Rail travel encouragement

[Shrop]

Rail travel is being encouraged in many, many places, not least by Government, but how much reality is taken into account?
As a local example, Radio Shropshire this morning pointed out that in the last week alone, 35 trains from Shrewsbury to Birmingham were cancelled. Overcrowding is common on routes throughout the country, not least thanks to short trains. Connections are a thing of the past except by pure luck, and fares are among the highest in the world.
So just what is there to attract people out of their beloved cars? Is Government taking this seriously? Yes, we can slate the attitude of clueless politicians, but what positive ways forward might there be?

 

[Starmill]

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.

 

[JonathanH]

Connections are a thing of the past except by pure luck, and fares are among the highest in the world.

It doesn't help that clichés such as these perpetuate without people looking into whether the statement is true or not. It is a real perception issue.

What exactly does "connections are a thing of the past" mean? The railway runs more frequently than it did in the past and the stations and approach lines aren't built in such a way that everything can connect with everything. Connections won't necessarily be held but the resulting wait might be less than it once was.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regardless of the rest of the world, fares, especially walk-up fares, are outrageous. Attempts to justify this or claim it not to be true really do not help.

As a first line, I would suggest that basically all fares are about 34% overpriced*, though some Anytime fares far more so. For instance there is no possible situation in which £369.40 (three hundred and sixty nine pounds and forty pence) can be considered reasonable for a return journey from London to Manchester in Standard, though it would perhaps be more justifiable were that the First Class fare (which itself is a shocking and disgraceful £510). I can see the need for a peak uplift, but what I would consider reasonable fares would be about £60 Off Peak Return (it is about £90) and about £100-120 Anytime, perhaps, with First Class at a 60% uplift on each.

There might be cheap Advances, but I don't have to book my car a month in advance to get fuel at a reasonable price, nor commit to leaving at a precise time, so Advance fares do not adequately compete with the car. Nor do I have to pay an uplift to leave early in the day. My car is also more comfortable.

* My Network Railcard makes fares in the South East borderline-reasonable.

 

[Horizon22]

Rail travel is being encouraged in many, many places, not least by Government, but how much reality is taken into account?
As a local example, Radio Shropshire this morning pointed out that in the last week alone, 35 trains from Shrewsbury to Birmingham were cancelled. Overcrowding is common on routes throughout the country, not least thanks to short trains. Connections are a thing of the past except by pure luck, and fares are among the highest in the world.
So just what is there to attract people out of their beloved cars? Is Government taking this seriously? Yes, we can slate the attitude of clueless politicians, but what positive ways forward might there be?

My very rough maths suggest there are 2tph for most of the day Shrewsbury - Birmingham. That’s about 30-35 trains per day. Multiply that by 5 and you’ve got 150-170 trains a week. With weekend services it will be around 200 trains. A 15-20% cancellation rate is indeed bad and your route may well be one suffering with more crew shortages than others. But it also isn’t catastrophic levels of cancellations.

Some of the other things you mention are very subjective and simply not true - connections do indeed exist but with a busier network and so many competing factors without a very complex, detailed, national timetable rewrite - which will have losers & winners, it will be impossible to get right everywhere and isn’t as good as it once was (but with benefits to service frequency instead)

As an aside I notice there’s a by-election near you in North Shropshire with campaigning now. This is pertinent because as you rightly mention, one way to resolve these issues is have politicians willing to take the climate crisis seriously and invest in the railway and encourage its usage with practical & beneficial changes.

 

[seagull]

While I agree with many that rail fares here are on the high side: one wonders what chaos would ensue if overnight the fares were halved (say)? Given that even now many trains are full and quite often standing throughout the day in various parts of the country.

What would I suppose be needed is an initial big investment into lengthening platforms at many stations, followed by investment into fleets of longer trains, then the system would stand a chance at coping with the increase in numbers.

 

[Shrop]

It doesn't help that clichés such as these perpetuate without people looking into whether the statement is true or not. It is a real perception issue.

What exactly does "connections are a thing of the past" mean? The railway runs more frequently than it did in the past and the stations and approach lines aren't built in such a way that everything can connect with everything. Connections won't necessarily be held but the resulting wait might be less than it once was.

To spell this out, what "connections are a thing of the past" means, is that some years ago when your train arrived into a station a few minutes late and your intended onward service was in the station at the same time, staff would often take note of your arrival and give you time to cross to your next train. Obviously this varied to some extent depending on the size of the station, but it was a regular thing to hear "passengers for the xx.xx train to xxxxxxx, please cross to platform xx where your onward train is waiting". After privatisation connections became more tenuous and were a lot less reliable when different companies were involved, but today operators often won't even hold a train for passengers arriving from a train of the same company, even when those passengers have reached the onward train and are physically trying to get in.

Anyone who says they've not experienced this probably hasn't done much rail travel and ought to forfeit their right to comment. In any event, the many, many people who have experienced this, along with some of the other issues I made earlier, won't be encouraged out of their cars by derogatory comments about clichés. If their perception is that they've had a bad experience, such as rushing to reach their onward service, then successfully reaching it only to find the door is locked and then departs without them, with their next train being perhaps an hour away, they will vote with their feet and take the car next time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One key advantage of the increased use of Advances is that "big data" could actually let you know who is trying to make connections, so it would be possible to put things in place to deal with a miss or potential miss before it's even apparent to the passenger that there will be a problem.

 

[ChrisC]

To spell this out, what "connections are a thing of the past" means, is that some years ago when your train arrived into a station a few minutes late and your intended onward service was in the station at the same time, staff would often take note of your arrival and give you time to cross to your next train. Obviously this varied to some extent depending on the size of the station, but it was a regular thing to hear "passengers for the xx.xx train to xxxxxxx, please cross to platform xx where your onward train is waiting". After privatisation connections became more tenuous and were a lot less reliable when different companies were involved, but today operators often won't even hold a train for passengers arriving from a train of the same company, even when those passengers have reached the onward train and are physically trying to get in.

Anyone who says they've not experienced this probably hasn't done much rail travel and ought to forfeit their right to comment. In any event, the many, many people who have experienced this, along with some of the other issues I made earlier, won't be encouraged out of their cars by derogatory comments about clichés. If their perception is that they've had a bad experience, such as rushing to reach their onward service, then successfully reaching it only to find the door is locked and then departs without them, with their next train being perhaps an hour away, they will vote with their feet and take the car next time.

In many cases I fully understand why connections are not held. Just a few minutes late can cause big delays further down the line to other trains and cause many more passengers to miss their connections later in the journey. However, I do feel that these days there are far too many instances where two trains are side by side, with a cross platform connection, and just as the doors open on one train and passengers begin to walk across the platform, the doors on the other train are closed and the train departs. This just causes frustration and bad feeling for passengers and does not do the railways any good. Sometimes leaving the doors open for just another 30 seconds would be enough.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

My very rough maths suggest there are 2tph for most of the day Shrewsbury - Birmingham. That’s about 30-35 trains per day. Multiply that by 5 and you’ve got 150-170 trains a week. With weekend services it will be around 200 trains. A 15-20% cancellation rate is indeed bad and your route may well be one suffering with more crew shortages than others. But it also isn’t catastrophic levels of cancellations.

Some of the other things you mention are very subjective and simply not true - connections do indeed exist but with a busier network and so many competing factors without a very complex, detailed, national timetable rewrite - which will have losers & winners, it will be impossible to get right everywhere and isn’t as good as it once was (but with benefits to service frequency instead)

As an aside I notice there’s a by-election near you in North Shropshire with campaigning now. This is pertinent because as you rightly mention, one way to resolve these issues is have politicians willing to take the climate crisis seriously and invest in the railway and encourage its usage with practical & beneficial changes.

If 1 in every 5 trains being cancelled isn't catastrophic what would you suggest is?

 

[Horizon22]

If 1 in every 5 trains being cancelled isn't catastrophic what would you suggest is?

Probably around 1 in 3. Talking about strikes or industrial action level of service. Don’t get me wrong 1 in 5 is pretty bad, but no idea of the exact numbers; I’d say 20% is the upper limit of my very crude maths.

 

[Shrop]

In many cases I fully understand why connections are not held. Just a few minutes late can cause big delays further down the line to other trains and cause many more passengers to miss their connections later in the journey. However, I do feel that these days there are far too many instances where two trains are side by side, with a cross platform connection, and just as the doors open on one train and passengers begin to walk across the platform, the doors on the other train are closed and the train departs. This just causes frustration and bad feeling for passengers and does not do the railways any good. Sometimes leaving the doors open for just another 30 seconds would be enough.

I agree with what you say, except for one thing. Yes, a delay of a few minutes can certainly cause delays further down the line, BUT ... many staff have little or no comprehension of realities when exercising their jobsworth mentalities to release every train on time irrespective of other circumstances. If a train need to be held for less than one minute to allow passengers to join, and there are no conflicting movements within 10 minutes at any conceivable point further along the route (which is particularly the case for late evening services), why do some staff still rigidly insist on on-time departures? It certainly does cause bad feeling as you say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I agree with many that rail fares here are on the high side: one wonders what chaos would ensue if overnight the fares were halved (say)? Given that even now many trains are full and quite often standing throughout the day in various parts of the country.

One key solution is a National Railcard. If you sink a cost into something (say £120/year paid as £10/month DD) you are more likely to use it, and 1/3 off makes fares more reasonable.

I doubt reducing Anytime London-Manchester fares, even significantly (say to £150, even), would cause overcrowding - rather it would stop the trains being half empty. That fare is set to maximise income, not occupancy. Morning peak trains from Manchester to London are quiet enough that they can stop at MKC to load up commuters - really, they should have all seats taken or close to it.

 

[WestRiding]

I would be encouraged to rail more, if; Station Car Park costs were cheap. Using Sheffield as an example, its £19.50 over 8 hours. And I would sooner have less, but longer trains, improving reliability on anything medium to long distance.

 

[Shrop]

Probably around 1 in 3. Talking about strikes or industrial action level of service. Don’t get me wrong 1 in 5 is pretty bad, but no idea of the exact numbers; I’d say 20% is the upper limit of my very crude maths.

It doesn't matter a great deal about the level of cancellations that you might call a catastrophe, although I'd say 1 in 5 is an absolutely appalling level of service. What does matter is that 1 in 5 is more than adequate to deter people from wanting to use the train, and it's more than enough fodder for scandal-hungry journalists, whose stories of rail problems then deter people from rail travel even more.

 

[Watershed]

Probably around 1 in 3. Talking about strikes or industrial action level of service. Don’t get me wrong 1 in 5 is pretty bad, but no idea of the exact numbers; I’d say 20% is the upper limit of my very crude maths.

1 in 5 would, in old money, have been a 'franchise default' level of cancellations.

 

[A0wen]

One key solution is a National Railcard. If you sink a cost into something (say £120/year paid as £10/month DD) you are more likely to use it, and 1/3 off makes fares more reasonable.

I doubt reducing Anytime London-Manchester fares, even significantly (say to £150, even), would cause overcrowding - rather it would stop the trains being half empty. That fare is set to maximise income, not occupancy. Morning peak trains from Manchester to London are quiet enough that they can stop at MKC to load up commuters - really, they should have all seats taken or close to it.

Given many trains are (or were pre Covid) running to capacity, fare reduction is actually the last thing you need because the demand is already there.

So a "National Railcard" which I suspect you are advocating for personal gain rather than genuine altruism, is the wrong thing. What is needed is a focus on the less well used lines to increase their use.

 

[Horizon22]

1 in 5 would, in old money, have been a 'franchise default' level of cancellations.

Yes, but the reasons are well documented and I don't think a default would have been very useful. The OLR isn't going to speed up driver training.

 

[Moonshot]

A lot more people would use trains if rail fares were a lot simpler to understand

 

[Watershed]

Yes, but the reasons are well documented and I don't think a default would have been very useful. The OLR isn't going to speed up driver training.

I'm not suggesting that instating the OLR would make things improve any quicker, but rather just pointing out that cancelling 1 in 5 trains is a very serious situation by any measure. In fact, the situation is far worse than 1 in 5 on most of EMR's regional routes. To suggest it's not catastrophic seems, to me, to be rather wide of the mark.

 

[bramling]

Rail travel is being encouraged in many, many places, not least by Government, but how much reality is taken into account?
As a local example, Radio Shropshire this morning pointed out that in the last week alone, 35 trains from Shrewsbury to Birmingham were cancelled. Overcrowding is common on routes throughout the country, not least thanks to short trains. Connections are a thing of the past except by pure luck, and fares are among the highest in the world.
So just what is there to attract people out of their beloved cars? Is Government taking this seriously? Yes, we can slate the attitude of clueless politicians, but what positive ways forward might there be?

There isn't much positive. For the last few years or more, the attitude has been that demand will come no matter what happens. There now needs to be a focus on quality, and this may well be a hard lesson to learn.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I should be wary of believing the figure of 35 quoted verbally. Could be more or less, and what about trains that ran but very late, maybe after the 'next' service?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

What exactly does "connections are a thing of the past" mean? The railway runs more frequently than it did in the past and the stations and approach lines aren't built in such a way that everything can connect with everything. Connections won't necessarily be held but the resulting wait might be less than it once was.

In my experience in a "right-time railway world", connecting trains don't wait if an inbound train is delayed, even by a few minutes. In BR days, the connection was usually held but this is definately a thing of the past

 

[snookertam]

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.

I would agree with much of this. Don’t know necessarily about the wider strategic position objectives but certainly the incentives to use the train instead of the car are the weakest I've ever known in Scotland. It is frustrating because the only thing preventing a better approach is political will and imagination. If governments wanted to make the situation better they would do it.

 

[A0wen]

A lot more people would use trains if rail fares were a lot simpler to understand

But would they ? I know the argument "oh but the fares are complicated" gets peddled alot of the time - but if that were genuinely the case, then I'd expect advances, specific operator tickets etc not to sell, but the evidence is the opposite and people do buy them and use them.

I suspect the number of people who get on the "wrong" train for the ticket they have is in penny figures - and the occasional complaint is vastly overblown for the genuine number of instances.

 

[JonathanH]

I would be encouraged to rail more, if; Station Car Park costs were cheap. Using Sheffield as an example, its £19.50 over 8 hours. And I would sooner have less, but longer trains, improving reliability on anything medium to long distance.

Car parking is a very difficult issue. On the one hand, there should clearly be a desire to avoid people driving into city centres and pricing up car parking which is often a scarce facility should act as some discouragement. It also recognises that it can be expensive to provide.

On the other hand making it cheaper encourages use of the train and stops people driving all the way to their destination

A tricky balance.

 

[Horizon22]

In my experience in a "right-time railway world", connecting trains don't wait if an inbound train is delayed, even by a few minutes. In BR days, the connection was usually held but this is definately a thing of the past

It really isn't. Many TOCs have "connection policies" by which a train can be held for up to X minutes to ensure connections are met.

 

[bramling]

But would they ? I know the argument "oh but the fares are complicated" gets peddled alot of the time - but if that were genuinely the case, then I'd expect advances, specific operator tickets etc not to sell, but the evidence is the opposite and people do buy them and use them.

I suspect the number of people who get on the "wrong" train for the ticket they have is in penny figures - and the occasional complaint is vastly overblown for the genuine number of instances.

I tend to agree that I don't think fares are the biggest incentive/disincentive. I have my annual sitting in my wallet, it runs to December, yet this year I hate to think how little it's been used.

There's a big problem if someone who enjoys travelling by train, can essentially do so for free, and on paper rail offers the quickest means of undertaking my journey, is choosing to use the car instead. Simple answer - quality.

 

[Starmill]

I would agree with much of this. Don’t know necessarily about the wider strategic position objectives but certainly the incentives to use the train instead of the car are the weakest I've ever known in Scotland. It is frustrating because the only thing preventing a better approach is political will and imagination. If governments wanted to make the situation better they would do it.

Indeed I quite agree. And I imagine fares will rise by more than inflation in England at least come 2022.

 

[Moonshot]

But would they ? I know the argument "oh but the fares are complicated" gets peddled alot of the time - but if that were genuinely the case, then I'd expect advances, specific operator tickets etc not to sell, but the evidence is the opposite and people do buy them and use them.

I suspect the number of people who get on the "wrong" train for the ticket they have is in penny figures - and the occasional complaint is vastly overblown for the genuine number of instances.

Simple fare structure is what is needed.....this industry is appalling for inefficient operations. I'm not surprised the operating costs are so high