BBC Inside Out ''Why are Trains so Overcrowded in the NW''

[Eagle]

Also I believe Network Rail have a longterm ambition for 3tph from London to Newcastle (of which 2 to Edinburgh); it certainly keeps getting mentioned in their route specifications.

 

[tbtc]

Also I believe Network Rail have a longterm ambition for 3tph to Newcastle (of which 2 to Edinburgh); it certainly keeps getting mentioned in their route specifications.

From where? Manchester?

 

[Greybeard33]

It was one interesting show. I saw it using the BBC iPlayer (using a UK VPN from here in Canada).

The show discusses several issues:

- That there was some 40% traffic growth in Northern's franchise area since the franchise began far and above the zero percent growth estimated by the DfT.
- As a result: at peak times trains are overcrowded more that ever, creating an unsafe traveling environment.
- That the old pacers are operating beyond their estimated life expectancy and too dangerous to be operating today.
- The theory of Peak Car. That private car use (per capita) is declining in several regions in the UK. That if the trend continues or accelerates that we will see an underfunding gap in railway infrastructure.

In my opinion the programme was irresponsible in attempting to merge three distinct safety-related issues:
- H&S risks of overcrowding on commuter services (not unique to Northern or limited to Pacers)
- Pacer crashworthiness (not up to current standards, but high speed collisions are highly improbable)
- Pacer cardan shaft failures (I understand steps have been taken to mitigate the risk).

I am no lover of Pacers, but whipping up safety hysteria about them could result in a political snowball effect leading to premature withdrawal of the entire fleet, before replacements are available. This would inevitably result in cancellation of many Northern services and much worse overcrowding on the remainder. Many stations would effectively lose their morning peak service completely, since the trains would be full before they got there. This would force many more people on to the roads, increasing the risk of road traffic accidents.

While the risk of death or serious injury in a Pacer may be somewhat higher than in a Sprinter or a more modern unit, I am sure it is still much less than if the same journey is made by bus or car.

 

[Eagle]

From where? Manchester?

From London.

Post amended

 

[northwichcat]

- H&S risks of overcrowding on commuter services (not unique to Northern or limited to Pacers)

This would be worst on bouncy Pacers though, especially the ones with the bus seating.

This would inevitably result in cancellation of many Northern services and much worse overcrowding on the remainder.

In such circumstances I imagine other operators would be forced to sublease units to fill some of the void, so would likely result in peak time short forming around the country.

 

[tbtc]

In my opinion the programme was irresponsible in attempting to merge three distinct safety-related issues:
- H&S risks of overcrowding on commuter services (not unique to Northern or limited to Pacers)
- Pacer crashworthiness (not up to current standards, but high speed collisions are highly improbable)
- Pacer cardan shaft failures (I understand steps have been taken to mitigate the risk).

I am no lover of Pacers, but whipping up safety hysteria about them could result in a political snowball effect leading to premature withdrawal of the entire fleet, before replacements are available. This would inevitably result in cancellation of many Northern services and much worse overcrowding on the remainder. Many stations would effectively lose their morning peak service completely, since the trains would be full before they got there. This would force many more people on to the roads, increasing the risk of road traffic accidents.

While the risk of death or serious injury in a Pacer may be somewhat higher than in a Sprinter or a more modern unit, I am sure it is still much less than if the same journey is made by bus or car.

Agreed (both about not being a huge fan of Pacers and being wary of the safety hysteria).

I accept that you couldn't build a new Pacer now as they don't meet the newbuild regulations. But then the same could be said of plenty of stock.

THere are plenty of reasons to dislike Pacers, but pretending that they are "unsafe" is pretty poor journalism.

From London.

Post amended

Cheers - presumably this'll require an extension of the London - Newark/ York "stoppers" (due to lack of extra paths over Welwyn)? Unless they clamp down on Open Access? Certainly sounds like plenty IEP would be required!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For certain the headline 3 hour Newcastle-Liverpool service, which will become EMU operated. Newcastle is likely to get 2tph to Manchester and beyond but I don't know what Middlesbrough will get - a shuttle service to York or diverted XC Voyager services?

As Pacer replacement has been mentioned (even though there is no program for it) the North East will certainly benefit from any such scheme.

Also as Manchester Metrolink has been mentioned, Tyne and Wear Metro is currently undergoing/has undergone a £255m modernisation program with proposed future developments also on the cards.

So there's basically no new lines, no new stations, just refurbishment of existing things (and maybe some extra Pacers cascaded from Manchester) for the north east of England.

 

[Bevan Price]

The programme showed the effects of the Winsford collision, but I would be more concerned with the body & frame distortion that occurred when 142.059 rammed the buffer stops at Liverpool Lime St., fortunately with no passengers on board.

As a former workplace safety representative, I am not happy that cycles are allowed on Pacers. Anything that hinders access to exit points was considered a potential safety hazard, and having cycles "parked" in front of doors would have been viewed with horror. They can be a nuisance on other types of train, but on Pacers they can interfere with the inward-opening door mechanism.

Although it will horrify cyclists, in my opinion, if cycles are to be allowed on trains, they should be in a separate compartment (e.g. "guards compartment), not in passenger saloon areas.

 

[Eagle]

Also I believe Network Rail have a longterm ambition for 3tph from London to Newcastle (of which 2 to Edinburgh); it certainly keeps getting mentioned in their route specifications.

From this 2011 document, page 5:

LDHS services between King's Cross and Peterborough
Current
2 tph (3 peak) King’s Cross to Newcastle/Scotland
1 tph King’s Cross to Newark/York
2 tph (3 peak) King’s Cross to Leeds
1 tph King’s Cross to Hull or Sunderland or Bradford Interchange

+10 years [2021]
3 tph King’s Cross to Newcastle/Scotland
2 tph (3 peak) King’s Cross to Leeds
1 tph King’s Cross to Hull or Sunderland or Bradford Interchange
2 tph King’s Cross to Yorkshire (exact destination t.b.c.)

+30 years [2041]
3 tph King’s Cross to Newcastle/Scotland
3 tph King’s Cross to Leeds
1 tph King’s Cross to Hull or Sunderland or Bradford Interchange
2 tph King’s Cross to Yorkshire (exact destination t.b.c.)

So that's an increase from 5 or 6 tph to 9 tph off-peak. Not sure how that'll work. (Also it's nice to see the optimism regarding the open operators' services still being around unchanged in 30 years' time.)

 

[142094]

Plus the funding for the Tyne and Wear Metro really will only have an effect in a limited area - plus the funding is from the DfT and Nexus, and doesn't really involve Network Rail.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

my bold

Others have already pointed out your timeline errors, I will point out your georgaphical errors! Since when are lines which go from London to either Yorksjire or Cornwall part of the South East? Frankly any credibility yout post may have had is blown away by that deliberate misrepresentation alone!

Oh, and I am sorry but Manchester is not in the same class in terms of commuter load, population, size or frankly importance as London. If anywhere has cause to complain I would say it is Birmingham and the West Midlands about the disproportionate spending in the North West!

Shouldn't you be actually saying disproportionate LACK of spending in the North West? :roll:

 

[30907]

I accept that you couldn't build a new Pacer now as they don't meet the newbuild regulations. But then the same could be said of plenty of stock.

THere are plenty of reasons to dislike Pacers, but pretending that they are "unsafe" is pretty poor journalism.

I recall a similar discussion over Mk 1 stock crashworthiness on various occasions (including Clapham Junction) - nothing to do with slam doors BTW.

And if you go back into history, wooden-bodied coaches were likewise less crashworthy than all-steel...

I was also concerned at the suggestion that a Pacer running into a car on a level crossing would cause anything like the level of damage we saw at Winsford (or even Lime Street) - as the tragic incident near Finningley shows, a car would simply be brushed aside or crushed. (The discussion was accompanied by a picture of a train passing at "high speed" - ie about 30mph.)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I was also concerned at the suggestion that a Pacer running into a car on a level crossing would cause anything like the level of damage we saw at Winsford (or even Lime Street) - as the tragic incident near Finningley shows, a car would simply be brushed aside or crushed. (The discussion was accompanied by a picture of a train passing at "high speed" - ie about 30mph.)

Whilst I would have agreed with that in the past, we wouldn't have expected a car being hit by an HST to cause fatalities on board the train (granted it was not because of the car specifically), or there be fatalities on a 225 having hit a car on the track (granted this was after a secondary collision with a freight train), yet they happened. So we must allow for events transpiring that *could* lead to tragic circumstances (though I do accept these are, thankfully, the minority of cases).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Although it will horrify cyclists, in my opinion, if cycles are to be allowed on trains, they should be in a separate compartment (e.g. "guards compartment), not in passenger saloon areas.

Not sure why you think it would horrify cyclists? I well remember the days when trains had decent large guards compartments that you could put cycles in - which meant that having left your bike, you could sit down in comfort for the journey - much pleasanter than the current arrangements where you basically have to stand with your bike around the doors for the entire journey on most trains, quite aside from being able to turn up and go without reserving. I largely stopped using trains for cycling trips when you stopped being able to put cycles in guards vans, and personally, I'd love to be able to do that again. The problem is of course that there's no way you could justify reserving so much space for bikes/etc. (instead of providing additional seats) while trains remain so crowded. I hope one day there'll have been enough investment in capacity that it'll be possible to reintroduce decent sized luggage/cycle areas again.