Should overcrowding be the norm? NO!!!

[Masbroughlad]

Why is it so may trains seem overcrowded nowadays? Not even just at peak times. It is not acceptable really when ticket prices are so high.

Yes, sometimes people can book in advance, but not always and should we be penalised if we can't?

More carriages please!

 

[455driver]

More carriages please!

If fares are so expensive why are (off peak) trains as busy as you say?

So going along with your point-
Where does this extra capacity come from?
How many?
Who should get priority on their use?
Who pays?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Because we failed to anticipate the demand we now have and the lag time in rail industry is at least 5 years.

If ticket prices were so high then the trains would not be full. Many other industries reward those who book early don't see why Rail shouldn't.

More carriages? Higher Fares?

 

[HSTEd]

The privatised railway doesn't really care if the trains are overcrowded.
Lower operating costs per passenger that way.

If you are going to set standards for maximum allowable crowding on an average basis (averaging all times the train is run over the year?) then you are going to have to be willing to pay for it.
All this costs money, especially in a framework of the privatised railway that has seen drastically above inflation pay rises and explosive increases in other costs since privatisation.

While the railway is far more expensive to the taxpayer than pre privatisation it is still not as expensive as it would be if it had the same per capita subsidy as Switzerland.
Perhaps that is something to consider?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Why is it so may trains seem overcrowded nowadays? Not even just at peak times. It is not acceptable really when ticket prices are so high.

Yes, sometimes people can book in advance, but not always and should we be penalised if we can't?

More carriages please!

It's because TOC's and DfT know they can get away with it. Essentially they couldn’t give two hoots about their customers, Twitter or no Twitter!

 

[Moonshot]

1.4 billion rail journeys a year raises £7 billion for the industry, which is just about £5 per journey. The perception is that rail is expensive, but the reality is the average journey price is cheaper than a gallon of petrol. This was no more apparent to me late late this afternoon when I hopped on a tram heading towards Manchester. I didnt travel all the way, but nonetheless, the fare was cheaper than the bus somewhat suprsingly. First time I travelled off peak as well...

 

[HSTEd]

A gallon of petrol/diesel gets you quite far these days though.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Many other industries reward those who book early don't see why Rail shouldn't.

But for many travelers booking early is not an option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A gallon of petrol/diesel gets you quite far these days though.

That all depends on what car you own!

 

[YorkshireBear]

But for many travelers booking early is not an option.

Exactly, just like i did for a very short notice job interview where i had to pay full price for a hotel room.

 

[Moonshot]

A gallon of petrol/diesel gets you quite far these days though.

Maybe so....but petrol is a "Known Value Item " just like sugar or milk etc..people make comparisons.

Public subsidy is falling as well, and has been since it peaked a few year ago.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Exactly, just like i did for a very short notice job interview where i had to pay full price for a hotel room.

But this is always ignored by people who claim that rail travel is affordable for the average working adult in this country. It isn't!

 

[Moonshot]

But this is always ignored by people who claim that rail travel is affordable for the average working adult in this country. It isn't!

So why is it that growth has been averaging 7% per year for the last 10 years if its not affordable ?

 

[HSTEd]

Public subsidy is falling as well, and has been since it peaked a few year ago.

Yes, it is now only double what it was at privatisation in real terms.

Despite massive investment that should have either lead to reduced operational costs or massively increased ticket incomes, thus reducing subsidy.

So why is it that growth has been averaging 7% per year for the last 10 years if its not affordable ?

Because the alternatives are even less affordable.
Saying something is less expensive than the alternatives is not the same as saying it is cheap.

 

[RichmondCommu]

So why is it that growth has been averaging 7% per year for the last 10 years if its not affordable ?

Because people have been forced to use the railway because of road congestion. This is no way suggests that rail travel is affordable and doesn't take into account other financial sacrifices that have been made.

 

[YorkshireBear]

But this is always ignored by people who claim that rail travel is affordable for the average working adult in this country. It isn't!

I never claim such things though :P It is affordable to those who purchase monthly/season tickets especially in PTE areas and Advance tickets. Normal one off travel is very expensive even with a Railcard!

I know it is too expensive. And i know why. And yes it would be great if we could reduce it and potentially actually increase revenue (if combined with longer trains). But right now we cannot lower fares, we simply can't because we are already very overcrowded.

 

[Moonshot]

Because people have been forced to use the railway because of road congestion. This is no way suggests that rail travel is affordable and doesn't take into account other financial sacrifices that have been made.

im sorry but that is rubbish.......passenger numbers started growing at the back end of BR days when it re organised itself on more commercial basis. Its no accident that since then , the perception of rail has improved because of the attention paid to reliability and punctuality. Big issue with overcrowding and the relation to fares is that regulated fares distort the market......and to prove it you only have to look at a regular occurence on here about the overcrowding on Bolton to Manchester services. Sounds awful....until you realise that commuters with season tickets are actually only paying just over £2 per journey.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Because people have been forced to use the railway because of road congestion. This is no way suggests that rail travel is affordable and doesn't take into account other financial sacrifices that have been made.

Quite correct. The increases in Rail have very complex causes. But we cannot make fares more affordable as we cannot take the passengers we currently carry!

 

[daccer]

The point has been made hat the average fare is around 5 pounds. How much lower should fares be? Of course there are very high walk up anytime fares bu the vast majority of fares sold are heavily discounted - either through season tickets or advances etc (ORR said something like 70% of fares fall under this category).

Any normal industry would increase fares to chock off demand - rail is not a normal industry and also suffers from some misconceptions based on historical prejudices.

The modern network is v efficient - all the indices point to improving efficiencies and various houses being put into order. The way things are set up does mean costs are going to be higher than hey could be with an integrated network but hey ho thats what we have. Overcrowding is here to stay. Passenger growth is constant and will not disappear. As already stated long lead times mean that the railway will always lag behind when it comes to providing for this growth.

 

[Moonshot]

The other thing to bear in mind is that the public is a lot more " green aware " as well nowadays......banging that message heavily over the years has had an effect, I certainly dont drive anything like what I used to.

 

[Bald Rick]

The privatised railway doesn't really care if the trains are overcrowded.
Lower operating costs per passenger that way.

The nationalised railway didn't care either:

"I hear you are going to make this service pay". "Yes, George" I said earnestly, "and there is only one way. Make the customers stand".

I tried to run a railway G.F. Fiennes

 

[Moonshot]

Going back to the original post - the author is implying that overcrowding is the norm. But it isnt.....the reason being the actual number of overcrowded services on a typical day is on a percentage basis very low compared to the total number of services run. But as is typical in any industry, the exceptions get the negative press.

There was an interesting statement made on Thursday which was hidden away in the news, the Government has launched a study to identify how the nations regulators can work in cross sectoral ways.

The economic regulators have taken steps to work closer together on issues of cross-sectoral significance and in learning lessons across industries which help to improve regulation and the promotion of competition in order to secure better outcomes for consumers. The regulators themselves will undertake work to assess the overall affordability of infrastructure on customer bills; lessons from each sector on empowering consumers to get the best deals and how, working together, they can help to improve the environment for efficient investment in UK infrastructure.

 

[sbt]

the actual number of overcrowded services on a typical day is on a percentage basis very low compared to the total number of services run. But as is typical in any industry, the exceptions get the negative press.

I would argue that the percentage that matters is not the percentage of SERVICES but the percentage of PASSENGER JOURNEYS on which the passenger experiences crowding. The latter percentage is necessarily larger than the first.

In fact, as an analyst, I would look to see if I could plot the percentage of passengers vs the percentage of overcrowded journeys they make (if the data were available). The key values are the percentage of overcrowded journeys that a reasonable passenger would find tolerable and the percentage of overcrowded journeys at which they would seek, or at least consider, alternative means of travel.

Whilst it is the value that is easiest to measure the percentage of trains that are overcrowded is at best a secondary consideration.

 

[Moonshot]

I would argue that the percentage that matters is not the percentage of SERVICES but the percentage of PASSENGER JOURNEYS on which the passenger experiences crowding. The latter percentage is necessarily larger than the first.

In fact, as an analyst, I would look to see if I could plot the percentage of passengers vs the percentage of overcrowded journeys they make (if the data were available). The key values are the percentage of overcrowded journeys that a reasonable passenger would find tolerable and the percentage of overcrowded journeys at which they would seek, or at least consider, alternative means of travel.

Whilst it is the value that is easiest to measure the percentage of trains that are overcrowded is at best a secondary consideration.

Yes that is true......which just adds to the arguement that an alternative way of reducing overcrowding ( for commuters at least ) would be to incentivise them via the fare box to use the less crowded services. This is far easier than it sounds though, as commuter traffic is by definition compelled travel.

Overcrowding on off peak trains is a bit of an oddity when you consider that TOCS use train specific advance tickets to fill up otherwise empty seats. Clearly the value of a " walk on " service is still very attractive...

 

[pt_mad]

More high density seating could help in some circumstances. Reconfiguring a whole fleet from 2+2 with tables to 3+2 without tables could provide a lot more seats for a (fairly?) modest price tag.

Fine when we look back at the BR days of travelling n a mk2 / 3 with a whole table to yourself and loads of leg room, the luxury factor is not the same now. But if the alternative is standing for an hour then I'd rather more stock be kitted out with high density seating.

 

[Harlesden]

Surely the total elimination of occasional overcrowding outside of the peak periods would also mean the partial elimination at least of late evening and possibly Sunday services.
The one subsidizes the other

 

[Moonshot]

Surely the total elimination of occasional overcrowding outside of the peak periods would also mean the partial elimination at least of late evening and possibly Sunday services.
The one subsidizes the other

That would really depend on what sort of rail service as a whole the public wanted. With the general way forward towards a 7 day railway, it really does boil down now to how society wants to fund that if we accept the arguement that as a whole, the rail industry will always require taxpayer support. As pointed out earlier . the time lag for investment is a very valid point, but of course the vast majority of the network is running on Victorian designed infrastructure which has far more choke points than would a 21st century design

 

[tbtc]

Overcrowding isn't "the norm". It happens, sure, and on some lines it happens more often than others. But nothing like as much as you'd think if you relied on this forum as your only source of evidence.

Otherwise, there's no point in going much further in a "fares are too expensive yet trains are too busy" thread - its going to take a decade until we resolve this.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the total elimination of occasional overcrowding outside of the peak periods would also mean the partial elimination at least of late evening and possibly Sunday services.
The one subsidizes the other

The late evening services are often the most crowded of all on local routes. Unfortunately, as local passengers don‘t tend to buy train specific tickets, government tends to believe these trains are carting around fresh air and totally underestimate demand at this time of night.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Because people have been forced to use the railway because of road congestion. This is no way suggests that rail travel is affordable and doesn't take into account other financial sacrifices that have been made.

Road congestion isn't as bad as you make out. In real terms car use is falling. New roads take longer to reach capacity as they used to in the eighties and nineties.

 

[Andrewlong]

More high density seating could help in some circumstances. Reconfiguring a whole fleet from 2+2 with tables to 3+2 without tables could provide a lot more seats for a (fairly?) modest price tag.

Fine when we look back at the BR days of travelling n a mk2 / 3 with a whole table to yourself and loads of leg room, the luxury factor is not the same now. But if the alternative is standing for an hour then I'd rather more stock be kitted out with high density seating.

FGW removed nearly all of the tables from its MK3 coaches when it introduced its airline type seating plus it converted many of its restaurant cars as well. They cannot build new coaches so further capacity options are limited.