can public transport ever recover from COVID-19

[bramling]

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.

I get the feeling many of the trainers are less happy. At my place quite a few seem to have said “nope I will just revert to being a regular driver”. Some have however agreed.

 

[HSTEd]

How long could the railway stop training for before all the qualifications lapsed and noone could drive anything?

 

[Mintona]

Six months I think.

 

[yorksrob]

I know the NHS has ongoing COVID testing for staff. The front line nature of the railway surely justifies a similar programme for trainees/ers. It would be a drop in the ocean compared to all the other testing.

 

[bramling]

I know the NHS has ongoing COVID testing for staff. The front line nature of the railway surely justifies a similar programme for trainees/ers. It would be a drop in the ocean compared to all the other testing.

I think that’s what my place are doing. Some have still said no however.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that’s what my place are doing. Some have still said no however.

Ah well, you can't force them - particularly if they're edging into the more vulnerable spectrum. Good that your place is on to it though.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

My work is impossible to do from home. So I am looking at the green grass of WFH on the other side of the fence. But I consider the social interaction to be something I would miss. Albeit companies nowadays seem to want your attention for as close to 100% of the day as possible. If my partner were to be at home as well then I would get very little done.

Interesting thoughts. I would add that the company itself might consider moving to scaled down offices in "Woking, Basingstoke or Southampton".

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.

I gather that the North London line and line into Euston are full of non mask wearers so I would not like that. That was a while back in the summer though so maybe things have changed.

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.

Generally that makes sense. For the time being I will be happy for the UK to get through the next six months as this is the time of poorer health. It is to be hoped that by Autumn 2021 so many people will have had Covid-19 that some level of herd immunity exists. There will also be the fact that Covid-19 is steadily killing off a proportion of the people that would need the NHS again. The parallel I draw is that an average Flu kills less people per winter than it could because it can only kill those that have become more susceptible since the previous year (otherwise they would have died then). Covid-19 has arrived on a population that has not been steadily losing those susceptible to it over many years. After this calming down we can see what level of demand there is left.

The NHS gets stretched through the winter and it is currently in a position of weakness (backlog) and is confronted by a huge (potential I hope not actual) demand increase (due to Covid-19). I see the next six months as more of a test than March-May 2020 were. Summer should always be less of a demand on the NHS but we needed to be able to get more people past the hurdle - but could not.

..........

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.

It could well be a buyers market but then if it is to far that way the sellers will back away (go bust etc etc). But yes the rules of supply vs demand will come into play.

........

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.

Yes a simpler service should improve reliability. There is plenty of stretched capacity to relieve. I would assume some reductions in services to make operation easy but still allowing for less overcrowding on trains that do run.

There will be some scope for charging more for the new attractive service.

The comtingency timetable basically works during disruption as you've still got the full pool of trains and crew sloshing around to resource it ad-hoc. Probably not very efficient, but keeps a service going when some infrastructure capability is lost.

I suppose a contingency timetable has to be more sophisticated than just paring down frequencies as staff will move from one service to another so either both or neither have to be cut ?.

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.

It has always been thus. The large commuter routes are easier to justify financially - requiring less subsidy. A commuter train (often with more than 2-cars) has lower running costs per passenger (or seat) than a rural 2-car service.

It is the sad case that on lines that closed during the Beeching era the needs of the very few passengers were not viewed in terms of total loss of service. However given the growth that has happened since the 1960s I would hope that all rural lines that survived then will survive now.

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)

You might well be correct. Living in Croydon, South London, pollution is even more of an issue than in York. However I am convinced most people will ignore the slow attrition of years off their lifespan when comparing it to the more sudden death of Covid-19. Not that Covid-19 is equally obvious to all.

 

[yorkie]

However I am convinced most people will ignore the slow attrition of years off their lifespan when comparing it to the more sudden death of Covid-19. Not that Covid-19 is equally obvious to all.

I don't understand what you are saying, but the chances of dying from Covid-19 is miniscule for the average person who isn't elderly; if someone is that worried about dying then they need to avoid even getting into a car for starters. The overall risk from public transport is lower than by car, especially when comparing rail as the PT mode.

 

[Southern Dvr]

I know the NHS has ongoing COVID testing for staff. The front line nature of the railway surely justifies a similar programme for trainees/ers. It would be a drop in the ocean compared to all the other testing.

my lot are using a private firm for Covid testing with instructors/trainee/route learners and it was for me (have older parents) a big incentive to get training again because with a weekly test I can be confident I’m not carrying the virus. Obviously I’m still careful and everything but it’s a bit of peace of mind. I also feel bad for the trainees who have been off for 6 months (on full pay but that’s not the issue!) because they want to get on and do their jobs and work is good for the soul and darn it we all need whatever we can get soulfulness wise just now!

 

[yorksrob]

my lot are using a private firm for Covid testing with instructors/trainee/route learners and it was for me (have older parents) a big incentive to get training again because with a weekly test I can be confident I’m not carrying the virus. Obviously I’m still careful and everything but it’s a bit of peace of mind. I also feel bad for the trainees who have been off for 6 months (on full pay but that’s not the issue!) because they want to get on and do their jobs and work is good for the soul and darn it we all need whatever we can get soulfulness wise just now!

I can absolutely see all of your points, and it's great that your TOC is being pro-active.

I also agree with your point regarding the trainees. Wanting to get on with it is a key component of employment.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't understand what you are saying, but the chances of dying from Covid-19 is miniscule for the average person who isn't elderly; if someone is that worried about dying then they need to avoid even getting into a car for starters. The overall risk from public transport is lower than by car, especially when comparing rail as the PT mode.

Well I am agreeing with you that pollution and accidents are an issue. I am not sure that could be bigger than Covid-19. I But I doubt most people perceive it that way anyway. Consider that most people get all excited by a fatal railway accident even though more people die per week on the roads than in a years railway deaths - many years no fatalities for rail passengers !.

 

[yorkie]

Well I am agreeing with you that pollution is an issue that could well be bigger than Covid-19. But I doubt most people perceive it that way.

The media and Government messaging, egged on by the hysterical brigade, ensure that many people do not think rationally in this area. But there are plenty of savvy people on this forum who can think for themselves!

 

[Peter Sarf]

The media and Government messaging, egged on by the hysterical brigade, ensure that many people do not think rationally in this area. But there are plenty of savvy people on this forum who can think for themselves!

You beat me to finishing the edit to my post.

Yes. And perception has a lot to do with it.

 

[The Ham]

The media and Government messaging, egged on by the hysterical brigade, ensure that many people do not think rationally in this area. But there are plenty of savvy people on this forum who can think for themselves!

Whilst I'm very likely to be fine the issue is that my parents look after our kids one day a week, but also have their own parents who they help (the three surviving are all well over 80, including one in a nursing home having suffered a stroke at the start of this year), as such my actions do have to be careful to limit the risk of cross infection.

That's not too say that I'm hiding away, in that I'm still going to work, as is my wife as needed, visiting friends and family (adhering to rule of 6), my eldest kids are going to school, we're going shopping as needed, etc. all to have a fairly normal (well normal for us as things stand anyway) life.

I'm not saying that you think that we should ignore the rules, but rather to highlight that some people (if it was only then they had to worry about) would be fine, but they might react the way that they do because of others that they interact with (of course that doesn't excuse the way that some media outlets are covering it).

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

I worked from home with young children. It was hard work. I've always cycled to work, which I enjoy, so the financial benefit from working at home is tiny. I'm glad to be back at the office with other adults to talk to. I can understand why people don't like commuting by train though. I wouldn't want to do it every day.

 

[Richard Scott]

I gather that the North London line and line into Euston are full of non mask wearers so I would not like that. That was a while back in the summer though so maybe things have changed.

When I was in Poland although masks were required on trains most didn't bother and at the time no-one wore them in Czech Republic. Was quite refreshing to go on a train and not have to wear a mask. May be your choice not to travel if masks not required but I don't see the point of them, perfectly happy in a train full of mask less people, wish we could have it here.

 

[RuralRambler]

When I was in Poland although masks were required on trains most didn't bother and at the time no-one wore them in Czech Republic. Was quite refreshing to go on a train and not have to wear a mask.

May explain the current Covid situation in the Czech republic!

Reuters | Breaking International News & Views

Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.

uk.reuters.com

"The Czech Republic registered a record one-day tally of 14,968 new coronavirus cases on Wednesday, the Health Ministry said, as the government ordered most shops to close and tightened restrictions to curb the virus’s spread."

 

[Richard Scott]

May explain the current Covid situation in the Czech republic!

Don't think so, real problem there is they had a harsh lockdown original do suppressed it quickly, almost no immunity so once it started to spread did do quickly. Don't think a few masks would have stopped that do you? If you do please provide me with the hard scientific facts as I have yet to be convinced.

 

[The Ham]

Don't think so, real problem there is they had a harsh lockdown original do suppressed it quickly, almost no immunity so once it started to spread did do quickly. Don't think a few masks would have stopped that do you? If you do please provide me with the hard scientific facts as I have yet to be convinced.

The general mood of this article is that there's benefits in mask wearing, not infallible but worth doing:

Face masks: what the data say

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

www.nature.com

There's not a load of data on real world tests, but the lab based evidence is that they are most likely protect others and may even provide some protection to the wearer.

Of course evidence can be used both ways, so is there any evidence that masks make things worse?

If not the risk of wearing them at worst is no better than not wearing them, but has (until there's more evidence) the potential for there being some benefits.

 

[Richard Scott]

The general mood of this article is that there's benefits in mask wearing, not infallible but worth doing:

Face masks: what the data say

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

www.nature.com

There's not a load of data on real world tests, but the lab based evidence is that they are most likely protect others and may even provide some protection to the wearer.

Of course evidence can be used both ways, so is there any evidence that masks make things worse?

If not the risk of wearing them at worst is no better than not wearing them, but has (until there's more evidence) the potential for there being some benefits.

So limited benefits, if any. More seen to be doing something? Seems public transport is not going to recover properly whilst we have those going around trying to persuade us not to use it, those who won't/can't use it due to mask issue. How much longer are we going to accept the situation that we're still paying for large amounts of air to be transported around every day through taxes but few people. At least on the continent trains were fairly busy.

 

[dk1]

I know the NHS has ongoing COVID testing for staff. The front line nature of the railway surely justifies a similar programme for trainees/ers. It

Stacks of tests available for drivers/trainees. Pick one up weekly & they have to be completed & handed in by a set day & time ready for courier collection. Results through two days later allowing the bubble to continue into the following week.

 

[DB]

The general mood of this article is that there's benefits in mask wearing, not infallible but worth doing:

Face masks: what the data say

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

www.nature.com

There's not a load of data on real world tests, but the lab based evidence is that they are most likely protect others and may even provide some protection to the wearer.

Of course evidence can be used both ways, so is there any evidence that masks make things worse?

If not the risk of wearing them at worst is no better than not wearing them, but has (until there's more evidence) the potential for there being some benefits.

Afraid I don't see anything convincing in that article - it's jsut rehashing the same old things that appear in pretty much every similar article.

And it concludes with:

Nevertheless, most scientists are confident that they can say something prescriptive about wearing masks.

This is clearly not the case at all - there are many scientists who do not think the case for masks is proven to a 'prescriptive' level.

 

[Moderating team]

Can we avoid discussing masks in this particular thread please. The topic is already under discussion elsewhere. Thanks

 

[Southern Dvr]

Stacks of tests available for drivers/trainees. Pick one up weekly & they have to be completed & handed in by a set day & time ready for courier collection. Results through two days later allowing the bubble to continue into the following week.

yes that’s what’s been happening at our place, taken off part of the job or given a bit of OT to come in early or stay after to do it. Our results have been coming back within 24 hours which is excellent.

 

[dk1]

yes that’s what’s been happening at our place, taken off part of the job or given a bit of OT to come in early or stay after to do it. Our results have been coming back within 24 hours which is excellent.

24hrs is better than us. Maybe because it was one of the initial contracts. I'm expecting it to improve. We just email, the DTM on a weekly basis with CV19 test and number of temp checks taken and they do the rest with the overtime. On the whole its ticking along ok.

 

[Mikey C]

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.

It's the longer distance commuting which will suffer most I imagine, as many people moved further out when they had children so that they could afford a bigger house.

And many long distance commuters were already working from home on 1 or more days a week, so were already kitted out with a home office and aware of the benefits of not having to get up at 6am, being able to share taking the children to school duties etc

 

[squizzler]

According to a Channel4 documentary last night at 8pm "How safe is going out", the transport network is much better cleaned than most places you could use it to access. The programme makers took swabs of cafes, supermarkets, hotels, and found no pathogens in the bus (London Transport) yet found all sorts of unsavoury things from the surfaces of other public places. It seems the difference in personal safety between taking a day trip somewhere, never-mind a weekend break, by public transport or car is negligible, if you only consider risks from pathogens and disregard the likelihood of crashing the car.

Presumably it would be the same story with ventilation. Buildings (particularly old ones where the heating and air conditioning system is retrofitted) will often have any ventilation arrangements dictated by what is most expedient for the builder, whereas public transport vehicles such as trains, busses and planes will have more care lavished on airflow inside the passenger compartment.

 

[trainophile]

I wonder what the proportion of jobs that can be done remotely is, compared to those that can't due to being customer facing, retail, transport etc.

 

[Ianno87]

I wonder what the proportion of jobs that can be done remotely is, compared to those that can't due to being customer facing, retail, transport etc.

Plus the difference between doing a job remotely, and doing that job well.

 

[Horizon22]

According to a Channel4 documentary last night at 8pm "How safe is going out", the transport network is much better cleaned than most places you could use it to access. The programme makers took swabs of cafes, supermarkets, hotels, and found no pathogens in the bus (London Transport) yet found all sorts of unsavoury things from the surfaces of other public places. It seems the difference in personal safety between taking a day trip somewhere, never-mind a weekend break, by public transport or car is negligible, if you only consider risks from pathogens and disregard the likelihood of crashing the car.

Presumably it would be the same story with ventilation. Buildings (particularly old ones where the heating and air conditioning system is retrofitted) will often have any ventilation arrangements dictated by what is most expedient for the builder, whereas public transport vehicles such as trains, busses and planes will have more care lavished on airflow inside the passenger compartment.

I am not surprised because many TOCs have gone to extensive lengths to prove that rail is safe for travel and have really stepped up cleaning regimes at all times.

That perception is however struggling to cut through with the public; people think they are safer in their enclosed box as opposed to mingling with strangers who may or may not be wearing a mask (although my experience is its now at 100% and those not are generally eating or have exemption badge). It will be a hard perception to shift as most media over the last few years regarding the railway has been about how crowded and cramped train carriages are. The same perception that the train is always more expensive that the car without take into account the indirect costs.

I genuinely believe that if people get over that first hurdle - considering well over 50% of what could be previously described as "regular travellers" haven't been on one since lockdown - of that first train, they would be pleasantly surprised.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2020 ==

I wonder what the proportion of jobs that can be done remotely is, compared to those that can't due to being customer facing, retail, transport etc.

Probably difficult to quantify, as many jobs within those sectors can also be done remotely. Also there's a geographic shift to where these "key workers" live and that is borne out in train loading data; services lightly loaded from commuter towns, more heavily loaded within London.