can public transport ever recover from COVID-19

[Bletchleyite]

The only sensible option I can see is to bring in flexible season tickets pro rated on annual ticket rates (so if you pay 3/5 of the annual ticket price, you get 3x return journeys a week (not able to carry over), which should be easy to set up on smartcard systems). Or 2/5 or 4/5, whatever the passenger desires. Something has to change to be more passenger orientated, as the railway can no longer survive on 5-day a week commuters.

If you look at most South East commuter routes, a day's monthly season ticket travel (assuming you travel 5/7 days a week) is usually roughly the same as an Off Peak Day Return / Travelcard.

The obvious answer is therefore not to complicate things, but to abolish Anytime fares entirely (well, to reduce them to Off Peak levels, move any Super Off Peak to Off Peak and bin Super Off Peak).

Away from London Anytimes tend not to be set at "penalty" rates, so you probably wouldn't need to do much there.

 

[Mikey C]

Every cloud has a silver lining. One group the industry will likely not be missing. They cause more trouble than they’re worth.

A massive generalisation

 

[Jamesrob637]

If you want nobody to use the trains and everybody to drive, yes.

Or increase everybody's salary by 67 per cent so it's all relative.

 

[AM9]

If you look at most South East commuter routes, a day's monthly season ticket travel (assuming you travel 5/7 days a week) is usually roughly the same as an Off Peak Day Return / Travelcard.

The obvious answer is therefore not to complicate things, but to abolish Anytime fares entirely (well, to reduce them to Off Peak levels, move any Super Off Peak to Off Peak and bin Super Off Peak).

Away from London Anytimes tend not to be set at "penalty" rates, so you probably wouldn't need to do much there.

Whilst there may be short term increased subsidy for commuter fares, given the likely permanent increase in WFH and the consequential reduction of peak travel, either there will a significant reduction of peak capacity (effectively returning peak load factors to to those normal before COVID-19), of commuter fares will have to increase to meet the cost of running lighter-loaded trains. There is not much likelihood of increasing the already high subsidy when both trains and roads are less congested.
The other factor here is the commitment to the reduction of CO2 levels caused by IC engined vehicles. Cities (and then towns) will progress along the path of restricting polluting road vehicles so driving to work in them will not be the cheap option for long.* Thus the reduction of capacity on rail to maintain pre-COVID-19 levels of loading is likely to continue.
Off-peak to attract the more valuable leisure traveller will continue much as it did before this year.

*Forthcoming road pricing will be used to control the volume of low polluting EVs to enter urban areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2020 ==

Or increase everybody's salary by 67 per cent so it's all relative.

So who has to pay 100% of their salary on their season ticket?

 

[The Ham]

Whilst there may be short term increased subsidy for commuter fares, given the likely permanent increase in WFH and the consequential reduction of peak travel, either there will a significant reduction of peak capacity (effectively returning peak load factors to to those normal before COVID-19), of commuter fares will have to increase to meet the cost of running lighter-loaded trains. There is not much likelihood of increasing the already high subsidy when both trains and roads are less congested.
The other factor here is the commitment to the reduction of CO2 levels caused by IC engined vehicles. Cities (and then towns) will progress along the path of restricting polluting road vehicles so driving to work in them will not be the cheap option for long.* Thus the reduction of capacity on rail to maintain pre-COVID-19 levels of loading is likely to continue.
Off-peak to attract the more valuable leisure traveller will continue much as it did before this year.

*Forthcoming road pricing will be used to control the volume of low polluting EVs to enter urban areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2020 ==


So who has to pay 100% of their salary on their season ticket?

This comes back to how much do you think the subsidy for rail actually is?

Although there's a figure of £4bn or more each year most of that is for rail infrastructure enhancements. If there's less demand, then we'd need less of these enhancements. When you exclude those enhancements the subsidy is £600 million per year or less (with many years it being closer to £200 million).

Even if we double the subsidy to £1.2bn that's still going to be less than many think that the railways get.

 

[AM9]

This comes back to how much do you think the subsidy for rail actually is?

Although there's a figure of £4bn or more each year most of that is for rail infrastructure enhancements. If there's less demand, then we'd need less of these enhancements. When you exclude those enhancements the subsidy is £600 million per year or less (with many years it being closer to £200 million).

Even if we double the subsidy to £1.2bn that's still going to be less than many think that the railways get.

To be honest I haven't looked at the subsidy figures that the national railway as a whole receives from public funds, - however I was addressing the discussion on how reduced demand for commuter journeys in the peak (beyond the short term) should be dealt with. Until March this year, the average regular commuter paid about the same as a discounted off-peak fare for anytime travel. That peak capacity was provided at great expense in staff costs, rolling stock and in the case of the highest volume routes, (mainly in the south-east) in dedicated infrastructure that would otherwise not be needed. The fares that those travellers paid was subsidised by one or more of the following:

a) higher fares for non-season ticket travellers who paid about 30% more for the same anytime journeys​

b) marginally higher fares for off-peak travellers whose travel could easily be accommodated within a non-subsidised railway system​

c) a direct or indirect subsidy from public funds, - either by use of the infrastructure at below true cost of by actual transfer of funds​

Some posts in this thread seem to infer that the same number of trains of the same length be run even when the traffic gas settled down to a new (lower) normal peak level. Whilst that may be very convenient for those travelling in an over-capacity railway, it does seriously depress the return on fares when those fewer passengers are paying fares that are still subsidised anyway. Meanwhile, the leisure market, (which is generally optional) continues to in part prop up that subsidy.
However, on the subject of overall subsidy which you say is mainly for enhancements, how much of that really is to meet capacity demands that are there for about four hours per day?, i.e. as was the case for the Thameslink Programme, Crossrail (DfT contribution), several schemes on the BML and the SWML, Leeds station - even the St Albans station improvement etc., plus there are many more in the RNEP that are there because of existing capacity/congestion limitations but only when assesed in terms of pre-COVID-19 demands. I was just suggesting that a reduction in peak demand may not come with the current level of peak-fare subsidy and much more train capacity than is being paid for with the current fares.

 

[greyman42]

Every cloud has a silver lining. One group the industry will likely not be missing. They cause more trouble than they’re worth.

Considering the amount of money they contribute to the industry and the local economy i would doubt that is true.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Every cloud has a silver lining. One group the industry will likely not be missing. They cause more trouble than they’re worth.

At a time when lack of revenue threatens big cuts to services in future, I don’t think there’s anything to celebrate in any group of passengers not using trains.
Assuming of course they are buying tickets and paying for their travel. Unlike one of our so-called ‘betters’ who dodged fares for years despite being wealthy and commuting into London from Kent....

 

[Peter Sarf]

Other variables also come into play, such as WFH impacting on miles traveled by car, as an example of you do 10,000 miles a year of which 8,500 is commuting (19 miles each way) then if you are mostly at home would you bother with a car for a total of 3,000 miles a year of travel is other options are available? (passengers usings for commuting 19 miles each way is 39 round trips, so only slightly less than 1/week (48 working weeks are fairly standard).

Likewise WFH could well impact on the number of 2+ car households, which would likely result in a few trips a year where rail is used where otherwise people would have just driven both cars (quite probably to different locations).

Finally it's worth noting that 1 car journey removed from the road network may result in 2+ passengers using the rail network.

I think car usage will stay higher until a while after Covid-19 has completely gone away. I will be hanging on to my car. We used to go to Cardiff from London by Coach. I will never do that again until I am VERY sure that I will not catch Covid-19.

I drive to work and now make a long detour via my partners work. Her boss has made her working hours very flexible to fit in with my times. She does not drive but if she did we would be buying a second car and using it.

My feeling is that currently anyone who has a car is using it so as to avoid public transport - central London excepted probably. I have noticed that traffic in Croydon is getting worse than the same time last year.

What I find stunning is that, at a time of crisis, London is planning to extend the ULEZ out to the North and South circular roads. With peoples fear of public transport that is only going to cause even more difficulty.

Whilst there may be short term increased subsidy for commuter fares, given the likely permanent increase in WFH and the consequential reduction of peak travel, either there will a significant reduction of peak capacity (effectively returning peak load factors to to those normal before COVID-19), of commuter fares will have to increase to meet the cost of running lighter-loaded trains. There is not much likelihood of increasing the already high subsidy when both trains and roads are less congested.
The other factor here is the commitment to the reduction of CO2 levels caused by IC engined vehicles. Cities (and then towns) will progress along the path of restricting polluting road vehicles so driving to work in them will not be the cheap option for long.* Thus the reduction of capacity on rail to maintain pre-COVID-19 levels of loading is likely to continue.
Off-peak to attract the more valuable leisure traveller will continue much as it did before this year.

*Forthcoming road pricing will be used to control the volume of low polluting EVs to enter urban areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2020 ==


So who has to pay 100% of their salary on their season ticket?

While Covid-19 is at large any reduction in peak time capacity would be very unfortunate as people need to distance more. For myself I gave up commuting to London so as to avoid the inhumane conditions - particularly on the tube. So any increase in space would be welcome.

So as far as central London is concerned I voted with my feet and avoid it. I think that maybe we are going to witness London becoming unsustainable as a work place ?.

So to answer the question "can public transport ever recover from COVID-19" I think the answer is no. I think people will go for quality of life.

 

[theironroad]

......

 

[philosopher]

.While Covid-19 is at large any reduction in peak time capacity would be very unfortunate as people need to distance more. For myself I gave up commuting to London so as to avoid the inhumane conditions - particularly on the tube. So any increase in space would be welcome.

So as far as central London is concerned I voted with my feet and avoid it. I think that maybe we are going to witness London becoming unsustainable as a work place ?.

So to answer the question "can public transport ever recover from COVID-19" I think the answer is no. I think people will go for quality of life.

It the tube were to become considerably less crowded, then it would no longer be so unpleasant so that may draw people back onto the tube. Of course this assumes services are not reduced.

Also even with a very large shift to home working, offices in Central London are still going to be used for meetings, training, work events and that sort of thing. In London, Central London for most companies is still going to be best place to have work meetings as it is the most accessible location in London. Therefore I think there will always be some office commuting to Central London. The question is how much.

 

[PTR 444]

One other thing to bear in mind is that some people working remotely may not wish to work in their home all the time. An item on my local BBC evening news is reporting how a handful of pubs are letting ‘home workers’ use their facilities for the day to work from. This is beneficial to the employees as they can get away from the distractions of their home environment while not having to travel all the way to their workplace. It also has the added benefit of being able to meet colleagues if they all live close enough.

To put it into context, imagine four people who work at a small firm in Central London. They live in Poole, Salisbury, Fareham and Farnborough, and all commuted by train before Covid. Their employer is looking at keeping them WFH permanently, but they still want to meet up to do their job. The employees look at places they could meet, but realise they don’t have to go all the way into Central London, so they look at possible public WFH spaces that are easily reachable for all in terms of travel distance. They could quite feasibly meet in Woking, Basingstoke or Southampton to do their job if there were adequate public WFH spaces there. It could actually help stimulate rail travel as such workers would not be ditching trains altogether, but rather switching to a different season ticket to somewhere closer and cheaper than London.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think car usage will stay higher until a while after Covid-19 has completely gone away. I will be hanging on to my car. We used to go to Cardiff from London by Coach. I will never do that again until I am VERY sure that I will not catch Covid-19.

I'm sure you are right, thanks to project fear. Londoners are using public transport in reasonable numbers though. I spent almost every day off in August and September travelling around the UK by train without so much as a cough or a sneeze.

 

[bramling]

If you want nobody to use the trains and everybody to drive, yes.

Driving to London isn’t really a viable option for many. I can get away with it as I don’t travel at peak times and have a guaranteed parking space (though any congestion charge extension may mess that up a bit, though I can still get round it). However for many these factors simply don’t apply. To be honest I still prefer to go by train as it’s less hassle.

 

[StephenHunter]

One of the big positives of privatisation was the major increase in railway salaries. The unions will not be happy about those plans at all.

 

[dk1]

One of the big positives of privatisation was the major increase in railway salaries. The unions will not be happy about those plans at all.

Exactly. I can never fault privatisation for that as has done nothing but good for me. Confuses me why many unionists are so against it.

 

[Richard Scott]

So to answer the question "can public transport ever recover from COVID-19" I think the answer is no. I think people will go for quality of life.

To some of us quality of life is being able to use public transport. I would happily use it regularly now if it were feasible. The virus thing doesn't worry me in the slightest, I've been to parts of Europe by train, flown, used buses and underground services all since this thing started and not bothered me in the slightest. Was actually good for my mental well-being.

 

[The Ham]

I think car usage will stay higher until a while after Covid-19 has completely gone away. I will be hanging on to my car. We used to go to Cardiff from London by Coach. I will never do that again until I am VERY sure that I will not catch Covid-19.

I drive to work and now make a long detour via my partners work. Her boss has made her working hours very flexible to fit in with my times. She does not drive but if she did we would be buying a second car and using it.

My feeling is that currently anyone who has a car is using it so as to avoid public transport - central London excepted probably. I have noticed that traffic in Croydon is getting worse than the same time last year.

What I find stunning is that, at a time of crisis, London is planning to extend the ULEZ out to the North and South circular roads. With peoples fear of public transport that is only going to cause even more difficulty.



While Covid-19 is at large any reduction in peak time capacity would be very unfortunate as people need to distance more. For myself I gave up commuting to London so as to avoid the inhumane conditions - particularly on the tube. So any increase in space would be welcome.

So as far as central London is concerned I voted with my feet and avoid it. I think that maybe we are going to witness London becoming unsustainable as a work place ?.

So to answer the question "can public transport ever recover from COVID-19" I think the answer is no. I think people will go for quality of life.

There's two different times, the first which you directive in your post which is likely to be with us for another (say) 9 months until a vaccine can be rolled out and/or Covid-19 has run th through the population (whilst at 500/100,000 it'll take 200 weeks to infect everyone, however once it's got to 60% then it's going to drop away a lot, so likely to be about 120 weeks; and if there's any significant number of people who show no symptoms then it's likely to be quite a bit shorter).

The second is likely to beyond 2022 where things have returned towards what we had before (although it's never going to be exactly the same as some things will change), which is where overall travel is likely to be lower and therefore rail could well see passenger numbers back towards 2019 levels. Yes it may be 2035 before the levels get back to 2019 figures, however it should be remembered that a 20% fall would only roll is back to 2012 passenger levels.

Yes different areas would see different levels of impact, but even a 30% fall in many South East rail services heading towards London in the morning peak isn't going to leave those trains empty of passengers.

Yes travel patterns will change, but there's going to be some who will wish to carry on working in an office full time or nearly full time, including those in 1:3 goals which only have 1 person in (whilst quite a few are likely to be older people there's often a lot of house shares where they don't want to be with their house mates 24/7 and so would probably feel similarly).

There's other reasons we people would like to go to the office, including not having children distracting them (even if that's only after school and maybe even then maybe even only on some days).

The likelihood of WFH being an average of much more than 50% of time and it being much higher than 70% of all jobs being suitable (often 40% and 50% get cited, but given that rail is likely to attract more commuting from those jobs which can be done remotely I've used a higher figure), then there's 65% of rail travel is commuting. 70% of 65 is 45.5, 50% of that is 22.75, under that outcome that's a 23% drop in rail use.

However if 25% of people are working in the office full time, to get to an average of 50% then the rest would need to work from home an average of approaching 70%, that's 3 days a fortnight in the office as an average.

Most people wouldn't want to be in for less than 4 days a fortnight (2 days a week), but there's going to be many who would be fairly happy at 2 days a week at home. As such I suspect 50% average WFH is unlikely, and why a fall of 10%-15% is where I suspect that trail travel could up at once there's a bit more normality.

 

[AM9]

It the tube were to become considerably less crowded, then it would no longer be so unpleasant so that may draw people back onto the tube. Of course this assumes services are not reduced. ...

That is the issue. The tube, and commuter rail in general, is scaled for a level of peak demand that means a degree of crowding and plenty of standing. Where victorian or later infrastructure can't or is unlikely to be enhanced, the situation may well improve slightly because at 2019 levels it was limiting those routes' capacity. Where lines have the capacity, particularly if there has been recent investment, the capacity will likely be scaled dow in proportion to any reduced demand, mainly because the fare take will not support the level of service previously operated. So for instance, if the Thamesling services see a 30% long term reduction in passengers, the peak 20tph timetable could well be scaled down to the equivalent of 14tph. That would require less staff, and there would be plenty of other services that could benefit from very high capacity stock like the class 700s. There would be no reason to supplement the Peterborough and Cambridge services with class 387s which could be redeployed. Similarly, the class 700s haveproven that they can run services into SE territory, and instead of refurbishment of class 465 and 376 stock, they colud be re-deployed on those routes.

 

[Mikey C]

That is the issue. The tube, and commuter rail in general, is scaled for a level of peak demand that means a degree of crowding and plenty of standing. Where victorian or later infrastructure can't or is unlikely to be enhanced, the situation may well improve slightly because at 2019 levels it was limiting those routes' capacity. Where lines have the capacity, particularly if there has been recent investment, the capacity will likely be scaled dow in proportion to any reduced demand, mainly because the fare take will not support the level of service previously operated. So for instance, if the Thamesling services see a 30% long term reduction in passengers, the peak 20tph timetable could well be scaled down to the equivalent of 14tph. That would require less staff, and there would be plenty of other services that could benefit from very high capacity stock like the class 700s. There would be no reason to supplement the Peterborough and Cambridge services with class 387s which could be redeployed. Similarly, the class 700s haveproven that they can run services into SE territory, and instead of refurbishment of class 465 and 376 stock, they colud be re-deployed on those routes.

Or flipping it slightly, there'll be less need for each generation of commuter trains to have fewer and fewer seats, with instead massive areas given over for standing capacity

For example, maybe the 700s can be refitted with better seats placed further from the wall as the wide aisle is no longer essential

 

[Bletchleyite]

Driving to London isn’t really a viable option for many. I can get away with it as I don’t travel at peak times and have a guaranteed parking space (though any congestion charge extension may mess that up a bit, though I can still get round it). However for many these factors simply don’t apply. To be honest I still prefer to go by train as it’s less hassle.

Driving to a park and ride location in the Zones is a lot more feasible than you'd think. It may well be more hassle and take longer, but if money is tight...

 

[AM9]

Or flipping it slightly, there'll be less need for each generation of commuter trains to have fewer and fewer seats, with instead massive areas given over for standing capacity

For example, maybe the 700s can be refitted with better seats placed further from the wall as the wide aisle is no longer essential

Reducing the capacity per car or unit by increasing seat spacing and reducing standing space increases the cost per passenger, which ultimately raises fares and/or subsidies.

 

[yorksrob]

That is the issue. The tube, and commuter rail in general, is scaled for a level of peak demand that means a degree of crowding and plenty of standing. Where victorian or later infrastructure can't or is unlikely to be enhanced, the situation may well improve slightly because at 2019 levels it was limiting those routes' capacity. Where lines have the capacity, particularly if there has been recent investment, the capacity will likely be scaled dow in proportion to any reduced demand, mainly because the fare take will not support the level of service previously operated. So for instance, if the Thamesling services see a 30% long term reduction in passengers, the peak 20tph timetable could well be scaled down to the equivalent of 14tph. That would require less staff, and there would be plenty of other services that could benefit from very high capacity stock like the class 700s. There would be no reason to supplement the Peterborough and Cambridge services with class 387s which could be redeployed. Similarly, the class 700s haveproven that they can run services into SE territory, and instead of refurbishment of class 465 and 376 stock, they colud be re-deployed on those routes.

Reducing the capacity per car or unit by increasing seat spacing and reducing standing space increases the cost per passenger, which ultimately raises fares and/or subsidies.

But if you're not going to get the people standing there anyway, you might as well have the people that are there more comfortable.

 

[philosopher]

Reducing the capacity per car or unit by increasing seat spacing and reducing standing space increases the cost per passenger, which ultimately raises fares and/or subsidies.

If it makes trains more comfortable it could help attract passengers back onto the railway.

 

[squizzler]

There is the interesting thought that this is the first time since the 1990s (at least) that scarcity has not been a major part of the system. In the 1980's the government allowed something in the order of two replacement vehicles for each three retired. Even then scarcity seems to have been considered a feature not a bug - with the fares being increased on busy routes and times to to manage demand - a trend that has been with us ever since. We are so used to demand suppression that we perhaps cannot imagine a rail system without artificial scarcity being used as a tool to gouge fares on the plum routes. The Roscos created at privatisation in the 1990s did not exactly major in speculative orders of new stock that would drive down costs. Coupled with train paths also being scarce, and this meant that many of the minor routes were limited to timetables that would fit in with the minimal number of units available, and paths in the busy sections and termini. It was a seller's market for Network Rail and Rosco's. At the end of the day all this scarcity was passed onto the customers, with a ticketing system that is inflexible and outdated, with not much innovation over what fares are available, and how they are sold.

I welcome the era of plenty. The passengers and the ToCs who retail to them seem have yet to grasp it is now a buyer's market. Once the industry has grasped this fact, I see bright times ahead, with plenty of innovation and better customer service all round.

 

[AM9]

If it makes trains more comfortable it could help attract passengers back onto the railway.

Marginally, it might but most rail vs road decisions are based on travelling time, reliability and of course cost, so as an actual driver of additional business, reducing the capacity of trains has little impact on demand for leisure travel. As far as commuter travel is concerned (which is the main topic of my posts in this thead), those three decision criteria are even more important, and given that most commuter journeys involve less than 30 minutes on a train, the actual capacity of the train is far more important than whatever the individual's notion of comfort is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2020 ==

But if you're not going to get the people standing there anyway, you might as well have the people that are there more comfortable.

If the cost per passenger is to stay the same (to avoid raising fares or subsidies) there will be fewer and/or shorter trains so the ratio of seated to standing passengers will remain the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2020 ==

There is the interesting thought that this is the first time since the 1990s (at least) that scarcity has not been a major part of the system. In the 1980's the government allowed something in the order of two replacement vehicles for each three retired. Even then scarcity seems to have been considered a feature not a bug - with the fares being increased on busy routes and times to to manage demand - a trend that has been with us ever since. We are so used to demand suppression that we perhaps cannot imagine a rail system without artificial scarcity being used as a tool to gouge fares on the plum routes. The Roscos created at privatisation in the 1990s did not exactly major in speculative orders of new stock that would drive down costs. Coupled with train paths also being scarce, and this meant that many of the minor routes were limited to timetables that would fit in with the minimal number of units available, and paths in the busy sections and termini. It was a seller's market for Network Rail and Rosco's. At the end of the day all this scarcity was passed onto the customers, with a ticketing system that is inflexible and outdated, with not much innovation over what fares are available, and how they are sold.

I welcome the era of plenty. The passengers and the ToCs who retail to them seem have yet to grasp it is now a buyer's market. Once the industry has grasped this fact, I see bright times ahead, with plenty of innovation and better customer service all round.

But "and era of plenty" in rail terms requires 'plenty' of money, and as so many on the COVID-19 posts here maintain, there will be cost cutting everywhere by the government, to rebuild the economy, - especially when the impact of leaving the EU bites. That is why I am saying that there is a choice between more subsidy - a very bitter pill for the DfT, and higher fares, - equally difficult for some commuters. Redfucing the cost of running the railway is the only other remedy available.
The only areas where there is likely to be a genuine improvement for peak travellers is where the infrastructure could not deliver what was demanded up to 2019. There would also be a slight improvement for everybody in reliability of the timetable as less trains will reduce the impact of knock-on delays.

 

[yorksrob]

Marginally, it might but most rail vs road decisions are based on travelling time, reliability and of course cost, so as an actual driver of additional business, reducing the capacity of trains has little impact on demand for leisure travel. As far as commuter travel is concerned (which is the main topic of my posts in this thead), those three decision criteria are even more important, and given that most commuter journeys involve less than 30 minutes on a train, the actual capacity of the train is far more important than whatever the individual's notion of comfort is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2020 ==


If the cost per passenger is to stay the same (to avoid raising fares or subsidies) there will be fewer and/or shorter trains so the ratio of seated to standing passengers will remain the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2020 ==


But "and era of plenty" in rail terms requires 'plenty' of money, and as so many on the COVID-19 posts here maintain, there will be cost cutting everywhere by the government, to rebuild the economy, - especially when the impact of leaving the EU bites. That is why I am saying that there is a choice between more subsidy - a very bitter pill for the DfT, and higher fares, - equally difficult for some commuters. Redfucing the cost of running the railway is the only other remedy available.
The only areas where there is likely to be a genuine improvement for peak travellers is where the infrastructure could not deliver what was demanded up to 2019. There would also be a slight improvement for everybody in reliability of the timetable as less trains will reduce the impact of knock-on delays.

Well that would entail scrapping servicable stock whilst passengers endure overcrowding on most lines.

If you have a route with ten trains an hour, and you have a massive loss in passenger usage and reduce the service to six an hour, I don't have a problem. However people won't take kindly to being forced to stand so that newish carriages can be scrapped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that would entail scrapping servicable stock whilst passengers endure overcrowding on most lines.

If you have a route with ten trains an hour, and you have a massive loss in passenger usage and reduce the service to six an hour, I don't have a problem. However people won't take kindly to being forced to stand so that newish carriages can be scrapped.

I think there's standing and there's standing. Standing passengers near the main destination on commuter services are to be expected, and so trains like the 700s are designed for that. Standing for multiple hours on an InterCity service is not acceptable; InterCity services should be planned to be all-seated, either by providing enough capacity or the inferior option of compulsory reservations at times when that otherwise would be absolutely unachievable (e.g. 24th December). And under no circumstances should capacity be allowed to get low enough, other than in severe disruption, that anyone is unable to board their train of choice.

So I'd say the pre-COVID level of loadings on the south WCML were acceptable. But the situation on XC and pre-Nova TPE as well as some Northern services was utterly unacceptable.

 

[yorksrob]

I think there's standing and there's standing. Standing passengers near the main destination on commuter services are to be expected, and so trains like the 700s are designed for that. Standing for multiple hours on an InterCity service is not acceptable; InterCity services should be planned to be all-seated, either by providing enough capacity or the inferior option of compulsory reservations at times when that otherwise would be absolutely unachievable (e.g. 24th December). And under no circumstances should capacity be allowed to get low enough, other than in severe disruption, that anyone is unable to board their train of choice.

So I'd say the pre-COVID level of loadings on the south WCML were acceptable. But the situation on XC and pre-Nova TPE as well as some Northern services was utterly unacceptable.

I don't know about the situation on the South WCML, but I agree in principal that it's not worth putting on twice as many carriages at Ramsgate, just to deal with a doubling of passengers at Orpington.

But I do think we should be building in comfort gains from extra capacity where possible.

 

[Bikeman78]

Reducing the capacity per car or unit by increasing seat spacing and reducing standing space increases the cost per passenger, which ultimately raises fares and/or subsidies.

Do you have a suggestion for the 700s? It will be a while before the 12 car sets are full and standing again.