can public transport ever recover from COVID-19

[Bald Rick]

Also Greater Anglia & one other TOC which one escapes me, where the two who did the initial pilot scheme to reintroduce training.

I forget the other one too, GTR or London Overground I think.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2020 ==

That being the case, priority should be ensuring that already sparse services should be maintained, as opposed to embellishing already well served routes. I fear the opposite is currently policy in the North.

The resources will be best allocated where it most efficiently serves the needs of the region, surely. Clearly opinion will be divided on that, but in my view it’s where there is greatest demand for the service, and removing services needs to be on the basis of affecting the lives of as few people as possible.

 

[yorksrob]

I forget the other one too, GTR or London Overground I think.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2020 ==



The resources will be best allocated where it most efficiently serves the needs of the region, surely. Clearly opinion will be divided on that, but in my view it’s where there is greatest demand for the service, and removing services needs to be on the basis of affecting the lives of as few people as possible.

In my opinion, that is the wrong approach. Priority should be given to avoiding hardship amongst passengers, and that means avoiding large gaps in services.

In the North, the priority seems to be run as many services as possible between cities and to hell with the rest.

 

[Bald Rick]

In my opinion, that is the wrong approach. Priority should be given to avoiding hardship amongst passengers, and that means avoiding large gaps in services.

Would you rather see, say, a two hourly service on the lightly used lines, thereby easing the lives of the, say, 500 people who might otherwise be affected each day if there were larger gaps, if that meant disadvantaging the, say 50,000 people who would be disadvantaged by having a reduced service into the cities?

If so, we’ll have to disagree. These are the easiest of the tough decisions I’m talking about.

 

[yorksrob]

Would you rather see, say, a two hourly service on the lightly used lines, thereby easing the lives of the, say, 500 people who might otherwise be affected each day if there were larger gaps, if that meant disadvantaging the, say 50,000 people who would be disadvantaged by having a reduced service into the cities?

If so, we’ll have to disagree. These are the easiest of the tough decisions I’m talking about.

If the 50,000 people can be accommodated on for example a half hourly, rather than a twenty minute interval service, then yes as the hardship will be much less for those people than for the 500 who would otherwise lose one of their two hourly services.

I would have thought that was obvious really.

Let's hear what your harder 'tough decisions' are then, shall we.

 

[Ianno87]

If the 50,000 people can be accommodated on for example a half hourly, rather than a twenty minute interval service, then yes as the hardship will be much less for those people than for the 500 who would otherwise lose one of their two hourly services.

I would have thought that was obvious really.

Let's hear what your harder 'tough decisions' are then, shall we.

But for 50,000 may be less hardship per person, but collectively much more hardship overall when multiplied by the number of people affected.

 

[yorksrob]

But for 50,000 may be less hardship per person, but collectively much more hardship overall when multiplied by the number of people affected.

Hardship isn't equal. Hardship of waiting an extra ten minutes should be outweighed by hardship of having to wait an extra three hours.

 

[Ianno87]

Hardship isn't equal. Hardship of waiting an extra ten minutes should be outweighed by hardship of having to wait an extra three hours.

Not necessarily when the number of passengers affected is factored in?

Taken to extreme, it is not necessarily worth 100,000 passengers waiting an extra 10 minutes just to save 10 passengers somewhere else waiting an extra 3 hours.

I.e. there becomes a point where it is no longer rational to prioritise the needs of the minority over the needs of the majority.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily when the number of passengers affected is factored in?

Taken to extreme, it is not necessarily worth 100,000 passengers waiting an extra 10 minutes just to save 10 passengers somewhere else waiting an extra 3 hours.

If you believe in social inclusivity it potentially is worth it, as it won't be "waiting 3 hours", it'll be "unable to make the journey at all".

 

[yorksrob]

Not necessarily when the number of passengers affected is factored in?

Taken to extreme, it is not necessarily worth 100,000 passengers waiting an extra 10 minutes just to save 10 passengers somewhere else waiting an extra 3 hours.

I.e. there becomes a point where it is no longer rational to prioritise the needs of the minority over the needs of the majority.

There is no way that that point has been reached on the Aire valley lines.

 

[Ianno87]

If you believe in social inclusivity it potentially is worth it, as it won't be "waiting 3 hours", it'll be "unable to make the journey at all".

There is no way that that point has been reached on the Aire valley lines.

Yes, all lines should retain at least basic, usable service to meet key social needs (e.g. school and commuting, plus inter-peak shopping trips) particularly where there is no easy alternative, like a parallel bus service.

But that does not automatically follow into "everywhere should have an hourly service".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, all lines should retain at least basic, usable service to meet key social needs (e.g. school and commuting, plus inter-peak shopping trips) particularly where there is no easy alternative, like a parallel bus service.

But that does not automatically follow into "everywhere should have an hourly service".

The Bentham Line never has had an hourly service, has it?

Your bare minimum for a useful rural line is a morning (commuter), midday (shopper) and evening (commuter and/or school) round trip, really. If you go lower than that or put randomly timed services on (Conwy Valley[1], anyone?) you might as well mothball it.

[1] See the other thread on that where I propose a one-unit timetable which would actually be more useful despite (I think) containing one fewer round trip than the present one.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, all lines should retain at least basic, usable service to meet key social needs (e.g. school and commuting, plus inter-peak shopping trips) particularly where there is no easy alternative, like a parallel bus service.

But that does not automatically follow into "everywhere should have an hourly service".

I never said everywhere should have an hourly service. Just that where a service is already less than hourly, it should be prioritised.

 

[LAX54]

I assume that when people decide to go back to working properly and not from home, then travel will pick up again ? Getting fed up with Companies saying our staff are safe at home, but it will take 3 times longer to answer your query, only to find out that the person who does answer does not have access to the info, as they are working from home, and will pass it further along the line !

 

[Bald Rick]

Let's hear what your harder 'tough decisions' are then, shall we.

Which people to make redundant, for a start.

 

[yorksrob]

Which people to make redundant, for a start.

Yes, I can see that will be a big problem. Is there any scope for an early retirement push I wonder !

 

[packermac]

I assume that when people decide to go back to working properly and not from home, then travel will pick up again ? Getting fed up with Companies saying our staff are safe at home, but it will take 3 times longer to answer your query, only to find out that the person who does answer does not have access to the info, as they are working from home, and will pass it further along the line !

I would expect many large companies to not be wanting their staff back in offices full time as it will save costs and provides a fare better amount of home time for staff. Which should in turn lead to happier and more productive staff.
Who in their right mind wants to get up around 06:00 or earlier to commute from say the Kent Coast to London, (other awful commutes are available) maybe stand a lot of the way and do the same thing in the evening for a vast amount of money.
Many if not most office jobs can be undertaken from home for 2 or 3 days a week at least so why would you not want to save money, have extra time in bed, longer with the kids etc.
The pandemic has proven that it does work for companies and staff.

 

[LAX54]

I would expect many large companies to not be wanting their staff back in offices full time as it will save costs and provides a fare better amount of home time for staff. Which should in turn lead to happier and more productive staff.
Who in their right mind wants to get up around 06:00 or earlier to commute from say the Kent Coast to London, (other awful commutes are available) maybe stand a lot of the way and do the same thing in the evening for a vast amount of money.
Many if not most office jobs can be undertaken from home for 2 or 3 days a week at least so why would you not want to save money, have extra time in bed, longer with the kids etc.
The pandemic has proven that it does work for companies and staff.

Has it not started to prove the reverse? Many working at home feeling hemmed in, missing the banter and friendship at work, the kids under their feet all day, (and the dog!) all starting to affect their mental health, even missing the morning commute to an extent, even if it is 'rough' ! and of course the turn round time for public equiries to some companies has got to a ridiculous level of 'delay'
I am sure that has been reported on Tv and and in the papers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2020 ==

Which people to make redundant, for a start.

Which seems to be on a steeper rise than the virus 'positives' !

 

[packermac]

Has it not started to prove the reverse? Many working at home feeling hemmed in, missing the banter and friendship at work, the kids under their feet all day, (and the dog!) all starting to affect their mental health, even missing the morning commute to an extent, even if it is 'rough' ! and of course the turn round time for public equiries to some companies has got to a ridiculous level of 'delay'
I am sure that has been reported on Tv and and in the papers.

I have seen little mention in the media of people not liking it, plus my old colleagues who were all forced to work from home that I am still in contact with seem to love it. But then we have always done it in a limited way for years.

 

[philosopher]

I would expect many large companies to not be wanting their staff back in offices full time as it will save costs and provides a fare better amount of home time for staff. Which should in turn lead to happier and more productive staff.
Who in their right mind wants to get up around 06:00 or earlier to commute from say the Kent Coast to London, (other awful commutes are available) maybe stand a lot of the way and do the same thing in the evening for a vast amount of money.
Many if not most office jobs can be undertaken from home for 2 or 3 days a week at least so why would you not want to save money, have extra time in bed, longer with the kids etc.
The pandemic has proven that it does work for companies and staff.

I think as a rule home vs office working preference boils down very much to the commute and their living conditions (e.g do they have a spare room, who do they live with, etc). The longer and more expensive your commute, the more likely it is that you going to prefer home working. In your example, someone doing such a commute every day, probably would prefer home working as it would save them 4+ hours a day and £1000’s a year. Even more so if they had a spare room that could be used as an office and lived with a partner but had no kids.

On the other hand, someone with a 10 minute cycle ride to the office living in a shared house with limited room and housemates they do not particularly get on with I suspect would much prefer office working.

This is why railway use may suffer disproportionality from home working as railway commuters will generally have longer commutes and thus are more likely to prefer home working. I suspect they are also more likely to have living conditions more suited to home working.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I can see that will be a big problem. Is there any scope for an early retirement push I wonder !

I'd imagine there would be, but I'd get rid of rest day working first!

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, I can see that will be a big problem. Is there any scope for an early retirement push I wonder !

Voluntary redundancy would of course be the second course of action, following a recruitment freeze.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2020 ==

I'd imagine there would be, but I'd get rid of rest day working first!

Slight issue there about Sundays...

 

[yorkie]

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.

well, thanks (!)

most of us are at far more risk from pollution than we are of 'catching covid-19' (sic)

meanwhile, I continue to choose not to own a car, and am healthier (despite the efforts of car drivers) as a result; as I keep myself healthy there is no point in me worrying about catching viruses (statistically I' be better off worrying about all sorts of other dangers)

 

[yorksrob]

I'd imagine there would be, but I'd get rid of rest day working first!

Voluntary redundancy would of course be the second course of action, following a recruitment freeze.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2020 ==



Slight issue there about Sundays...

Yes, I could imagine tinkering with the rest day working issue will cause problems !

 

[Mintona]

Right now without RDW, the railway would grind to something of a halt. There are plenty of crew off who are unable to return until the rules around two people in the cab are removed. Post fatality, for example. It’s RDW that’s propping up the timetable.

 

[dk1]

Right now without RDW, the railway would grind to something of a halt. There are plenty of crew off who are unable to return until the rules around two people in the cab are removed. Post fatality, for example. It’s RDW that’s propping up the timetable.

ASLEF has just sanctioned the latest Free Day Working extension with my TOC. Daily working of these is still very prevalent indeed.

 

[Southern Dvr]

ASLEF has just sanctioned the latest Free Day Working extension with my TOC. Daily working of these is still very prevalent indeed.

ASLEF are very supportive of 2 in a cab so far as i am aware. Despite all the local lockdowns and tiers etc ASLEF have made very few if any statements about stopping training.

 

[Railman]

Should not be a problem getting any agreements for overtime now, the TOC isn't paying the bill!!!! Maybe a good time to go for better pay and T&Cs also!!!

 

[Southern Dvr]

Should not be a problem getting any agreements for overtime now, the TOC isn't paying the bill!!!! Maybe a good time to go for better pay and T&Cs also!!!

Obviously not serious I presume! The government will not be signing blank cheques and remember they despise trade unions so it’s more likely that we will be lucky to get a pay freeze.

 

[Mintona]

ASLEF are very supportive of 2 in a cab so far as i am aware. Despite all the local lockdowns and tiers etc ASLEF have made very few if any statements about stopping training.

Yes, for training it is ok because you can pair an instructor and trainee long term. However, for getting drivers back from absence is more difficult because there are more people involved.

 

[dk1]

ASLEF are very supportive of 2 in a cab so far as i am aware. Despite all the local lockdowns and tiers etc ASLEF have made very few if any statements about stopping training.

Yeah we did the pilot scheme. Only been involved with one positive tested trainee so far.