Road and rail building plans under review after Covid

[HSTEd]

but the service on a high frequency route would not increase much if at all, because dwells would be extended, thereby increasing the necessary headways.

This is at least debatable, given we have the example of the RER A demonstrating that this is not inevitably true.

(It manages 30 trains per hour in rush-hour according to RATP, and is certainly the busiest mass transit line in Europe)

 

[ac6000cw]

(Copied from my post in the "Rail decarbonisation: What are the solutions?" thread)

Re. modal shifts over time - there are some interesting statistics for the period between 1952 and 2016 in this BBC article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497

The standout statistic for me was the huge decline in bus/coach usage - from about 42% of total passenger km in 1952 to about 4% in 2016.

Private car passenger km went from less than 30% to about 85% by the late 1980s (and has stayed roughly constant since then, as has total car driven distance).

Rail passenger km went from 17% to 10%, with a low of about 5% in the mid-1990s (about when privatisation happened). Note that in 2016 it's 10% of a much larger 'pie', so actual rail passenger km was about twice that of 1952.

So if you managed to double rail modal share you would only reduce car usage by 10% or so - to about 75% of the total. I think handling that much extra passenger traffic would be very difficult on the busy routes without huge and disruptive capacity upgrades (inevitably most of the growth would happen on the already busy routes as they cater for the journeys lots of people want to make, otherwise they wouldn't be busy)

75% is about the modal share car travel has in Switzerland, which has probably one of the best integrated public transport systems in Europe and some of the highest rail modal share as a consequence, so it's a reasonable indication of how much modal shift you might achieve by improving public transport.

 

[quantinghome]

The thing you're missing in your comparison with Japan is *where* people live.

In Japan over 110 million live in urban areas, 10 million in rural.

In the UK it's 55 million in urban areas and 10 million rural. (Source: Statista.com).

If you've got more people living in cities, then they are more likely to use rail - because the population density is higher, space is restricted, and often journeys are shorter.

That's what I said - we're not going to reach Japanese levels of train use because we don't have the same level of urban development.

However other countries e.g. Switzerland are up to 20%. So I reckon our the UK's theoretical maximum rail market share may be a bit above that. Clearly a lot more capacity would need to be provided. But as others have said, this can be provided relatively easily outside London.

 

[BayPaul]

LNER currently run approx an hourly service to Edinburgh - and I doubt more than 20% of those on board travel the full distance. Are you seriously saying there is enough demand to travel from London - Edinburgh to run a train every 15 minutes ? I very much doubt that. And you're missing something - if you live north of London, let's pick somewhere like Stevenage as a good example, if you want to go to Edinburgh you can drive it - it will take you about 7 hours, so that kind of suggests you won't be doing it for a day trip, but it will work well if you've got the kids and the dog in tow and the luggage.

You can take the train - it'll do it in 5 hours but you'll have to change somewhere. You could just about go out and back in a day. And HS 2 won't help, because you'll still have a 30 minute trip to London to get to HS2.

Or you can drive to Luton in about 30 mins and Easyjet in about an hour each way. Do-able for a day trip.

Even post HS2 if you're time constrained and need to do Stevenage to Edinburgh in a day, the plane will be the only viable option, unless you're going to start telling people they can't fly for such journeys meaning they'll either have a longer journey or an overnight stop - which as these are business travellers means less time at home with their families - so it's not a very family friendly approach is it ?

I'm thinking more if HS2 gets extended to Scotland, rather than the current situation

 

[jfowkes]

The increase in private car usage didn't happen in a vacuum. It was made possible by expensive, disruptive and environmentally disastrous motorway and dual carriageway builds and subsequent expansions.

When it's suggested to increase rail capacity to achieve the same (at much lower environmental cost), suddenly it's a big problem.

"Rail doesn't carry as many journeys as roads/isn't as useful as roads/is only for the rich" is the description of the problem to be fixed, not the reason to avoid investment.

 

[ac6000cw]

The increase in private car usage didn't happen in a vacuum. It was made possible by expensive, disruptive and environmentally disastrous motorway and dual carriageway builds and subsequent expansions.

If you look at the historical transport statistics I quoted above (the data came from here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497 ), IMHO don't think it was - the big change over time was a shift from 42% of passenger-km by bus & coach in 1952 to 4% in 2016, most of which moved to private cars. Since most journeys are short distance (there's plenty of official statistics to look at, if you're interested), that transfer was mostly about urban and short inter-urban journeys, which most motorway/dual-carriageway road building wasn't primarily catering for. I suspect most urban car journeys today travel along largely the same road routes they did in 1952.

In any case, getting through road traffic out of urban areas is a good thing in environmental & safety terms, isn't it?

 

[A0]

The increase in private car usage didn't happen in a vacuum. It was made possible by expensive, disruptive and environmentally disastrous motorway and dual carriageway builds and subsequent expansions.

When it's suggested to increase rail capacity to achieve the same (at much lower environmental cost), suddenly it's a big problem.

"Rail doesn't carry as many journeys as roads/isn't as useful as roads/is only for the rich" is the description of the problem to be fixed, not the reason to avoid investment.

The problem is the journeys which rail *can* compete on and does well at are largely at capacity now.

See @Bald Rick's point about Cross Country only representing 2% of the rail journeys in the UK.

And people's travel habits are now much more diverse than they were 30 or 60 years ago - so rail cannot compete with the diversity of journeys people now undertake (nor should it, it should focus on its strengths).

 

[24Grange]

I always thought that one of the reasons for the "swop" to roads from rail since the war, was the government preferring a lot of lorries moving loads about ( with different companies) than the possibility of being held ransom by the heavily unionized single entity railway stopping moving all the vital freight. Easier to deal with individual drivers and small loads ( and smaller less unionized companies) -(better to lose a single lorry to strike action to afully loaded train). - especially after 1955.

 

[A0]

I always thought that one of the reasons for the "swop" to roads from rail since the war, was the government preferring a lot of lorries moving loads about ( with different companies) than the possibility of being held ransom by the heavily unionized single entity railway stopping moving all the vital freight. Easier to deal with individual drivers and small loads ( and smaller less unionized companies) -(better to lose a single lorry to strike action to afully loaded train). - especially after 1955.

You forget that road freight transport was also nationalised: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Freight_Corporation

 

[24Grange]

Ah , Yes I did - Thank you.
Just watched a lovely colour programme on talking pictures about lorry drivers and journeys in 1960 - so it should have registered !

 

[Bald Rick]

I always thought that one of the reasons for the "swop" to roads from rail since the war, was the government preferring a lot of lorries moving loads about ( with different companies) than the possibility of being held ransom by the heavily unionized single entity railway stopping moving all the vital freight. Easier to deal with individual drivers and small loads ( and smaller less unionized companies) -(better to lose a single lorry to strike action to afully loaded train). - especially after 1955.

No, it was because road transport is inherently more efficient for most freight flows. Railfreight is best for high volume / weight flows over any distance, and medium volume flows over medium to long distance. But a very significant majority of freight transport in this country fits neither of these markets.

 

[HSTEd]

No, it was because road transport is inherently more efficient for most freight flows. Railfreight is best for high volume / weight flows over any distance, and medium volume flows over medium to long distance. But a very significant majority of freight transport in this country fits neither of these markets.

This is especially true as British industry moved away from giant integrated plants making bulk commodities towards consumer goods that are far greater in variety and smaller in quantity (of each individual item)

 

[24Grange]

Also, Lorries are cheaper than locomotives and wagons ? Maybe?

 

[Paula hewson]

The only schemes that will go ahead are those that will help Boris break the Red Wall! So Sunderland to Durham re-opening??

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, Lorries are cheaper than locomotives and wagons ? Maybe?

That depends what you mean by cheaper. Ultimately it is the whole life cost of the whole logistics operation that is the ‘cost’. Capital cost of the vehicles is but a small part of that.

 

[Glenn1969]

This kind of review is why I'm worried about HS2b and NPR. I think the "TfN wishlist" elements of these schemes (which in the case of NPR is most of it) will be drastically scaled back to save money with Covid as an excuse. Don't forget we are 3 years away from a national election

 

[Mikey C]

No, it was because road transport is inherently more efficient for most freight flows. Railfreight is best for high volume / weight flows over any distance, and medium volume flows over medium to long distance. But a very significant majority of freight transport in this country fits neither of these markets.

I doubt there's ANY developed country that delivers local freight by rail anymore in the way things happened here before the 60s, with each small station having a separate goods yard

 

[geordieblue]

Also, Lorries are cheaper than locomotives and wagons ? Maybe?

Individually, yes, but if you need say twenty lorries to equal one trainload then the overall cost is similar, possibly even more expensive for lorries.

 

[jfowkes]

If you look at the historical transport statistics I quoted above (the data came from here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497 ), IMHO don't think it was - the big change over time was a shift from 42% of passenger-km by bus & coach in 1952 to 4% in 2016, most of which moved to private cars. Since most journeys are short distance (there's plenty of official statistics to look at, if you're interested), that transfer was mostly about urban and short inter-urban journeys, which most motorway/dual-carriageway road building wasn't primarily catering for. I suspect most urban car journeys today travel along largely the same road routes they did in 1952.

In any case, getting through road traffic out of urban areas is a good thing in environmental & safety terms, isn't it?

There's lots of urban and semi-urban motorways and dual carriageway ring roads. Leicester and Derby are hemmed in by dual carriageways, to take two cities I know well. A lot of cities and large towns are encircled or partially encircled by ring roads that are either entirely new or expansions of existing roads.

As for the environmental and safety case, if the only options were "private cars" or "private cars but slightly better" then yes I'd go for the second option, but both options encourage car usage which is what we need to get away from.

 

[Cantab26]

Don't forget we are 3 years away from a national election

I wouldn’t necessarily bet on that: I am given to understand that the Queen’s Speech tomorrow is likely to include reference to repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.

 

[squizzler]

It never ceases to amaze me that no a rail forum we are blessed with so many apologists for the status quo. In fact I think the national discourse has moved on, but clearly nostalgia is the default position for rail enthusiasts and many of us wish we lived in the days of Richard Beeching and when motorcars were conflated with progress.

The fact that one of the government's flagship policies to do with railways is actually called "Reversing Beeching" might give the more savvy reader a slight hint as to what they feel about the historic closure programme. I suspect that things will consider in this vein, with some of the more egregious rail expansions in the Southeast publicly paused or put on the back burner to impress the red wall voters. Highway programmes will hopefully concentrate on environmental improvements to road corridors thus providing cities and towns with a decent public realm, green lungs and climate resilience, as well as improving the utility of roads to foot and bicycle traffic. For many of the post-industrial cities this sort of improvement which has too long been the enjoyed only by the flagship metropolises is long overdue and has been personally championed by the prime minister.

 

[ac6000cw]

I doubt there's ANY developed country that delivers local freight by rail anymore in the way things happened here before the 60s, with each small station having a separate goods yard

There's still a bit of it in the USA, but mostly via small, low cost, 'short line' railroads, and the 'goods yards' are usually termed 'road-rail transload facilities' or similar these days (they act as small scale distribution hubs - which is what the old style UK goods yards served as really, but within quite a small area).

There is rather more direct-to-and-from-the-customer-premises 'loose car' (wagonload) traffic in the US.

But the big difference is that those freight cars may have come from 1000 or more miles away, which means that rail can still be competitive with road due to the length of the mainline haul. It's still profitable business for the railroads because they handle it 'door to door', versus intermodal where they tend to be involved just in the middle part of the haul.

(Many years ago it took the US railroads quite a while to work out how to make a profit out of intermodal - it was development of double-stack trains combined with the very long hauls from west coast ports that really made it work financially).

 

[HSTEd]

There's still a bit of it in the USA, but mostly via small, low cost, 'short line' railroads, and the 'goods yards' are usually termed 'road-rail transload facilities' or similar these days

Including some truly oddball operations, like the Iowa Traction Railway who are using steeplecabs from 1918 to this day.

Although for many years that line was sustained primarily as a hobby for a succession of wealthy benefactors, however it appears to operate on a commercial basis today.

But unlikely anything like that could endure in the UK

 

[Dr Hoo]

There's lots of urban and semi-urban motorways and dual carriageway ring roads. Leicester and Derby are hemmed in by dual carriageways, to take two cities I know well. A lot of cities and large towns are encircled or partially encircled by ring roads that are either entirely new or expansions of existing roads.

Neither Leicester or Derby ever had a rail 'network' that supported a significant modal share of commuting. Both suffered from having multiple 'central' stations not connected with each other as they were built by separate companies. In both cities the 'centre' is now separated from the surviving station by 'ring roads' that paradoxically make them easier to access by road (car, taxi and some bus routes) for longer distance journeys.

Better urban transport may have existed in the past with trams (Leicester) and trolleybuses (Derby) and something along those lines is needed now to get maximum benefit from decongestion and reduced emissions. Not inappropriate investment in heavy rail.

 

[Horizon22]

Ignores the fact that you need to get to the station first and are invariably fleeced for parking to begin with. Don't say "oh but use a bus / bike" etc - I live on the edge of a large town, the nearest stations are 5 miles and 7 miles away. Any bus is going to take *at least* 30 minutes to cover those distances, if only because by their very nature they have to stop and pick up other passengers. So do I want my journey to / from work extended by 30 + minutes a day, just to assuage your guilt about the environment and desire to force people onto public transport ? Probably not.

This is also a problem with recent planning in this country. Sprawling detached estates on the edge of mid-sized towns (often in the SE) where a car is pretty much essential. These estates don't link into services or public transport and will need to be addressed if we want truly need a modal shift to sustainable forms, such as rail.

 

[RT4038]

This is also a problem with recent planning in this country. Sprawling detached estates on the edge of mid-sized towns (often in the SE) where a car is pretty much essential. These estates don't link into services or public transport and will need to be addressed if we want truly need a modal shift to sustainable forms, such as rail.

And quite how is this to be addressed on the huge amount of development already built (recent in this context being the last 40 years at least) in this fashion (not just in the SE, but all over the country)? This is not just housing, but retail and workplaces too. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

 

[Horizon22]

And quite how is this to be addressed on the huge amount of development already built (recent in this context being the last 40 years at least) in this fashion (not just in the SE, but all over the country)? This is not just housing, but retail and workplaces too. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Well I agree we can't undo what's been done. But we can obviously change course.

 

[RT4038]

Better urban transport may have existed in the past with trams (Leicester) and trolleybuses (Derby) and something along those lines is needed now to get maximum benefit from decongestion and reduced emissions. Not inappropriate investment in heavy rail.

But that better urban transport was only better because of the paucity of private motor traffic in those far distant times. It is segregated 'track' (either road or rail) which is key - and usually very expensive to achieve.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is also a problem with recent planning in this country.

It’s been going on for 70 years. It’s not just recent, and not just in this country either.

 

[HSTEd]

This is also a problem with recent planning in this country. Sprawling detached estates on the edge of mid-sized towns (often in the SE) where a car is pretty much essential. These estates don't link into services or public transport and will need to be addressed if we want truly need a modal shift to sustainable forms, such as rail.

This style of development emerged long before the car.

See Metroland and large parts of Sydney.

These areas can have affordable high intensity public transport, it just costs a bit more.
I would argue that that the lifestyle benefits of living in suburbia more than make up for the downsides in paying a bit more for transport.