Do we need a post Covid vision for rail travel?

[squizzler]

At the end of World War 2 there was a massive reordering of society and the rail industry had its part to play. It was nationalised under the control of a transport executive along with the rest of the transport system and the intention was that it would all be run as a whole. I get the impression people knew this would be a period of massive change, and expected it to turn out for the better. I understand that support for nationalisation and the rest of it was, as a consequence of tapping into a wider public desire for change, very high.

There is no shortage of transformative change already committed:

• New lines (HS2, Crossrail, East-West Rail)
• Old railways to be brought back into passenger service
• Digitisation and ETCS
• Electricication
• A logical fares system
• Revamp of industry structure to make it more efficient
• A mass extinction of a generation of legacy stock due to a surge of brand new trains
• Zero carbon commitment

All these things are a big deal in their own way but what the industry seems to lack is a unified grand vision. The Rail Delivery group has a list of worthy headlines on its front page but non my opinion there should be a banner to click where viewers can read about all the ways that the post covid railway they return to will be different from that they had been asked to stop using in March.

Do other forum members know of a grand vision that has been put out there by anyone, or have suggestions as to how the industry should go about crafting such? Perhaps they have suggestions for bold mission statements or compelling strap-lines the industry as a whole could adopt?

With the Oxford boffins just announcing that Covid can probably be effectively vaccinated against, the industry only has until spring to come up with its post covid vision if it wants to be ready for the re-mobilisation of civil society!

 

[yorksrob]

Become accommodating and attractive for leisure travel. That's really the key vision.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s being written now. Whole Industry Strategic Plan. Article in the Telegraph about it at the weekend.

 

[Mag_seven]

A campaign to get people back into working in offices is a must.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A campaign to get people back into working in offices is a must.

It's really not. Companies and employees will determine for themselves if that is the right course of action - for some it will be, for some it won't, and for some it'll be part-week.

What the railway should do is to determine how it is going to best respond to the changes society decides it wants so as to stay relevant, not to try to change society. It's tried that before (by shouting about why we should carry on using coal so they could transport it) and it unsurprisingly didn't work.

That, to me, is going to involve things like:

• Increased on-board comfort, with lots of tables for families making leisure trips and for business people travelling longer distances for 1/2 days a week being able to work on the way to work and so travel during work time. Good wi-fi would also help, too, though many will use their phones as a hotspot. The Class 397 has done well here, as has the Class 195 (unless you like window gazing). TfW's planned Class 197 layout is about as wrong as it could be, and all 3+2 seating should be removed and replaced with 2+2.
• Consistent clockface timetabling, because you will no longer need to cram everything into the peaks in the same way. Monday-Saturday timetabling (as you tend to get away from London) would be a likely feature - possibly even all-week timetabling with the odd early morning SuX (Sundays excepted) journeys due to retail's later start.
• The end of outrageously priced Anytime fares, because if it's £300 a head or Zoom, Zoom will win. Clearly busy times should cost more, but this would more sensibly be an uplift of maybe 50% as is often the case in the regions rather than the outrageous 200%+ you get to/from London.
• First Class, if it remains, as a leisure/self-upgrade product at a much lower uplift, again about 50% or so. Less "gimmickry" to justify the extortionate fares, so probably inclusive catering other than tea/coffee and maybe a prepacked sandwich or snack box would go.

Basically, the aim will need to be to give the car a real run for its money, because the "captive market" of commuters will be near-gone.

 

[Bald Rick]

Basically, the aim will need to be to give the car a real run for its money, because the "captive market" of commuters will be near-gone.

I’m not sure I agree with that. The office commuting market will take a hit, but other commuting won’t. Office commuting is only about half the total.

On top of that, I’m reasonably sure that a fair chunk of the office market will return. Sure there will be some offices / sectors that don’t, but some will. I have a hunch that whilst many people think they will be working at home 2-5 days a week, over time they will end up in the office more than they thought they would.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not sure I agree with that. The office commuting market will take a hit, but other commuting won’t. Office commuting is only about half the total.

True, though non-office commuting tends to be over shorter distances, as it tends to be lower-paid and easier to find locally. You'll probably find, for example, that if you pick a random peak MKC-Euston fast train (pre COVID) that over 90% of the passengers are office commuters. Whereas if you pick an innersuburban Southeastern service, for example, you might find that more are other workers than aren't, and if you pick a London bus that comes in from the suburbs you might find that it's even higher.

For instance, I bet commuting from MKC to London to work in retail is very near to zero, whereas commuting from Harrow and Wealdstone to London for retail work is probably quite high.

 

[Bald Rick]

True, though non-office commuting tends to be over shorter distances, as it tends to be lower-paid and easier to find locally. You'll probably find, for example, that if you pick a random peak MKC-Euston fast train (pre COVID) that over 90% of the passengers are office commuters. Whereas if you pick an innersuburban Southeastern service, for example, you might find that more are other workers than aren't, and if you pick a London bus that comes in from the suburbs you might find that it's even higher.

For instance, I bet commuting from MKC to London to work in retail is very near to zero, whereas commuting from Harrow and Wealdstone to London for retail work is probably quite high.

Agreed. And this is the challenge. Those long distance commuters are how the bills are paid, along with long distance business travellers. It is conceivable that this time next year we have a railway with, say, 80% of passengers, but only 70% of the income.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. And this is the challenge. Those long distance commuters are how the bills are paid, along with long distance business travellers. It is conceivable that this time next year we have a railway with, say, 80% of passengers, but only 70% of the income.

Though those long-distance commuters do bring costs - they require capacity uplifts (longer trains and peak extras) that shorter distance commuters require to a much more limited extent, partly because longer-distance passengers won't cram in in the same way (e.g. you'd never get away with speccing a LNR mid-distance train for standees like LO, the most you'd get away with is the Thameslink "narrow 2+2" layout[1]), and partly because the longer runs mean a unit does far fewer peak journeys each day so you need more of them. An all day Saturday timetable will, if the changes are permanent, be considerably cheaper to operate than one with peak extras and extensions.

[1] Yes, Crossrail, but I'd venture hardly anyone will use that all the way in from Reading.

 

[Starmill]

Agreed. And this is the challenge. Those long distance commuters are how the bills are paid, along with long distance business travellers. It is conceivable that this time next year we have a railway with, say, 80% of passengers, but only 70% of the income.

A return to 70% of 2019 revenue in November 2021 sounds astonishingly optimistic to me. Especially after a super-inflationary price rise. There will also probably continue to be a rather higher proportion than normal of travellers who do not need a ticket, and who should have paid for a ticket but didn't.

 

[Bald Rick]

Though those long-distance commuters do bring costs - they require capacity uplifts (longer trains and peak extras)

They do bring costs, but, actually, not that much on a whole industry basis. To take the LNWR example, going to an all day ‘off peak’ service would save some traincrew and units, rolling stock maintenance and electricity, but would make little change to infrastructure costs. It might save £10-20m a year. That’s only 2-5000 commuters in terms of revenue.

A return to 70% of 2019 revenue in November 2021 sounds astonishingly optimistic to me

I should perhaps have highlighted that that a possibility for illustrative purposes rather than a forecast! But for what it’s worth, I think it won’t be far out - somewhere between 50-80%.

 

[squizzler]

It’s being written now. Whole Industry Strategic Plan. Article in the Telegraph about it at the weekend.

Good call. Just read a little more on it in today's Telegraph and whilst the WISP is suitably grandiose, I suggest it might not be the "vision" many will be hoping for. Government reports on railway restructuring are pretty much two a penny, and why would this not be just another one? The article suggests Network Rail and DfT are sidelining the commercial operators and preparing the WISP in-house:

Industry sources were disappointed at the snubbing of bosses from train operators. "The DfT does not have the skills or capability to make key commercial decisions," one insider said.

Harsh judgement on DfT. But many would say one that is fair

I suggest WISP is unlikely to be a vision the industry and travelling public can all rally behind if they are not even seeking operators' views at this early stage, never mind those of the travelling public. Is the WISP going be an accessible document a lay-person can read and get excited about, or a dry report only for the policy wonks?

If the industry has been expelled from the WISP, this might be a blessing in disguise. They can perhaps pre-empt the WISP with their own bold and optimistic vision of the rail industry future, one that goes over the heads of the government and connects directly with the public. This might even box the official government findings into a favourable corner.

With so many major programmes of investment already in progress or going ahead, I think the industry just needs to do that classic government trick of re-announcing already committed stuff as if it were new investment, but in the railways case it would be bundled up as a post covid "new Deal"! Or maybe train users are too smart to fall for that wheeze?

 

[Irascible]

Well - let's see how much WfH there actually is. I notice rural house prices are on the rise, so there might be more long distance commuting but less days per week of it ( and there's the possible local travel due to less cars per house aspect also, although perhaps that'll mean more bus travel than anything ). Govt might find it more palatable to sponsor rural fibre than rural rail, too, that's a pretty nice headline especially given most of the backbone infrastructure is already done.

I'd think city centre retail is going to take a permanent loss to online sellers too, and that might continue regardless of work patterns.