-
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
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Where people live and where people work is dynamic not static, both are changing all the time.
Society remaking itself to be more convenient for rail travel is obviously already happening.
20 years ago the area around Cambridge station was a dump, now it is the thriving central business district of a fast growing city.
15 years ago the Cambridge Biomedical Campus was still fields, now it has more than 20k employees, is still growing, and will get a new station in a few month's time.
All of the sites proposed by the New Towns Task Force are adjacent or close to railways.
The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework will make housing development near to existing railway stations easier.
There is a steady stream of new housing developments close to railways a recent example is here:
Thousands of new homes approved for Rackheath
The plan includes three new schools and effectively creates a new town.
www.bbc.co.uk
Where people live and where people work is dynamic not static, both are changing all the time.
Society remaking itself to be more convenient for rail travel is obviously already happening.
20 years ago the area around Cambridge station was a dump, now it is the thriving central business district of a fast growing city.
15 years ago the Cambridge Biomedical Campus was still fields, now it has more than 20k employees, is still growing, and will get a new station in a few month's time.
All of the sites proposed by the New Towns Task Force are adjacent or close to railways.
The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework will make housing development near to existing railway stations easier.
There is a steady stream of new housing developments close to railways a recent example is here:
Thousands of new homes approved for Rackheath
The plan includes three new schools and effectively creates a new town.
Indeed so. I was reading about central Manchester recently. 30 years ago, almost no-one lived there. Now 1/4million people do. quite a change in a generation.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
It seemed very busy and inhabited whenever I was there, end-1980s. But maybe that was because most of my time was in its pubs and music-venues.
telstarbox
Established Member
As a counter to this, some settlements already have good rail services but achieving further penetration is difficult. For example Brighton and Hove has an excellent service to London (and Cambridge!) and a good one along the coast to Worthing, Eastbourne etc. There are plenty of car free flat dwellers in the city centre. However the newer areas of Brighton are on the north side with space to park cars and easy access to the A27 bypass. This is a harder market to serve with a new railway line.
Farigiraf
Member
Improved urban transport (including trams in 100k+ cities, as in other European countries) does go a long way to increase usage of mainline rail as well. Once someone living in the outer suburbs takes the tram for their everyday shopping and commuting, it's likely they'll take it to the NR station next time they make a long-distance trip as well. There are quite a few newer areas of cities which have been designed under the assumption that everyone will be driving, so the layout makes it quite hard to fit in a tram, but certainly from now on these areas should be developed with the aim of eventually becoming a public-transport focused area with low car ownership, even if a full-scale urban mass transit network isn't affordable at the moment.
In places like Brighton more rail usage is achieved not necessarily through building more railway lines and stations (albeit that will increase the amount of destinations easily reachable - another important factor) but through making the outer areas of the city actually integrated with the city, through making it simpler to get there - as if you live in a car-centric suburb in outer Brighton and you want to get to e.g. a specific shop, you may as well drive to Eastbourne as it's more or less the same amount of effort. At that point, why even build these housing developments as a part of the city, and not in some village 20 miles out? Once those areas start acting as an actual part of the city - through having high frequency transport links to the city centre - the most popular way to get to places will start to become tram+rail or bus+rail. There's a reason Hauptbahnhof stations in German cities work well, even if some suburbs of that city are miles from it - there's usually two or three tram lines and countless bus routes which you can take onwards from the station to practically every part of the city. You can do door-to-door from one outer suburb to another city's outer suburb with just 2 changes, often much simpler than driving. Can't do that as easily in parts of Brighton, if you have to rely on an infrequent and slow bus for the first and last legs.
Definitely good to have more people actually living in town and city centres, but are these people who have moved away from car dependent suburbs or students/young pre-kids couples/others for whom this is their first UK home and who will eventually want to move out to more car dependent suburbs as they progress through life? Are primary and secondary schools expanding in city centres to reduce ‘school run’ traffic or just cafes, restaurants and bars?
If we want more European-like intra- and inter-city transport do we need to adopt a more European-like way of living throughout our life stages?
Almost certainly the latter but it’s a start. As long as plans aren’t abandoned because they don’t bring 100% of the desired results within 6 months…. These kind of shifts take decades.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Huge numbers of people live in suburbs in Germany too. Those suburbs might look a bit different (more being 5-6 storey flats surrounded by greenery rather than packed in terraced houses with no parkland) but they're of similar density. It has more to do with a willingness to subsidise than density. You even get outer suburbs full of detached houses just like we have (very few semis though).
People living in city centres aren't going to do much for local rail because they won't use it that often because they're already in the city centre!
But also currently has a poor service to and from Liverpool, considering it is in the City Region and a growing commuter town.
It seemed very busy and inhabited whenever I was there, end-1980s. But maybe that was because most of my time was in its pubs and music-venues.
I lived there in the late 90s, and it was the era of industrial conversions - beginnings of Urban Splash, Queer as Folk - all of that was happening and that saw a return to the city in certain areas and demographics. It doesn't have much of a core residential in the Georgian / Victorian style (a smattering of the former, far less than Liverpool - the latter was all red slum housing until Didsbury) - so the beginning was the post-industrial trend.
But I wouldn't say that era added hugely to population (indeed many loft units were oversized for a single gay man, etc!) - but added more to culture. It all put Manchester on the map again.
Later it manifested in newer buildings, as Salford Quays, Spinningfields, Beetham all came online - and provided the net new stock. But really, the it comes back to jobs. And back to why we're here - 3tph to Euston certainly opened Manchester up in an insane way.
aron2smith
Member
I generally agree, ONCE on the train/ TFL's system.
Cheshunt is a classic first mile/ last mile problem. It generally takes me longer to get across the local area than the train to Liverpool St or Stratford! It is great having a wide choice of lines though.
The situation has improved a little this year as the 242 leaves 10 minutes earlier and is much more reliable now. If on time, a 12 minute connection (minus a 4 minute walk from the bus station to rail station) at Waltham Cross, if late, it matters less now as the Stratford service is only 14 minutes later and Theobalds Grove actually works as a back up plan now. Appears to similarly connect in the other direction too. But only in the daytime to evening, as very few buses runs at night.
If Cheshunt was a part of TFL's buses as far as Brookfield/ Hammond Street or even just a county subsidised minibus (like in Broxbourne/ Hoddesdon) linked the residential areas with Cheshunt and Cuffley Stations all day, it really would open a wealth of destinations up overnight. Something from here to Cockfosters, High Barnet, Chingford as well as a later running 66 to Loughton would be useful too. Before even considering the long term benefits from frequency improvements on the Overground or Hertford Loop at Cuffley, yet alone Crossrail 2. Some major bus improvements really would make Cheshunt the perfect commuter town.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The contrast between areas with Merseyrail and without it is huge. Visited Chester, Birkenhead and Liverpool yesterday. Forgot how busy the 4 car trains got, seemed like a constant flow of people, unsurprising for a train every 15 minutes. The Northern services weren't like that unless they went to Manchester. In Birkenhead, the service was basically like the tube. And yet go the other way, it's night and day.
I think if anywhere shows the need for vastly improved rail services including new lines though, it's the West Midlands, huge areas have only buses. Some very poorly located stations. Frequency on West Midland Railways is good but seems there is a total lack of stations and lines for some reason (plenty of abandoned ones though). Saw part of the Brierley Hill extension while travelling through the other day and think it will be a game changer, especially in Dudley.
Every PTE area should have a mix of commuter stopping services and light rail. This is the real reason we need more high speed rail, so the Intercity services can continue connecting the country while local services can serve commuter and regional needs including linking of housing sites with new stations.
Hopefully, Merseyrail in the long run can serve every borough in its region in the same consistent high frequency way. The number of stations around Liverpool is impressive but not all used to their full capacity.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree around Exeter is far superior to Plymouth's rail offering but the station isn't that badly located. Being next to the university which is next to the city centre, very walkable once the works down Armada Way are finally finished. Many bus routes stop near the station and in the outskirts in less than 10 minutes. Other than around Mutley or into Plymstock, traffic flows quite well I think.
You are right a huge amount of Plymouth is away from the railway. In part because of the hilly geography and how the city grew since the 40s. Plympton needs a station, but I think the railway around Plymouth is 1 big bottleneck unfortunately. Single track section on the Brunel Tamar Bridge, Dawlish problems in fresh memory (again!). What would do Plymouth good is the infrastructure to enable a regular (at least hourly) service from Ivybridge to Tavistock and then everywhere else including to Derriford and Plymstock have a light rail or BRT system covering the gaps. A lot of the railways historically around Plymouth, I do wonder why they existed as even now, few people live in some of those places but today's urban area needs something more than buses and the roads are definitely big enough to cover the core bus corridors with something higher capacity.
Last edited:
For my commute to and from work, rail is impossible, no stations no lines between home and work.
That leaves leisure and other travel - trip to the nearest city centre and maybe supermarkets etc and here in lies another issue:
To get to my nearest railway station the only option is to drive there, and at that point I'm presented with an expensive pay to park car park, and a railroad station with more fees to use the train - on top of that there is a myriad of fees fares and a risk of a parking fine.
My other option is to drive, and while petrol is currently on the up in price, the cost of rail and the risk of a fine in the railway car park is far too high, compared to the risks of using a park and ride, or driving straight to a supermarket.
So to encourage rail use, make parking easier, cheaper and lower the risk of a parking penalty fine notice from the likes of APCOA.
The last time I used a train in the UK was in 2012 to get to London just after the Olympics had finished, and for me its not a practical form of transport, just a novelty
That leaves leisure and other travel - trip to the nearest city centre and maybe supermarkets etc and here in lies another issue:
To get to my nearest railway station the only option is to drive there, and at that point I'm presented with an expensive pay to park car park, and a railroad station with more fees to use the train - on top of that there is a myriad of fees fares and a risk of a parking fine.
My other option is to drive, and while petrol is currently on the up in price, the cost of rail and the risk of a fine in the railway car park is far too high, compared to the risks of using a park and ride, or driving straight to a supermarket.
So to encourage rail use, make parking easier, cheaper and lower the risk of a parking penalty fine notice from the likes of APCOA.
The last time I used a train in the UK was in 2012 to get to London just after the Olympics had finished, and for me its not a practical form of transport, just a novelty
WTT Gremlin
Member
Two things... First, and most importantly the Royal Navy (and their dockyards). Second, maritime commerce. Second large natural harbour (considering vessels of the time) on the south coast of England from the Atlantic without the challenge of traversing Cornwall and crossing the Tamar having landed at Falmouth.
If memory serves something around a day could be saved disembarking at Plymouth than continuing to the ports of the Solent.
I wasn't thinking about platform length, but that could be an issue.
My point was more that to go from filling a 2-car train to filling an 8-car train, we need to replace all our 30s and post-war semi-detached houses by 6-storey blocks of flats, and a corresponding increase in population to fill them.
Rolling stock financing model is neither here nor there.
We're already up to six carriages on the Airedale line from three a few years ago. No major housing demolitions there. Same with trans-pennine.
There's a lot of latent demand on a lot of regional routes outside of London. Look at Cross Country - crying out for eight carriages and longer. In many of these cases, its the structure of the industry causing the issue, not the lack of demand.
Those are exceptions that prove the rule.
I do think the economic case for lengthening Cross Country and TransPennine trains should be pretty strong. Over long distance the train is competitive on journey time and driving is a chore.
For shorter-distance regional and commuter travel however land use is a factor. I was more thinking Manchester and Liverpool suburbs - the land use along the Atherton and Marple lines for example are is pretty awful - and it's no accident those lines see low frequency toy-sized trains. Merseyrail provides a good service but with eye watering subsidies - the trains are just nowhere near as full as they need to be. Merseyrail carries about 30m trips a year where it should be carrying about 100m. Morning peak trains leaving Hamilton Square should be packing out double-unit trains at 4 to the square metre. Our regional cities are generally improving in terms of city centre developments, but for as long as plots are awaiting development, they continue operating as surface car parks.
Airedale and Wharfedale routes serve posh towns that historically have high rates of commuting into Central Leeds and unlike inner suburbs never went through post-war suburbanisation or deurbanisation. And even then I wonder if the 6-car trains are needed because trains are carrying London style crush loads or simply some people were having to stand.
The exception that proves the rule ?
You mention the Atherton line - this has a relatively frequent service and often has four carriage trains, so you've chosen a poor example (my experience of the Marple line is more limited, but at least the Merseyrail pacers are gone). In Leeds, less leafy routes into the Five towns area are more limited by the length of platform 17 than demand.
Even those not particularly posh settlements between Leeds and Doncaster justify four carriage electrics.
Lots of routes outside of London have the same story - even the Coastway routes either side of Brighton have long justified frequent electric services.
Crush loaded peak trains will inevitably be a smaller proportion of the mix with more working from home.
If you're saying that trains should be limited to the length that can be entirely accommodated at the shortest platform otherwise its a poor use of stock, there's going to be a lot of places with suddenly truncated trains leaving people behind (including the London Underground!)
What I’m pointing out is that using a 6 car train on that line is wasting unit space. Previously this line was worked by 4 car trains that fit the platforms.
The Doncaster line had 4 cars on the stoppers. I now see 3 car units on them. I suppose the real cause is the fact that the 3 car units were one car short
Topological
Established Member
An interesting discussion of Manchester.
I started uni in Manchester in 2000 and it was a very different city to what it is now. The growth in population in that time has been very noticeable. As mentioned that does mean a population not using trains to get to work. However, the trains in Manchester are also very good at taking people to leisure activities, a nice pint in a country pub and a walk around for example. The demand for those services appears to have grown.
The question of who is living in Manchester is also a good one. Some would have been previous commuters to Manchester. Some would have been future commuters but now stay after university. However, there has been a massive growth in jobs in central Manchester too. With the rise of work from home I do get confused sometimes, but they are still building office buildings and the people doing the developing are not just trying to burn money.
Likely, many of those who now live in Manchester are actually people who would have been commuters into London when their employer was based there. Those people would be a loss to the railway. The BBC for example will have changed patterns.
The other point that applies here is that the population of the UK has grown rapidly over the past 30 years. Many of those living in Manchester are part of the growth. Manchester is a brilliant city for its' diversity. However, immigration growth means more people not needing a train to get to work, but they were never using a train anyway. They will want trains for leisure.
What Manchester desparately needs is a proper commuter network. The option to live in the surrounding towns and be in the centre within the hour needs massively expanding. That is why I support HS2 into Manchester so strongly*. Take all the fasts of the network (bar 1 or 2 via Stockport and Sheffield trains) and then Manchester can actually have a suburban network.
* I include the Liverpool line and a curve to allow the Manchester to Scotland to join the WCML northbound.
Very few people who have an alternative are going to submit themselves to that kind of crush loading on a regular basis. In London, road conditions /parking charges etc mean that those viable alternatives don’t really exist. In most other cities they do, so expecting to be able to inflict London-style crush loading elsewhere is unrealistic.
This comes back to my point of land use. Density isn't at at a point where driving isn't viable - it is that which needs to change.
I do wonder whether refurbishing 4-car 333s to metro layout would have been a more appropriate solution.
Atherton line service level is half hourly with one peak extra per peak, with anything between 2 and 4 cars.
This ought to be a metro service. An equivalent corridor in London would support a metro service at London fares. The reason for the difference is land use and demographics.
London is geographically different from Manchester. They won't have the same service.
VEP's were doing that sort of service around Surrey forty years ago.
That said, I can imagine the Atherton Line being electrified and having 20 minute intervsls. That would be popular.
Thank you for perfectly answering the thread question!
The government - Labour government - has been very clear - it expects rail subsidy to reduce. This essentially precludes expanding currently subsidised services - services that remain subsidised even if they are full, which means the more you run the more subsidy you pay.
This means growing rail demand has to involve increasing passengers' willingness/ability to pay to London levels, and making passengers captive to rail through land use and labour market interventions.