Comment piece in Passenger Transport - "The railway risks becoming irrelevant"

[Ken H]

You just have to accept thay in a developed and wealthy country like Britain, having a family car is a norm, and the costs of it are somewhat incidental. Yes, you can account things in such a way to make a rail trip seem cheaper, these commonly leave lots of things out, like getting to/from the railway, but it's one of those things that is normal to have.

Sure, life would be cheaper if you didn't get married, but most do. If you didn't have such a nice house, but most strive to do so. I do accept that members of this board are something of an outlier when it comes to transport decisions, but for most of the population, if they are not going to or within London, they hardly ever use a train.

I think in t'grim north, which I know best, there are a few places where rail is quite well used. but vast areas where its irrelevant for getting to a city centre. Compare ilkley (Train line) and Otley (no trains)

 

[stuu]

Actually a huge number of people live in sparsely populated areas. And they sometimes visit cities. how would that work? P+R?

That's a massive oxymoron.

84% of the British population live in urban areas (+10,000 people)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2022 ==

As an example, why does it cost around seventy pounds to get from West Yorkshire to Whitby by mid-day on a week day ?

Because every single mile needs complicated infrastructure which is expensive to run and maintain. That's 28p per mile (Bradford-Whitby return), including paying for the track, signalling, train and all the other components. How much should it cost?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

That's a massive oxymoron.

84% of the British population live in urban areas (+10,000 people)

If the above figure is accurate, does that then mean that 16% of the British population don't live in an "urban area" (as you've defined)?

GB population is something like 67 million, so 16% of that figure is slightly over 10 million. Still a fair number!

 

[takno]

If the above figure is accurate, does that then mean that 16% of the British population don't live in an "urban area" (as you've defined)?

GB population is something like 67 million, so 16% of that figure is still over 10 million. Still a fair number!

I mean it is, but all anybody is proposing is that we don't build our entire transport strategy around the 16%. I you accept that they are outliers then you can start to do all sorts of things, potentially even including letting them have subsidised fuel and priority access to the remaining parking spaces. Ultimately the 16% won't benefit from being used as a justification for building our urban areas around cars though.

 

[yorksrob]

That's a massive oxymoron.

84% of the British population live in urban areas (+10,000 people)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2022 ==


Because every single mile needs complicated infrastructure which is expensive to run and maintain. That's 28p per mile (Bradford-Whitby return), including paying for the track, signalling, train and all the other components. How much should it cost?

A lot less than seventy quid.

Leeds to Liverpool isn't seventy quid.

 

[Dryce]

Because every single mile needs complicated infrastructure which is expensive to run and maintain. That's 28p per mile (Bradford-Whitby return), including paying for the track, signalling, train and all the other components. How much should it cost?

Less.

Why? Rail system is an industrial mass transport system - and by implication should - if it is viable - be tangibly cheaper than alternatives.

28p per mile isn't low enough compared with the cost of driving. And that's before the driver is accompanied by one or more passengers in the car.

And is comparing with car travelling non-solo unfair? I don't think so - unless 75% to 80% of seats are there not to be used on the railway.

 

[reddragon]

Indeed. Only in Greater London do the majority of households not have access to a car.

I thinks its Glasgow that has the lowest

 

[GoneSouth]

That's 28p per mile (Bradford-Whitby return), including paying for the track, signalling, train and all the other components. How much should it cost?

I wish my bus journeys were 28p per mile. A typical trip for me is around 4 miles which costs £3.50 for some reason known only to Stagecoach. There’s no complicated track and signalling on equipment (unless you count traffic lights, but the journey can still take place without those when they are broken) and the road surface is in a shocking state. The timetable is shrinking and the ones that are timetabled are frequently cancelled. I consider this poor value for money at about 87p per mile in comparison with the Whitby example.

 

[Ken H]

That's a massive oxymoron.

84% of the British population live in urban areas (+10,000 people)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2022 ==


Because every single mile needs complicated infrastructure which is expensive to run and maintain. That's 28p per mile (Bradford-Whitby return), including paying for the track, signalling, train and all the other components. How much should it cost?

10,000 is quite a small place. Ripon, Skipton are a bit bigger than that, about 150k. They are not what I think of as an urban area. Walking across them in under a hour is possible. but they dont provide everything you could possibly want. People from there will go to Harrogate or Keighley, or even Leeds or Bradford for big ticket or specialist items, or even for work. They hardly support a local bus service, but the out of town buses do help there (Esp Broughton Rd and Gargrave Rd)

Anyway, what are they counting. Skipton - do they exclude Embsay, Carleton, Snaygill, Bradley? Or are they lumped in the Skipton population.

Round here I regard Kendal and Harrogate as urban. The Colne/Nelson/Burnley area is definitely urban. But little else.

 

[johncrossley]

I thinks its Glasgow that has the lowest

Places like Rutherglen, Paisley, Clydebank etc. are not included in 'Glasgow', so that is more comparable with Inner London. Outer London is quite different.

 

[yorksrob]

10,000 is quite a small place. Ripon, Skipton are a bit bigger than that, about 150k. They are not what I think of as an urban area. Walking across them in under a hour is possible. but they dont provide everything you could possibly want. People from there will go to Harrogate or Keighley, or even Leeds or Bradford for big ticket or specialist items, or even for work. They hardly support a local bus service, but the out of town buses do help there (Esp Broughton Rd and Gargrave Rd)

Anyway, what are they counting. Skipton - do they exclude Embsay, Carleton, Snaygill, Bradley? Or are they lumped in the Skipton population.

Round here I regard Kendal and Harrogate as urban. The Colne/Nelson/Burnley area is definitely urban. But little else.

I think that statistically, such a small towns are included in the "urban" category. And that sort of size (and a bit bigger) is the sort that's ideally suited to the passenger railway.

 

[matacaster]

Even in a decent sized town (150000ish), huddersfield buses reduce to 1 every 40 minutes. Or more on most routes after around 19.00 in evening. That's bearable in the summer but crap in pennine winters. The last bus is usually around 23.00. Theres usually only about 10 on at 22.00. The only real alternatives are walking or taxi.

 

[coppercapped]

I mean it is, but all anybody is proposing is that we don't build our entire transport strategy around the 16%. I you accept that they are outliers then you can start to do all sorts of things, potentially even including letting them have subsidised fuel and priority access to the remaining parking spaces. Ultimately the 16% won't benefit from being used as a justification for building our urban areas around cars though.

Going off at a slight tangent, our new urban areas are in fact designed around refuse collecting lorries. Road widths, curvature, reversing spaces if necessary, are designed around the movement envelope of refuse collection lorries. And fire appliances and other emergency vehicles are also part of the design mix.

By default the roads are then ideally sized for cars.

So if the roads in new areas are designed to be impassable for cars and only suitable for walkers and bicyclists how does one collect the rubbish and the people with heart attacks?

 

[miklcct]

Going off at a slight tangent, our new urban areas are in fact designed around refuse collecting lorries. Road widths, curvature, reversing spaces if necessary, are designed around the movement envelope of refuse collection lorries. And fire appliances and other emergency vehicles are also part of the design mix.

By default the roads are then ideally sized for cars.

So if the roads in new areas are designed to be impassable for cars and only suitable for walkers and bicyclists how does one collect the rubbish and the people with heart attacks?

A grid road network is not only good for cars, but also for buses as well. It means you can get from anywhere to anywhere with just 1 change at a grid intersection.

 

[johncrossley]

So if the roads in new areas are designed to be impassable for cars and only suitable for walkers and bicyclists how does one collect the rubbish and the people with heart attacks?

What do you think they do in the Netherlands?

 

[Craig1122]

It's interesting, almost psychologically, that people only quote the fuel cost of using their car. And that they are commuting at the same fuel economy as on a long journey (not helped by quoting that in mpg but buying it in litres) After all, at £400 for 20k miles, your tyres are costing another 2p/mile and there are other mileage -dependant maintenance costs. And if you are using one of these finance plans, you will find that the excess mileage charge is usually at least 10p/mile. It can easily be the case that shifting the commute to public transport can save the entire cost of that second car. One of the reasons why it's 'greener' to live in the city than in the countryside, not to mention healthier because town dwellers walk more.

I get the argument for marginal journeys that rail fares are mainly compared with fuel cost but for commuting it's a different kettle of fish. Putting substantial miles on a car has all sorts of costs attached, maintenance like tyres, added depreciation and even changing more frequently than if you do your commuting by rail and bus.

Costs of driving seem to be viewed as either just fuel or total cost of ownership. If you assume ownership as a given then the marginal cost of journeys will actually be somewhere in-between. And likely more expensive than many people like to admit.

 

[Gems]

Name me a developed country that doesn't have a rail transit system? Name a so called un-developed country that doesn't? The whole argument about irrelevance is irrelevant. It's just bitter and twisted people who probably don't use rail harping on about something they know nothing about. You get this everytime there is a dispute.
We were all public enemy number one during the Northern conductor strike. We had no right to exist according to some. I just laugh at those types and dismiss them for who they are.

 

[Goldfish62]

Name me a developed country that doesn't have a rail transit system? Name a so called un-developed country that doesn't? The whole argument about irrelevance is irrelevant. It's just bitter and twisted people who probably don't use rail harping on about something they know nothing about. You get this everytime there is a dispute.
We were all public enemy number one during the Northern conductor strike. We had no right to exist according to some. I just laugh at those types and dismiss them for who they are.

Spot on. Ignore them.

 

[daodao]

There is too much fuss about rural areas. The vast majority of people live in urban or suburban areas where there is huge scope for public transport and cycling.

While most people don't live in rural areas, many live in small or medium-sized towns or outer suburban areas of larger conurbations where public transport is very limited, and where it is unrealistic to provide public transport at the all day frequency that would encourage its use.

 

[JamesT]

Going off at a slight tangent, our new urban areas are in fact designed around refuse collecting lorries. Road widths, curvature, reversing spaces if necessary, are designed around the movement envelope of refuse collection lorries. And fire appliances and other emergency vehicles are also part of the design mix.

By default the roads are then ideally sized for cars.

So if the roads in new areas are designed to be impassable for cars and only suitable for walkers and bicyclists how does one collect the rubbish and the people with heart attacks?

It’s not that the roads are designed to be impassable to cars, but the priority should be towards active travel.
Schemes like LTNs try to retrofit this priority onto existing housing. You can still drive a car into a residential area, but you shouldn’t be able to drive _through_ it. Barriers such as bollards or ANPR bus gates allow cyclists or public transport to continue to use direct routes.
As well as just road design, it’s also a matter of providing sufficient amenities in the local neighbourhood that you can do many of the things you want to without having to jump in a car.

While most people don't live in rural areas, many live in small or medium-sized towns or outer suburban areas of larger conurbations where public transport is very limited, and where it is unrealistic to provide public transport at the all day frequency that would encourage its use.

My mum lives on the outskirts of a medium-sized town. Her estate gets one bus an hour which isn’t much use, so she’ll usually drive. (E.g. going into town for an hour’s class may line up with the timetable, but that usually means having to wait around for most of an hour to catch the return). The first bus of the day is around 8am, which is probably too late to get to work. (Especially if you’re using the bus to get to the train station)
There have been times in the past when the frequency was as high as every 20 minutes, but the current offering doesn’t seem likely to attract more use, which presumably in turn makes it harder to justify a higher frequency.

 

[stuu]

Less.

Why? Rail system is an industrial mass transport system - and by implication should - if it is viable - be tangibly cheaper than alternatives.

28p per mile isn't low enough compared with the cost of driving. And that's before the driver is accompanied by one or more passengers in the car.

And is comparing with car travelling non-solo unfair? I don't think so - unless 75% to 80% of seats are there not to be used on the railway.

Rail is ideal for serving large flows, intercity or commuting into bigger centres. When the passenger numbers are there it is by far the most efficient and cost-effective option. Rail is less good at sparsely used rural routes, from an economic point of view - the line to Whitby for example sees 6 trains per day, and Whitby only gets ~500 passengers per day, both arriving and departing. So each train has, on average, 41 passengers. The subsidy for those journeys must be astronomical, somewhat more than 28p per mile for a start.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Name me a developed country that doesn't have a rail transit system?

Iceland?

 

[johncrossley]

While most people don't live in rural areas, many live in small or medium-sized towns or outer suburban areas of larger conurbations where public transport is very limited, and where it is unrealistic to provide public transport at the all day frequency that would encourage its use.

Services in those areas are only very limited because of policy decisions over the years.

 

[Bantamzen]

Name me a developed country that doesn't have a rail transit system? Name a so called un-developed country that doesn't? The whole argument about irrelevance is irrelevant. It's just bitter and twisted people who probably don't use rail harping on about something they know nothing about. You get this everytime there is a dispute.
We were all public enemy number one during the Northern conductor strike. We had no right to exist according to some. I just laugh at those types and dismiss them for who they are.

Spot on. Ignore them.

And thus ends the lesson on why the public don't support industrial action on the railways.....

Seriously, do you really think dismissing people who might be key to your future careers is a good way to argue that you should be striking? Do remember that the press will visit places like this for little soundbites that they can copy & paste into numerous different articles across different media platforms. By all means make the argument around pay & conditions, but dissing potential customers is just plain daft, and reflects badly on your entire industry I'm sorry to say.

 

[daodao]

Services in those areas are only very limited because of policy decisions over the years.

It is not policy decisions as such, but finance. Such services are generally not profitable, and provision of more than a skeletal subsidised service, to ensure that urban areas are not entirely cut off from public transport, is unaffordable. Once an area loses all day service frequency, it is virtually impossible to reverse the vicious circle of public transport decline. There are certain exceptions, including:

• where there is substantial new high density housing development, which is generally not favoured in the Anglosphere
• where a new public transport corridor is developed, typically with park-and-ride facilities, often at enormous expense, e.g. Cambridgeshire Busway

 

[Gems]

And thus ends the lesson on why the public don't support industrial action on the railways.....

Seriously, do you really think dismissing people who might be key to your future careers is a good way to argue that you should be striking? Do remember that the press will visit places like this for little soundbites that they can copy & paste into numerous different articles across different media platforms. By all means make the argument around pay & conditions, but dissing potential customers is just plain daft, and reflects badly on your entire industry I'm sorry to say.

When did it become fashionable to join the race to the bottom instead of the top? I'll dismiss everybody who deserves dismissing. It's guff, that's what it is. "Oh we'll shut the railway down, Oh you'll all be out of a job" Well, big deal I say, shut it down, I'll go back to my former career like many others will, and those who advocated this nonsense will lose the biggest form of mass transit in the country.
The whole idea that a strike over pay will threaten the existence of the railway is a pipe dream of the right wing media, designed to cull the workforce. It's like pretending Bradford City will one day become a footballing force to be reckoned with, a pipe dream.

 

[Bantamzen]

When did it become fashionable to join the race to the bottom instead of the top? I'll dismiss everybody who deserves dismissing. It's guff, that's what it is. "Oh we'll shut the railway down, Oh you'll all be out of a job" Well, big deal I say, shut it down, I'll go back to my former career like many others will, and those who advocated this nonsense will lose the biggest form of mass transit in the country.
The whole idea that a strike over pay will threaten the existence of the railway is a pipe dream of the right wing media, designed to cull the workforce. It's like pretending Bradford City will one day become a footballing force to be reckoned with, a pipe dream.

Oh for Pete's sake, this isn't about a "race to the bottom"! You do understand that the country is going through severe economic stress, inflation is through the roof, as are energy costs right? We also have the small matter of an additional £500 billion to account for thanks to covid restrictions. Normally I would support workers trying to improve their pay and conditions, but right now there are far more important issues to deal with. A long running transport strike will help exactly no-one, rail workers will lose money, commuters will have to spend more time stuck in road congestions, businesses will lose money just as they are trying to recover. As things stand the railway industry is more heavily reliant on public funds than it has been since privatisation, and that means the days of demanding pay rises as seen previously seen are gone. Welcome to the public sector!

Sorry, but that is the reality. The unions are running head on into a battle with a right wing government desperate for a scape goat. Its simply insane to think that they are just going to melt, because they can't. They can't because then the rest of the public sector, which is far, far larger than the railways will demand the same. Maybe once things have settled down, and we are closer to a general election then the public sector workers can go after better pay. But all the rail unions are doing right now is pushing a government to tighten legislation, and they have the majority to get it through. As I've said all along, you have to know when to pick your fights.

As for strikes threatening the railways, well it may have escaped your attention but we have already seen big cuts in future projects, and in many places severe reduction in services. And all these happened without any strikes. Don't kid yourself for a minute that this government won't take advantage of industrial action to make further cuts, which will lead to fewer passengers, and fewer passengers mean fewer services needed, and fewer staff.

 

[AlterEgo]

I see several posters here are rattled by the Spectator’s troll piece. It didn’t take much.

Nobody is going to close *all the railways*. But the railway is probably going to become a *bit* smaller and less relevant. Railways wilfully abdicated their purpose during covid which was extremely damaging. Short term recovery of passengers - almost entirely leisure based - is championed as a success, but people forget about the nascent cost of living crisis. That’s going to be with us for at least five years.

I’m afraid discretionary travel isn’t going to pay all the bills for the railway and it will increasingly become an even bigger political football as it relies ever more heavily on public subsidy. That’s part and parcel of being nationalised; many people asked for it for a long time, now enjoy the fruits of it as employees, as you come under ever more direct control from the powers that be.

In ten years time there will be fewer staff employed on the railways then there are today. That is inevitable. The 2020s will get its own chapter on a Wikipedia page in 2050 about how the British railway system started to decline, and one of the factors will be severe and damaging industrial action which further underscored the railway’s unreliability.

 

[Bantamzen]

I see several posters here are rattled by the Spectator’s troll piece. It didn’t take much.

Nobody is going to close *all the railways*. But the railway is probably going to become a *bit* smaller and less relevant. Railways wilfully abdicated their purpose during covid which was extremely damaging. Short term recovery of passengers - almost entirely leisure based - is championed as a success, but people forget about the nascent cost of living crisis. That’s going to be with us for at least five years.

I’m afraid discretionary travel isn’t going to pay all the bills for the railway and it will increasingly become an even bigger political football as it relies ever more heavily on public subsidy. That’s part and parcel of being nationalised; many people asked for it for a long time, now enjoy the fruits of it as employees, as you come under ever more direct control from the powers that be.

In ten years time there will be fewer staff employed on the railways then there are today. That is inevitable. The 2020s will get its own chapter on a Wikipedia page in 2050 about how the British railway system started to decline, and one of the factors will be severe and damaging industrial action which further underscored the railway’s unreliability.

You've articulated the situation way better than I could, & I totally agree. I'm only glad that assuming my current plans stay on track, I will only rely on the railways for 7 more years because I can honestly see the service being a lot worse in a decade unless there is a change of government & an ideological shift in society away from personal transport.

 

[daodao]

Nobody is going to close *all the railways*. But the railway is probably going to become a *bit* "somewhat" smaller and less relevant.

I agree, but have made a slight correction, as I think that the closures and cutbacks will be somewhat greater than most people on this forum would like/envisage. For example, it would be optimistic for the Settle and Carlisle line still to be open in 2030.