Integrated ticketing (once set up) shouldn’t require too much of a boost to usage to break even.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The total number ordered over time will be exactly the same….
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What could be done to increase rail usage outside of London?
- Thread starter eldomtom2
- Start date
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Not really. Most of the (massive) potential to convert to rail are car owners who are currently driving instead, and wouldn't use public transport to their local station if they do convert.
There's 2 main categories - those not using rail at all for their journey, and those driving to a mainline station bypassing a connecting service.
Could have the opposite effect as most costs are fixed per train, not variable - i
e it costs no more to run a full train than a half full one, but revenue doubles
Sun Chariot
Established Member
I agree re: "between home and local railway station".
My point was about distance and ease of travel between the station they disembark at and their intended destination.
For three years, I commuted twixt London's Zone 3 east (King George V Dock) and Zone 6 west (Stockley Park business park, off the M4). My nearest viable railway connection: Paddington. 16.5 miles from my place of work. Courtesy shuttle-bus (only 3 each way, per morning and 3 each way per late afternoon) was my only viable transport.
I say that with total conviction, as once my bus was cancelled, necessitating more than an hour's walk to West Drayton; and a point to point journey time of more than 3 hours.
Last edited:
Most of the potential new rail traffic is people living in houses that haven't been built yet and working in jobs that don't exist yet.
Peterthegreat
Established Member
N
They regularly let 5 cars go instead of 9 or 10.
No?
They regularly let 5 cars go instead of 9 or 10.
I've been living in Exeter for 5 years and can relate to that. The limits on rail travel into Exeter are set by the long sections of single track which affect all routes apart from the GW main line. With regard to Plymouth, which I don't know well, the recently redeveloped Armada Way could have had a light rail link from the station down to Royal Parade and perhaps into the Barbican. I doubt that anything like that was considered seriously. Further north in Bristol, where I grew up, several lines were lost in the 1960s and 70s which might have formed the basis of a light rail system, but transport planning back then was all about cars.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Free (or very cheap) parking at stations is the norm at non Intercity stations where there is no direct London service.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
Yes, but with a rolling programme they would have to abandon the idea that they is enough work for all. A rolling programme almost by definition requires a long term contract, and contracts with multiple providers would inevitably lose to a single framework contract.
The railway would save a big pile of money but only at substantial political cost to the government.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Metrolink style expansions in Manchester (obviously), Nottingham, Sheffield, Tyne and Wear and Blackpool could potentially grow patronage and cut rail industry costs at the same time.
Merseyrail extensions are also available that would make some kind of sense, especially Wigan, where the line just stops a few miles away from an interchange in the middle of nowhere.
Warrington etc are more challenging but I think a case can be made for those too.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There's a kind of package of stuff that could be done around that relating to both Metrolink and Merseyrail.
If you send Merseyrail to Wigan, which I agree you should (and should really have happened instead of Headbolt as it has, including stuff like a Pimbo Skem Parkway) you can then get a nice pattern going at Wigan - 2 Southport-Bolton-Vic-wherever (Bolton gives you the same platform interchange to Castlefield in both directions undoing the evils of the downgraded interchange at Salford Crescent caused by the extra platform), 2 North Western-Atherton-Castlefield-Airport (as part of the Castlefield Metro idea).
Similarly Merseyrail to Warrington, Castlefield Metro from there to Manchester.
The long term aim of course to put them on Metrolink, but "Castlefield Metro", creating something a bit like the Snow Hill lines rather than the present mess, is an improvement that could be done quite cheaply using existing 195/331 stock and rejigging existing routes (ideally with some improvements at Victoria which remains an utterly grim hole of a station). Some wouldn't like it, but I bet some didn't like Merseyrail's inception or Thameslink expansion - you can't suit everyone with a given change.
I'm talking about the potential that exists today, which is massive. Rail is about 9% of passenger miles.
mike57
Established Member
Simplify ticketing, you only really need Anytime, Off Peak and Advance.
Integrate bus services with rail, particularly in less populated areas, with through ticketing.
Ensure that there is sufficent rolling stock to meet normal (i.e. apart from special events) demand, and even if it is old ensure that it is turned out clean and tidy with workng toilets.
Offer zoned travel cards, to include all (subsidised) public transport.
Eliminate the worst excessive short hop fares, for example an anytime day single between Hull and Cottingham (just under 4 miles) is £7
On underused routes offer 'free days' a couple of times a year, some people may then decide train is easier than other modes
Integrate bus services with rail, particularly in less populated areas, with through ticketing.
Ensure that there is sufficent rolling stock to meet normal (i.e. apart from special events) demand, and even if it is old ensure that it is turned out clean and tidy with workng toilets.
Offer zoned travel cards, to include all (subsidised) public transport.
Eliminate the worst excessive short hop fares, for example an anytime day single between Hull and Cottingham (just under 4 miles) is £7
On underused routes offer 'free days' a couple of times a year, some people may then decide train is easier than other modes
Bit of a meaningless statistic. What we need is the % where rail is /could be a viable option.
But what percentage of trips is it where rail is actually an option? e.g. my commute to work where I've gone past the office before I get to the railway station is part of the 91% but could never be a rail trip.
tbtc
Veteran Member
* One reason why large numbers use rail into central London is that driving would be ridiculously stressful/ complicated/ expensive (and that's assuming you can even get a parking space). Whereas the M621/A58(M) will take you very close to central Leeds, the M602/A57(M) to central Manchester, the only two roads from Wirral both dump you in central Liverpool (whilst the M62 is only three miles from Lime Street), the A167M is a quick way to access central Newcastle, Glasgow has the M8 and M74 right by the city centre... So rail is competing with one arm behind its back - the City leaders in these places must have welcomed investment in motorways over the decades but making driving right into the city centre so attractive cubes at a cost
*DMUs were built with the expected lifespan of around 35-40 years, so that shouldn't be a problem. I dislike 150s, especially the low seats, the 3+2, but their current age isn't a huge problem. They are basic trains doing basic duties on fairly unglamorous services. The lack of an agreed replacement is
*If the question is how to get rail use up in northern England then, before spending billions on some big infrastructure projects, could we at least try to run a seven day a week railway on local trains into Liverpool and Manchester? I'm not going back into the Industrial Relations stuff but ordinary people work/ shop/ socialise on Sundays. Relying on overtime/ many short notice cancellations etc means I wouldn't trust the train to get me anywhere in December (when nobody wants to volunteer for additional shifts) - if rail is a Public Service then that applies all week long
* For many urban corridors, trams were the way of getting around, not trains. Trying to get trains to serve places they never used to sounds a lot more complicated than using Light Rail to some those problems
*DMUs were built with the expected lifespan of around 35-40 years, so that shouldn't be a problem. I dislike 150s, especially the low seats, the 3+2, but their current age isn't a huge problem. They are basic trains doing basic duties on fairly unglamorous services. The lack of an agreed replacement is
*If the question is how to get rail use up in northern England then, before spending billions on some big infrastructure projects, could we at least try to run a seven day a week railway on local trains into Liverpool and Manchester? I'm not going back into the Industrial Relations stuff but ordinary people work/ shop/ socialise on Sundays. Relying on overtime/ many short notice cancellations etc means I wouldn't trust the train to get me anywhere in December (when nobody wants to volunteer for additional shifts) - if rail is a Public Service then that applies all week long
* For many urban corridors, trams were the way of getting around, not trains. Trying to get trains to serve places they never used to sounds a lot more complicated than using Light Rail to some those problems
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It isn't actually only Sunday that is a problem. With Merseyrail having a standard 4tph (2 on Sundays), the 1tph weekdays (plus the odd peak extra), 0.5tph Sundays on the Chat Moss line is an absolute joke, and if I lived along there I'd indeed be driving. 1tph has no place in large cities. It needs to be an absolute minimum of 2, preferably 4 with an aim to get to 6 where infrastructure improvements permit.
(As an aside Metrolink needs to look to change from its clumsy 5tph to 6. It makes times much more memorable).
As a bare minimum, the second hourly train (Liverpool-Warrington BQ stopper) urgently needs to be reinstated.
Agree, although it's very subjective. But the difference in road / rail is so big it only takes 5% of road trips to switch to rail for rail usage to increase by 50%
And of course completely overwhelm the existing rail provision!
Snow1964
Established Member
Might be where you live, but here in West Wiltshire, car parks are £6 to £7.30 all day parking (based on Trowbridge and Bradford on Avon)
And a further downside is have to get train ticket and car park ticket as separate transactions. Opposite of seamless, integrated system.
Both of these examples have limited buses, 2 per hour daytime, but more sparse early morning and evening
Topological
Established Member
This is a very good point about permability of cities by car.
In Cardiff, you can do 70mph and be parked 3 minutes later*. Some people seem to like to queue for the St David's Centre, but just parking on one of the surface car parks is much cheaper and the walk to the shops is not exactly far.
* This assumes relatively normal traffic on the A4232 and then slowing to 50 for the tunnels. Quick 50 up the Central link and a short 30 block before a couple of hundred metres at 20 into the car park. I hope they won't change that though.
There are all sorts of people who could benefit from, or contribute to society through using public transport more
Not all of them are motorists.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Road has a lot of very short journeys, as does the 91% which includes a high proportion of cycle trips etc, so really isn't a meaningful statistic.
Last edited:
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,630
And for Rail to not come close to being able to absorb that modal shift either.
Peterthegreat
Established Member
Put all the TOCs under Cross Country Management. That way all trains will become full and standing overnight.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
If we are willing to go down the S-bahn rabbit hole..... how far do we push it?
Obviously some German S-bahn journeys are very long.
Trams/Tram trains (if a tram train is running on a route with only tram trains, is it still a tram train?) are available with toilet modules for a reason!
Now obviously freight would restrict just how much of the railway network could be converted, but there are an awful lot of possibilities.
Personally, I think you might be able to make a case for a conversion of the northern half of the Penistone line into a Supertram line sharing a connection to the existing network with a Stocksbridge route. Then you'd either operate the remaining southern section as a stub from Barnsley, or just as a Supertram shuttle (I doubt Sheffield to Barnsley via Penistone would be a through route!)
Marginal improvement to rail provision barely move the dial on modal shift for existing journeys, most people not using rail don't know that they have happened. For example I still meet people in the Cambridge area that don't know that they can get a direct train to Gatwick Airport.
It takes big investments in stations and lines to change existing travel patterns significantly. Here opening Cambridge South is about to test that out.
But when people move house or job they make new decisions on how to travel, that's the opportunity for rail, not trying to persuade a few people currently making journeys by car to switch to rail. Where people live and where people work is dynamic not static. Houses near stations and jobs near stations most help to get them to choose rail.
It's the demand that needs the intervention first.
For whatever reason cities and towns outside of London deurbanised and suburbanised to a much greater extent than London (and much of the South East). Rail works best at bringing commuters in high-ish density urban residential districts to city centre employment and commercial destinations, and facilitating urban-to-urban business and leisure trips. The land use of much of the country is such that a lot of journeys are from sprawling suburbs to office and retail parks at motorway junctions.
Things are improving but still at a disappointing pace. Too much of Greater Bristol's commercial activity is Cribbs Causeway and Aztec; Tyne & Wear prioritised building Barratt estates off dual carriageways over building dense neighbourhoods around Metro stations; too many Merseyrail stations in Birkenhead are still surrounded by dereliction.
Then there's the willingness to pay. Regional cities have an underdeveloped knowledge sector demographic compared to comparable European peers. Even at a relatively high load factor a suburban train with cheap fares doesn't pay its way. The government is very clear - there is no money for increasing rail subsidy.
Without the land use, the 'captive' volumes, and the willingness to pay London fares, it's almost impossible to make positive business cases for significant rail investments outside of London and the South East and selected (usually London facing but not always) inter-city routes.
For whatever reason cities and towns outside of London deurbanised and suburbanised to a much greater extent than London (and much of the South East). Rail works best at bringing commuters in high-ish density urban residential districts to city centre employment and commercial destinations, and facilitating urban-to-urban business and leisure trips. The land use of much of the country is such that a lot of journeys are from sprawling suburbs to office and retail parks at motorway junctions.
Things are improving but still at a disappointing pace. Too much of Greater Bristol's commercial activity is Cribbs Causeway and Aztec; Tyne & Wear prioritised building Barratt estates off dual carriageways over building dense neighbourhoods around Metro stations; too many Merseyrail stations in Birkenhead are still surrounded by dereliction.
Then there's the willingness to pay. Regional cities have an underdeveloped knowledge sector demographic compared to comparable European peers. Even at a relatively high load factor a suburban train with cheap fares doesn't pay its way. The government is very clear - there is no money for increasing rail subsidy.
Without the land use, the 'captive' volumes, and the willingness to pay London fares, it's almost impossible to make positive business cases for significant rail investments outside of London and the South East and selected (usually London facing but not always) inter-city routes.
I agree but that is relatively easily fixed The railways do a really poor job of promoting themselves. The majority of people are completely unaware of the services available - IMO there should be large adverts at each station e.g. 70 minutes to Central London etc! And other locations e.g. on the A12 Shenfield junction - if there was a large sign advertsing direct services to all Heathrow terminals I'm sure a lot of people driving to the airport would do that instead of the M25 trek.
Given Crossrail's observed loadings, I'm not sure it needs too much promoting.
The railway is in a catch 22 -
Where it's running maximum length trains at maximum frequency (the majority of L&SE commuter lines and London-facing inter-city lines) it almost needs to turn people away.
Outside of L&SE where there are train lengthening and frequency improvement opportunities, you need subsidies for which the money isn't available.
Not without accelerated land use changes and raising fares to a level where a reasonably (but not crush) loaded train covers its operating costs.