example, the 0830 from Kings X takes 6 hours to get to Edinburgh with stops at Peterboro, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Berwick.

Today's (17/95/23) 0830 may take 6 hours, but normally it takes 4hr42m. Yesterday and today, LNER are running via the Joint Line as the ECML is shut for engineering work.

The xx00 from King's Cross has a journey time of around 4hr20m every hour, the xx30 around 4hr45m.

 

[squizzler]

I think that a pro-rail agenda is now common-sense industrial policy for UK plc. Notwithstanding the carbon agenda, rail makes sense for economic viability. Carbon is the most pressing agenda for our time, but I think transport advocates are missing a trick not emphasising so-called hard economic and state security realities that the "political right" seem to like talking about, even when quite ignorant.

More public transport including rail will offer:

• Less imported materials and fuel (including gas for power stations currently needed to recharge electric car) will improve balance of payments.
• Less fossil fuel imports reduce geopolitical reliance on the Middle East and Russia.
• Fewer staff needed for mobility allows them to be deployed more usefully elsewhere, increasing national productivity.

Additionally, over the last few years the motor trade is increasingly a liability. We should cast our mobility provision around a national industrial strategy which should be shaped by facts on the ground:

• The UK motor trade is imploding and will probably soon lose its viability - at the time of writing Vauxhall seem ready to throw in the towel. Soon all that will be left are niche products built by craftsmen.
• On the other hand we are blessed with several train assembly plants that need work.
• Rather than gamble taxpayers money attempting to shore up our old car factories - which are hostage to things outside the government's control like consumer buying habits and above all the need to export into the EU - the government can actually buy trains directly themselves and thus sustain the train plants.

A common-sense transport policy will make full use of the train plants we have whilst allowing the car manufacturers to fade away - as they seem likely to do - without the nation prolonging the transition at great taxpayers expense. This means network expansion to expand the market for trains as well as electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

More public transport including rail will offer:

• Less imported materials and fuel (including gas for power stations currently needed to recharge electric car) will improve balance of payments.
• Less fossil fuel imports reduce geopolitical reliance on the Middle East and Russia.

As opposed to far more expensive purchases of liquid petroleum fuel required to support rail operations?

In addition, the reality is that gas is on its way out as a bulk power generation fuel in the UK, massive wind construction has seen to that.
Carbon emissions from an electric resistive heater are already below those of a gas boiler on average and continue to fall.

In fifteen years it will be electric cars against a railway will huge swathes of diesel operation.

• Fewer staff needed for mobility allows them to be deployed more usefully elsewhere, increasing national productivity.

ANd yet the UK railway is still using archaic working methods that consume vast quantities of labour, and shows no sign of disposing of them in the near future?

I doubt I will long enough to see the end of absolute block working!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Carbon emissions from an electric resistive heater are already below those of a gas boiler on average and continue to fall.

If only it could be cheaper; electric resistive heating is the most flexible and safe type there is.

 

[A0wen]

I think that a pro-rail agenda is now common-sense industrial policy for UK plc. Notwithstanding the carbon agenda, rail makes sense for economic viability. Carbon is the most pressing agenda for our time, but I think transport advocates are missing a trick not emphasising so-called hard economic and state security realities that the "political right" seem to like talking about, even when quite ignorant.

More public transport including rail will offer:

• Less imported materials and fuel (including gas for power stations currently needed to recharge electric car) will improve balance of payments.
• Less fossil fuel imports reduce geopolitical reliance on the Middle East and Russia.
• Fewer staff needed for mobility allows them to be deployed more usefully elsewhere, increasing national productivity.

Additionally, over the last few years the motor trade is increasingly a liability. We should cast our mobility provision around a national industrial strategy which should be shaped by facts on the ground:

• The UK motor trade is imploding and will probably soon lose its viability - at the time of writing Vauxhall seem ready to throw in the towel. Soon all that will be left are niche products built by craftsmen.
• On the other hand we are blessed with several train assembly plants that need work.
• Rather than gamble taxpayers money attempting to shore up our old car factories - which are hostage to things outside the government's control like consumer buying habits and above all the need to export into the EU - the government can actually buy trains directly themselves and thus sustain the train plants.

A common-sense transport policy will make full use of the train plants we have whilst allowing the car manufacturers to fade away - as they seem likely to do - without the nation prolonging the transition at great taxpayers expense. This means network expansion to expand the market for trains as well as electrification.

Bit in bold - you really should read beyond the headlines in the Guardian - the reality is *all* European car manufacturers are calling for the change Stellantis is and it's got little or nothing to do with Brexit, despite the efforts of many proponents to claim it is. The EU regulations - which were also agreed in the Brexit deal - require a certain % age of an Electric car to be produced in the EU or UK to be tariff free. In the UK, Nissan in Sunderland don't have this problem because they've got their battery plant just down the road from their Sunderland factory. Stellantis on the other hand, don't have sufficient battery production capability within the EU - so the risk they run is tariffs on their EVs where the batteries are coming from China / outside the EU - and that affects not only their Vauxhall division, but Opel, Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat, Alfa and Lancia divisions.

It's why Ford have also joined calls for this exemption to be extended - they've got the same issue as well.

And Nissan in the UK produces over 300,000 cars a year - so much for "niche products built by craftsmen".

 

[RT4038]

I think that a pro-rail agenda is now common-sense industrial policy for UK plc. Notwithstanding the carbon agenda, rail makes sense for economic viability. Carbon is the most pressing agenda for our time, but I think transport advocates are missing a trick not emphasising so-called hard economic and state security realities that the "political right" seem to like talking about, even when quite ignorant.

More public transport including rail will offer:

• Less imported materials and fuel (including gas for power stations currently needed to recharge electric car) will improve balance of payments.
• Less fossil fuel imports reduce geopolitical reliance on the Middle East and Russia.
• Fewer staff needed for mobility allows them to be deployed more usefully elsewhere, increasing national productivity.

Using public transport is very time inefficient compared to private transport for many, if not most, day to day activities, unless commuting along rail/bus lines or travelling long distances. National productivity would likely go down rather than be increased as a result. People do not want to be hostage to public transport workers, management or planners either.

Additionally, over the last few years the motor trade is increasingly a liability. We should cast our mobility provision around a national industrial strategy which should be shaped by facts on the ground:

• The UK motor trade is imploding and will probably soon lose its viability - at the time of writing Vauxhall seem ready to throw in the towel. Soon all that will be left are niche products built by craftsmen.

The UK motor trade will adapt. They won't want their current position threatened (hence the news item), but they'll adapt. One or two car/vehicle plants in the UK building for the UK market could suffice - yes, it'll be a reduction in the choice of models etc., but if that is what the economics dictates, that is what we'll get. All this scaremongering about 800,000 jobs is hyperbole.

I think that a pro-rail agenda is now common-sense industrial policy for UK plc. Notwithstanding the carbon agenda, rail makes sense for economic viability. Carbon is the most pressing agenda for our time, but I think transport advocates are missing a trick not emphasising so-called hard economic and state security realities that the "political right" seem to like talking about, even when quite ignorant.

More public transport including rail will offer:

• Less imported materials and fuel (including gas for power stations currently needed to recharge electric car) will improve balance of payments.
• Less fossil fuel imports reduce geopolitical reliance on the Middle East and Russia.
• Fewer staff needed for mobility allows them to be deployed more usefully elsewhere, increasing national productivity.

Additionally, over the last few years the motor trade is increasingly a liability. We should cast our mobility provision around a national industrial strategy which should be shaped by facts on the ground:

• The UK motor trade is imploding and will probably soon lose its viability - at the time of writing Vauxhall seem ready to throw in the towel. Soon all that will be left are niche products built by craftsmen.
• On the other hand we are blessed with several train assembly plants that need work.
• Rather than gamble taxpayers money attempting to shore up our old car factories - which are hostage to things outside the government's control like consumer buying habits and above all the need to export into the EU - the government can actually buy trains directly themselves and thus sustain the train plants.

Most people would rather Government subsidises the car plants than be forced to use public transport. Trains are only practical for a tiny proportion of journeys anyway.

 

[Trainbike46]

As opposed to far more expensive purchases of liquid petroleum fuel required to support rail operations?

In addition, the reality is that gas is on its way out as a bulk power generation fuel in the UK, massive wind construction has seen to that.
Carbon emissions from an electric resistive heater are already below those of a gas boiler on average and continue to fall.

In fifteen years it will be electric cars against a railway will huge swathes of diesel operation.

ANd yet the UK railway is still using archaic working methods that consume vast quantities of labour, and shows no sign of disposing of them in the near future?

I doubt I will long enough to see the end of absolute block working!

I'd actually be curious to see what changes to working practices you would suggest, though that would definitely be better placed in a new thread!

 

[yorksrob]

As I've said before, if you go to places where non-rail enthusiasts discuss rail what will quickly become obvious is that what they want is cheap rail travel.

This is the crux of it.

The Government will be well aware of this but have no interest in acting on it.

 

[43066]

Using public transport is very time inefficient compared to private transport for many, if not most, day to day activities, unless commuting along rail/bus lines or travelling long distances.

Incorrect - I use it all the time when I’m not commuting. It’s far more efficient and useful than having a car would be.

Most people would rather Government subsidises the car plants than be forced to use public transport. Trains are only practical for a tiny proportion of journeys anyway

Any evidence to support your first sentence?

You really should stop claiming to speak for most people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Incorrect - I use it all the time when I’m not commuting. It’s far more efficient and useful than having a car would be.

Any evidence to support your first sentence?

You really should stop claiming to speak for most people.

You appear to live in London. That says everything, really.

Few other places in the UK have the coverage and quality. Outside London, the poster is sadly totally correct. If I had no car, I'd be lost here without a bicycle.

 

[zwk500]

Most people would rather Government subsidises the car plants than be forced to use public transport.

It's worth bearing in mind that Governments don't do what most people want, but what will get them the most effective votes (usually). Those two things can be directly contradictory.

 

[RT4038]

Incorrect - I use it all the time when I’m not commuting. It’s far more efficient and useful than having a car would be.

And I use it relatively little for my journeys, and even that is much, much more than the vast majority of people (alot!) I know. I also live [in an urban area, but not a dense urban area] within walking distance of a railway station with lots of trains, but they have the inherent problem of usually not going to where I want to go, when I want to go (and I am a public transport orientated person so will make allowances, but not at any price of time and/or cost). Very, very few of those people I know when asked would wish to give up their private transport for public transport. Little really to do with fares - just convenience and control.

Any evidence to support your first sentence?

You really should stop claiming to speak for most people.

The court room again! It is my opinion, based on my experience, that most people want their private transport (and aspire to it if they are not owners yet) and not rely on public transport (for reasons already mentioned). Therefore it would be reasonable to draw the conclusion that subsidising car factories would be voted for over train factories. That isn't to say many of them don't ever use public transport, but if it were a choice......

It may well be that there is a theoretical scenario where we all change our lives to revolve around public transport (there being many, many life activities which would be curtailed or altered if this were to be so). I am not talking about today's public transport, but even the network of the wildest dreams - society has changed (for good and for bad depending on your view) so much with the transport freedom that private car ownership has brought the majority. Sad as that may be.

It's worth bearing in mind that Governments don't do what most people want, but what will get them the most effective votes (usually). Those two things can be directly contradictory.

True, but I think we both know which way this would go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may well be that there is a theoretical scenario where we all change our lives to revolve around public transport (there being many, many life activities which would be curtailed or altered if this were to be so). I am not talking about today's public transport, but even the network of the wildest dreams - society has changed (for good and for bad depending on your view) so much with the transport freedom that private car ownership has brought the majority. Sad as that may be.

It's feasible that if public transport was upgraded to say Swiss quality many people could do that, particularly in cities. It's already largely true in London, so that can be achieved.

Cars neither should nor will go away, but we do need to change how we use them. In a lot of places that just means not using them where they cause most harm - for instance I can envisage a case where non-resident cars aren't allowed into central Oxford/Cambridge at all (or just that there's no public parking at all bar Blue Badge) in fairly short order, and use of the park and ride is compulsory if arriving in the area by car.

However as things stand, outside of London (and to an extent Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and similar), someone who doesn't run a car and doesn't have the means to use taxis quite often (which are really no better than cars) is going to have an extremely limited lifestyle unless they're fit enough to cycle considerable distances (though I suppose e-bikes help here).

 

[RT4038]

It's feasible that if public transport was upgraded to say Swiss quality many people could do that, particularly in cities. It's already largely true in London, so that can be achieved.

Cars neither should nor will go away, but we do need to change how we use them. In a lot of places that just means not using them where they cause most harm - for instance I can envisage a case where non-resident cars aren't allowed into central Oxford/Cambridge at all (or just that there's no public parking at all bar Blue Badge) in fairly short order, and use of the park and ride is compulsory if arriving in the area by car.

However as things stand, outside of London (and to an extent Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and similar), someone who doesn't run a car and doesn't have the means to use taxis quite often (which are really no better than cars) is going to have an extremely limited lifestyle unless they're fit enough to cycle considerable distances (though I suppose e-bikes help here).

I am not doubting you. The trend towards dispersal of the concentration of all activities in city/town centres (often exacerbated exactly by car unfriendly policies/capacity issues) to out of town retail and business parks has all but destroyed the business cases of volume public transport on the major spoke routes in the smaller urban areas, aside from making travelling by public transport radially across the suburbs inconvenient (changes) and slow (changes and circuitous routes), and likely making the 'wildest dreams' networks just too expensive to provide. Just look around you at the Northamptons and Rugbys and Ketterings and Peterboroughs to see how depressing public transport provision can be. (and not necessarily the operator's fault - they can only work in the built and financial environment they find themselves in)

 

[LOL The Irony]

HS3 - (Which one?)

A 275km/h rail line from Liverpool Lime Street to Hull Paragon via Warrington Bank Quay, Manchester Interchange, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford Interchange, Leeds and York.

 

[zwk500]

A 275km/h rail line from Liverpool Lime Street to Hull Paragon via Warrington Bank Quay, Manchester Interchange, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford Interchange, Leeds and York.

For how long would you manage to exceed 200kph on this line?

 

[HSTEd]

For how long would you manage to exceed 200kph on this line?

The Tokaido Shinkansen (285km/h top speed) manages average service speeds approaching 170km/h with 30km stop spacings.

High power EMUs with very high fractions of motored axles can achieve quite impressive performance, N700(S/A) class Shinkansen sets have 56 of 64 axles motored.

You would easily manage 200km/h+ on the sections between Manchester-Bradford, Leeds-York and York-Hull.

EDIT:
My example timetable for that figure is from 2010, they've now reached ~190km/h speed on the sample journey (Nishi-Akashi to Himeji - 32km in ~10 minutes now, so 170-210km/h).

EDIT #2:

The Tokaido Shinkansen often manages the 49km from Shizuoka to Kakegawa in 13 minutes, for an average speed on order of 226km/h!
It would imply 13 minutes from Manchester to Bradford and about 14-15 from Hull to York

 

[LOL The Irony]

For how long would you manage to exceed 200kph on this line?

I would envision them to be Liverpool - Manchester (minus stop for Warrington), Manchester - Bradford and Leeds - Hull (minus stop for York).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Agh, please use mph! Kilometres make no sense to me.

Tbh I think HS3 may as well be a 140 mph Javelin style line if its ever built.

 

[zwk500]

Agh, please use mph! Kilometres make no sense to me.

1mi = 1.609344km, or 5miles = 8km. When comparing HSR, using kph is far easier as that's what everybody else uses.

Tbh I think HS3 may as well be a 140 mph Javelin style line if its ever built.

It won't be being built.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Agh, please use mph! Kilometres make no sense to me.

275kph is 170mph and 285kph is 177mph. If you ever get stuck, google have conversion calculators for measurements such as speed.

 

[43066]

You appear to live in London. That says everything, really.

Along with many, many millions of others, many of whom use public transport constantly.

de London, the poster is sadly totally correct. If I had no car, I'd be lost here without a bicycle.

You did also recently say that you considered five minutes (IIRC) an unreasonable length of time to have to walk for public transport!

Even living in London, that will be a shorter walk than many face.

I also live [in an urban area, but not a dense urban area] within walking distance of a railway station with lots of trains, but they have the inherent problem of usually not going to where I want to go, when I want to go (and I am a public transport orientated person so will make allowances, but not at any price of time and/or cost).

With respect, it’s pretty clear from your posts that you’re generally anti public transport and pro car. Perhaps you don’t travel much beyond your own local area.

Very, very few of those people I know when asked would wish to give up their private transport for public transport. Little really to do with fares - just convenience and control.

This is a false binary; it doesn’t have to be choice between one or the other. A minority of people will depend solely on public transport, many more will both have a car but still regularly use public transport. My own parents (retired baby boomers living in an affluent but sparsely populated part of the south east with correspondingly high car ownership) are a case in point based on my experience; they are reliant on cars, but also regularly use trains. They use buses least of all (basically never), because their local buses have been pared back to almost nothing, largely due to the government’s decision to starve them of subsidy.

Given what we know about our growing and increasingly urbanised population, fewer and fewer young people taking up driving etc. the trend appears to be against private car ownership.

The court room again! It is my opinion, based on my experience, that most people want their private transport (and aspire to it if they are not owners yet) and not rely on public transport (for reasons already mentioned). Therefore it would be reasonable to draw the conclusion that subsidising car factories would be voted for over train factories. That isn't to say many of them don't ever use public transport, but if it were a choice......

It’s not a question of being in a courtroom; however you do have an irritating tendency to speak as though you an alone speak for most people/everybody and that other experiences aren’t relevant.

The odd hypothetical above reflects your own obvious dislike of subsidy for anything other than roads and the private motorist.

It may well be that there is a theoretical scenario where we all change our lives to revolve around public transport (there being many, many life activities which would be curtailed or altered if this were to be so). I am not talking about today's public transport, but even the network of the wildest dreams - society has changed (for good and for bad depending on your view) so much with the transport freedom that private car ownership has brought the majority. Sad as that may be.

From your posts it’s pretty clear that, far from lamenting the current state of public transport, you favour the current poor provision being entrenched.

Public transport, where it exists and is usable, is very well patronised - London and surrounds being a case in point. As pointed out to you on previous threads, if London’s model could be replicated in other large conurbations there would undoubtedly be an significant uptick in ridership, yet the government is unwilling to come up with the required investment.

Just look around you at the Northamptons and Rugbys and Ketterings and Peterboroughs to see how depressing public transport provision can be. (and not necessarily the operator's fault - they can only work in the built and financial environment they find themselves in)

Those are certainly depressing, bleak places (sadly, on my observation, that description goes for much of the UK, outside London and the southern Home Counties, and away from the scenic/touristy bits of the rest), but I’d hardly say any have depressing public transport provision, certainly in terms of railways.

On a recent visit to Peterborough to renew my passport (no appointments available in London), the best thing about the place was the rapid railway connection enabling me to escape to somewhere a bit nicer!

 

[yorksrob]

On the subject of walks to the station, I have a fifteen minute walk to my local station, which I generally find perfectly convenient. I get by with an hourly service but would be extatic with a half hourly one.

Every line doesn't need metro style frequencies to be a good public transport service - it needs to be reliable, well connected and reasonably priced.

 

[lachlan]

On the subject of walks to the station, I have a fifteen minute walk to my local station, which I generally find perfectly convenient. I get by with an hourly service but would be extatic with a half hourly one.

Every line doesn't need metro style frequencies to be a good public transport service - it needs to be reliable, well connected and reasonably priced.

Indeed, though if we want to increase public transport use by “carrot” instead of “stick” (making cars worse), an hourly frequency won’t cut it for short journeys.

Example being Stonehaven-Aberdeen which has a rather inconsistent frequency and some gaps of over an hour. I guess pro-growth here would be reopening of stations at Cove and Newtonhill, along with new houses at Newtonhill and a good connection to Muchalls village, and an increase of service frequency to at least half-hourly.

 

[43066]

On the subject of walks to the station, I have a fifteen minute walk to my local station, which I generally find perfectly convenient. I get by with an hourly service but would be extatic with a half hourly one.

Every line doesn't need metro style frequencies to be a good public transport service - it needs to be reliable, well connected and reasonably priced.

Indeed. From memory the conversation was around what % of the population has access to public transport. The suggestion was made that, if your local bus stop/station is more than five minutes on foot from where you live, it’s too far to expect you to walk, and therefore should be counted as unusable.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, though if we want to increase public transport use by “carrot” instead of “stick” (making cars worse), an hourly frequency won’t cut it for short journeys.

Example being Stonehaven-Aberdeen which has a rather inconsistent frequency and some gaps of over an hour. I guess pro-growth here would be reopening of stations at Cove and Newtonhill, along with new houses at Newtonhill and a good connection to Muchalls village, and an increase of service frequency to at least half-hourly.

Yes, half hourly should be the standard, except on deep rural routes. It's the difference between something being usable and "a good service"

Indeed. From memory the conversation was around what % of the population has access to public transport. The suggestion was made that, if your local bus stop/station is more than five minutes’ on foot from where you live, it’s too far to expect you to walk, and therefore should be counted as unusable.

I think if more people did walk fifteen minutes for their daily commute, the country would be a healthier place.

 

[Trainbike46]

There would need to be two parts to a pro-growth agenda:
The first is making the railway more attractive to use -given the amount of people who report that the main reason they don't use the railway is (perceived) cost, reducing fares would be a step here.
The second part is ensuring the railway is actually capable of handling the growth in passenger numbers. One way of doing this is longer trains.

Increased frequency is an example of a measure that both makes the railway more attractive and increases the ability of the railway to handle more passengers.