Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

[bramling]

Then you'd be better off just having a system of reservations, rather than a blanket definition of essential journeys.

Yes for intercity trains, but absolutely no hope on commuter services.

And it still doesn’t really get us away from the notion of essential journeys, unless some think that it’s going to be viable for the Jones family going to visit their in-laws to bag a load of scarce seats ahead of someone on a work-related journey?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes for intercity trains, but absolutely no hope on commuter services.

Why? You can number seats on any train. Or you use "counted places".

 

[bramling]

Why? You can number seats on any train. Or you use "counted places".

I think that will be too much of a culture shock for those used to commuting. People will wear it until such time as they miss their booked train, then we run in to the next issue which is how will this be enforced? There’s not going to be a BTP in every carriage.

Don’t forget that even now there’s packed Underground trains running. The east end of the District seems to have been a particular hot spot, but it’s by no means the only one.

It’s a difficult problem to square. One can be sitting nicely socially distanced, then masses pile on at a station further down the line. So I don’t think it will readily self-enforce either.

Ultimately I think they will simply try to suppress demand and tweak supply to match, with some bumps along the way.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes for intercity trains, but absolutely no hope on commuter services.

And it still doesn’t really get us away from the notion of essential journeys, unless some think that it’s going to be viable for the Jones family going to visit their in-laws to bag a load of scarce seats ahead of someone on a work-related journey?

Realistically commuter services are only going to be a portion of the day, even with spread office hours.

You'll be carting around fresh air the rest of the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that will be too much of a culture shock for those used to commuting. People will wear it until such time as they miss their booked train, then we run in to the next issue which is how will this be enforced? There’s not going to be a BTP in every carriage.

To stave this off there needn't be an Advance style rule of loss of value. If you miss it, go get another one. Might mean waiting around, but then you'd have to be more careful next time.

I'd suggest there would be little need for enforcement evidenced by the fact that most people are obeying the lockdown and there is almost no enforcement of that in most places.

 

[sheff1]

Yes for intercity trains, but absolutely no hope on commuter services.

And it still doesn’t really get us away from the notion of essential journeys, unless some think that it’s going to be viable for the Jones family going to visit their in-laws to bag a load of scarce seats ahead of someone on a work-related journey?

Not all work-related journeys are essential. Prior to Covid-19, many on here, and elsewhere, were insistent commuters in the SE had no choice but to commute. Now, many of these who had 'no choice' are working from home and, we are told, can continue to do so effectively 'for ever'.

Why should someone without a car be prevented from seeing relatives just so that people who could work from home, but don't want to, can travel by train ?

Ultimately, if use of public transport is only to be allowed for 'essential journeys' (whatever that means) it ceases to be true public transport.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

An increase to Oyster and Contactless fares in London (over and above peak fares being charged all day and no capping) would also be appropriate.

Absolutely not!

Why should oyster users, and especially key worker making essential journeys to/from work pay more?

 

[JonathanH]

Why should someone without a car be prevented from seeing relatives just so that people who could work from home, but don't want to, can travel by train ?

Someone who can work from home travelling to their place of work is not making an 'essential' journey.

Absolutely not!

Why should oyster users, and especially key worker making essential journeys to/from work pay more?

Supression of discretionary demand. My full quote indicated a possible exemption for key workers. Frankly, if in London you restricted travel to key workers at peak times you could probably fill the trains to the levels possible under social distancing.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

My full quote indicated a possible exemption for key workers. Frankly, if in London you restricted travel to key workers at peak times you could probably fill the trains to the levels possible under social distancing.

Fixed that for you...

 

[trebor79]

Someone who can work from home travelling to their place of work is not making an 'essential' journey.

This is impossible to police though.
I'm also wondering what would be "essential" travel if travelling for work didn't count?
Demand varies anyway. Round these parts the trains are carrying nothing but fresh air all day.

 

[JonathanP]

It probably won't be long until a variety of non-essential activities are permitted. Rock Concerts and Nightclubs might well be off the menu for a very long time, but lots of things can be done whilst still maintaining a alevel of social distancing. Museums are already open in Germany, restaurants will follow soon.

I think the use of public transport has to be considered as integral part and necessary consequence of whatever lockdown easing is chosen. I just can't see how a situation where car owners can gallivant around the country staying in hotels and visiting museums and restaurants, and non-car owners don't go any further than they can walk until a vaccine is found would be tolerated. If it really is the only way, we might as well shut down the passenger rail network and spend the money on subsidising driving lessons, car purchases and road building.

 

[yorkie]

....I think the use of public transport has to be considered as integral part and necessary consequence of whatever lockdown easing is chosen...

I completely agree but I have heard from several reliable sources that certain unions are not cooperating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I completely agree but I have heard from several reliable sources that certain unions are not cooperating.

I'm more than slightly surprised the Tories are not acting on this in a Tory way, it would seem an "opportunity" for them.

As I've said before it is absolutely wrong for the Unions to be leading the national approach to this matter and they must not be allowed to do so.

 

[Qwerty133]

Absolutely not!

Why should oyster users, and especially key worker making essential journeys to/from work pay more?

Tube and Rail Oyster fairs probably shouldn't be increased for key workers but its certainly time bus fares were increased to be more in line with the rest of the country. It's long been totally unacceptable that the richest part of the country has had by far the most access to subsidised public transport and this is something that will have to change as part of the exit strategy.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the use of public transport has to be considered as integral part and necessary consequence of whatever lockdown easing is chosen. I just can't see how a situation where car owners can gallivant around the country staying in hotels and visiting museums and restaurants, and non-car owners don't go any further than they can walk until a vaccine is found would be tolerated. If it really is the only way, we might as well shut down the passenger rail network and spend the money on subsidising driving lessons, car purchases and road building.

Yes, this is absolutely true. The non-motoring part of the population won't stand for it.

Perhaps some sort of banding of trains into workers and non-workers services could be considered, so that key workers could get in and out, but for non-designated services, you'd be travelling at your own risk.

 

[yorksrob]

I completely agree but I have heard from several reliable sources that certain unions are not cooperating.

We can't allow policy to be decided by the unions alone, which is why proposals need to be put out to public scrutiny.

The old "we're doing it for the safety of passengers" line won't wash if passengers are prevented from travelling altogether.

 

[yorkie]

What about if, like me, you work in a job where your variable workload can mean you usually end up finishing at different times on different days and therefore can't specify what train you'll get home?

Or what if you wish to stop off to do your shopping or have a walk before getting your train home?

Some commuters need flexibility - taking that flexibility away isn't an acceptable solution.

Funny you should say that; I was speaking to someone within the industry who had been consulted on such proposals and said pretty much this, and also gave examples of short hop journeys on longer distance trains for which it would be impracticable to require reservations.

Oh and the question was asked whether walk-up fares could be removed from sale!

There are some really crazy suggestions but there are sensible people in the industry who know what is and isn't workable, so hopefully they will be listened to.

We can't allow policy to be decided by the unions alone, which is why proposals need to be put out to public scrutiny.

The old "we're doing it for the safety of passengers" line won't wash if passengers are prevented from travelling altogether.

I agree but they appear to take the view that until there is a vaccine (which could take 12 to 18 months potentially) it is dangerous to work trains if there are more people travelling than at present.

I would take the opposite view; the biggest dangers for most people are actually - by far - the economic and mental impacts of the measures taken to suppress the virus. And if anyone is in a high risk category, they aren't being asked to work anyway.

But certain unions are completely unreasonable and there is no way they are going to care about things like the economy or the greater good. And, don't forget, they are also very powerful.

 

[nedchester]

I completely agree but I have heard from several reliable sources that certain unions are not cooperating.

True the RMT have said they will not be cooperating by operating more services until they receive what they call assurances.....they say services will remain at their current low level.

So if the Government release the lockdown and more people start travelling then it is potentially more dangerous for both the passengers and the staff.

I suspect there's going to be a lot of angry passengers (who may be desperate to get to work and earn money lost over the last 3 months) if they cannot get to work...……

If the economy goes to pot as a result there will be less need for trains and the TOCs / DfT will have to make cut-backs...….

The Tories could also bring in emergency legislation against the unions and with an 80+ majority I can see that getting support.

The RMT are potentially walking straight into a trap of their own arrogance. I say that as a former union rep

 

[yorksrob]

I agree but they appear to take the view that until there is a vaccine (which could take 12 to 18 months potentially) it is dangerous to work trains if there are more people travelling than at present.

I would take the opposite view; the biggest dangers for most people are actually - by far - the economic and mental impacts of the measures taken to suppress the virus. And if anyone is in a high risk category, they aren't being asked to work anyway.

But certain unions are completely unreasonable and there is no way they are going to care about things like the economy or the greater good. And, don't forget, they are also very powerful.

I think even the point about it being dangerous to work trains is highly questionable. For most services, guards and drivers don't even need to be in the same saloon as passengers most of the time. This is far more segregated than retail, for example.

 

[trebor79]

But certain unions are completely unreasonable and there is no way they are going to care about things like the economy or the greater good. And, don't forget, they are also very powerful.

Scargill thought that too. If unions insist on being unreasonable then reason will win out in the end.
I wonder how their members will feel when trains are running with more passengers than now. Running more trains would thin them out but that's not allowed because Bob Crow says so. So actually the union increases the theoretical risk to its members by it's actions?

I think even the point about it being dangerous to work trains is highly questionable. For most services, guards and drivers don't even need to be in the same saloon as passengers most of the time. This is far more segregated than retail, for example.

Indeed. The RMT position on this is completely farcical and beyond any logic.
If services are to remain at a low level then there won't be any need for so many drivers and guards and other staff and they can be made redundant. Is that really what the RMT want?

 

[joncombe]

This is all very sad. I don't travel to work by train because my office is right by what is also my closest station so I walk to work, though now working from home for the foreseeable future. Though I do sometimes use the train for business purposes (to get to the office in London or something else in London) it's not that often. Most of my travel is leisure and it's sad to read that it likely means I won't be allowed to travel by train (or bus) for sometime.

I do have a car so at least if we are allowed to travel for non essential purposes I'll be able to get about, but seemingly not by public transport. Central London for example would essentially be off limits, too far to walk or cycle and I'd not want to drive there, even with less traffic about.

As to the safe operation of trains, is there actually that much that needs to change from a staff point of view? I appreciate keeping passengers the required distance apart is hard, but not sure that is actually the role of rail staff? They can only advise, surely?

The driver is already isolated from the public (largely) in a cab. I would hope there is a wash down of the controls and other surfaces at the end of each shift and when drivers swap, but you'd hope that is already happening anyway. I suppose there is a problem where trains need to reverse en-route and the guard and driver need to swap ends (I'm thinking some branch lines like Gunnislake, Marlow, Esk Valley etc) especially if they cannot do so on a station platform.

THen guards. They are not on all services anyway but where they are on many types of stock I believe the doors can be operated from the unused cab at the back of the train. So again on a lot of routes the guard can safely work in a part of the train segregated from the public if they are not required to check tickets etc (which I believe is the case at the moment .... correct me if I'm wrong).

So perhaps that only leaves types of trains where the doors can only be controlled from within the passenger saloon where there is a problem. In that case would it be possible to partition off the part of the train between the drivers cab and the next passenger door down? So perhaps you lose the front 1/3 of the train for passenger use and the guard can work the doors from there? I know on some types of trains (e.g. SWR do it on the 159s) the door behind the currently used drivers can be locked so it doesn't open from outside. Though stopping passengers trying to get in through that door anyway might be a problem....

 

[joncombe]

I can't really see how a system of compulsory reservations can work especially on commuter trains. Late leaving work? Oops all the rest of the trains today are fully booked. Taxis aren't operating and there aren't any buses. I hope you don't have far to walk..... Sorry can't see that working.

Especially as some key workers might have to be late sometimes (I can't imagine a nurse abandoning an operation half way through because "I've got to get my train") and I'm sure some key workers must be using trains to get to and from work (hospitals in central London, for example). Also as others have pointed out "intercity" trains often act as a local service for at least parts of their route and some stations like e.g. Swindon or Pewsey or Alnmouth are worked almost exclusively by "intercity" services.

 

[Bikeman78]

Scargill thought that too. If unions insist on being unreasonable then reason will win out in the end.
I wonder how their members will feel when trains are running with more passengers than now. Running more trains would thin them out but that's not allowed because Bob Crow says so.

Bob Crow? You're a few years late

 

[trebor79]

Bob Crow? You're a few years late

Oh yeah. Haha. Mick Cash. They play the same annoying broken record so it's hard to tell the difference.

 

[MDB1images]

I completely agree but I have heard from several reliable sources that certain unions are not cooperating.

They have co-operated and assisted the TOCs throughout so I'd be surprised to hear that.

All the Unions will rightly raise concerns about its members welfare(the Teachers union have done so in the last few days, it's not just rail).

The Rail Unions sent a letter to Government....

Safety must be priority to reopen railway | ASLEF

We have joined with our sister unions RMT and TSSA to write to Prime Minister Boris Johnson; Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland; Mark Drakeford, First Minister of Wales, and Sadiqu Khan, Mayor of London, to say this is not the time to lift the lockdown and run more trains.

www.aslef.org.uk

 

[northernchris]

Someone who can work from home travelling to their place of work is not making an 'essential' journey.

However there may be occasions where it is deemed essential. I've been working from home for the passed 7 weeks and a couple of weeks ago had an issue with my work laptop. Luckily IT Support were able to resolve but it was looking likely I would have to call in to an office site for them to manually fix. There's an office within walking distance of me, however company rules now say you are only allowed access to your base office, so in my case it's about 9-10 miles away which until mid March I travelled to most days by train. If this journey wasn't deemed essential it's possible I wouldn't have been able to work

I think the use of public transport has to be considered as integral part and necessary consequence of whatever lockdown easing is chosen. I just can't see how a situation where car owners can gallivant around the country staying in hotels and visiting museums and restaurants, and non-car owners don't go any further than they can walk until a vaccine is found would be tolerated. If it really is the only way, we might as well shut down the passenger rail network and spend the money on subsidising driving lessons, car purchases and road building.

Absolutely, there's many people without access to their own transport and the potential consequences of them being isolated whilst those with cars are able (and have been doing) to travel around needs to be considered along concerns of the unions and transport staff.

It's been widely acknowledged that things will change long term, as people reassess what is important. The more people discouraged of public transport the more travel patterns will change, and therefore make harder to reverse. Transport is likely to be one of the most impacted sectors in the coming months, and no one be it the public or private sector will allow huge losses to rack up without taking action[/QUOTE]

 

[bramling]

They have co-operated and assisted the TOCs throughout so I'd be surprised to hear that.

All the Unions will rightly raise concerns about its members welfare(the Teachers union have done so in the last few days, it's not just rail).

The Rail Unions sent a letter to Government....

Safety must be priority to reopen railway | ASLEF

We have joined with our sister unions RMT and TSSA to write to Prime Minister Boris Johnson; Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland; Mark Drakeford, First Minister of Wales, and Sadiqu Khan, Mayor of London, to say this is not the time to lift the lockdown and run more trains.

www.aslef.org.uk

Yes this idea that the unions are the “problem” is simply wide of the mark. Apart from the legitimate concern over what happens when their members have to go back through the train for whatever reason, the main issue is the 2 metres distancing, and that didn’t originate from the unions.

Just because it makes a good story to talk about “dark forces” doesn’t make it accurate. In fact, with concerns about mental health being raised one could regard talk of dark forces as quite irresponsible in the circumstances.

 

[farleigh]

I'm more than slightly surprised the Tories are not acting on this in a Tory way, it would seem an "opportunity" for them.

As I've said before it is absolutely wrong for the Unions to be leading the national approach to this matter and they must not be allowed to do so.

Yes I agree.

I will be surprised if the government do not take on the railway unions fairly soon - particularly if they are seen to be obstructive to a sensible easing of lockdown. The unions have held and used/abused the power to throw peoples lives into chaos for a long time. Currently they do not have that power and if they are to be brought to heel then there is unlikely to be a better time than the near future.

 

[yorkie]

Yes this idea that the unions are the “problem” is simply wide of the mark. Apart from the legitimate concern over what happens when their members have to go back through the train for whatever reason, the main issue is the 2 metres distancing, and that didn’t originate from the unions.

Just because it makes a good story to talk about “dark forces” doesn’t make it accurate. In fact, with concerns about mental health being raised one could regard talk of dark forces as quite irresponsible in the circumstances.

My sources say otherwise, but of course you would disagree

And the 2m rule really ought to be relaxed; it's totally unworkable going forward. Other countries have more sensible rules.

 

[bramling]

My sources say otherwise, but of course you would disagree

And the 2m rule really ought to be relaxed; it's totally unworkable going forward. Other countries have more sensible rules.

Perhaps you might elaborate a little more on what your sources have told you?

Realistically it may well now be very difficult to reduce the 2 metres, assuming science advises it, as everywhere has now been set up on that basis, and it’s now starting to get ingrained in people’s minds - which of course includes the unions! Perhaps it might be possible to do it subject to wearing masks.