Tackling Overcrowding

[Bayum]

The times reports that the Government are going to launch a new initiative previously used by Midland Railway etc, to tackle overcrowding.

At present, for a train to be classed as overcrowding, there need to be ten passengers standing, per 100 on the train.

The government now wants to increase this to 30 passengers standing, per 100 an increase of 200%.

This will decrease the number of trains classed as *overcrowded* but it also in my opinion, lessens the fact that there are new carriages needed to beat the overcrowding issue, which with the new legislation will surely put a stop to in the future.

However, on saying this - the government have issued 423/1300 carriages to be ordered, but so far, none have been issued.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4944652.ece

 

[gordonthemoron]

The article actually says an increase from 10 per hundred to 30 per hundred, this is an increase of 200%

 

[Bayum]

How does that work then?

Never good at Maths myself, but still - I would have thought it was 30%

 

[Z12XE]

10 is 100% of 10
20 is 200% of 10
30 is therefore an increase from 10 of 200%

 

[Royston Vasey]

Once again a serious point is ignored for people to show how very clever they are.

This manipulation of statistics by the government to "meet" targets is something we have seen systematically over the course of the current government - used for political purposes and to justify previous investment, or more crucially in this case, lack of future investment. And of course to save the incumbent minister his job. It's been the same in figures for health, education, poverty, crime - the figures have suggested improvement when people's experience generally screams the opposite.

This is dangerous for potential future investment, particularly when the DfT are refusing long franchises. Private companies aren't going to invest heavily, or be granted large loans, if they aren't given that security, so investment must come from government. And it seems they're finding more and more ways to justify not making that investment

We can only hope the next government (almost certainly the Tories - I have no allegiance either way) will reverse this trend.

 

[me123]

Pathetic; changing the numbers may mean that overcrowding is reduced on paper, but the fact remains that the trains are overcrowded.

What needs done, IMO, is the complete removal of 2+3 seating. In a row of 2+2 "table" seating (as can be seen on 334s), 8 people can easily find a seat. In a similar row if 2+3 seating, which should be able to seat 10, it will only take 5-8 people, depending on size and "level of snobbery". Very rarely is there a group of 6 sitting together, who are probably the only people to use all 6 seats in one "cluster".

2+2 seating would potentially increase useable seats, and allow more aisle space for catering on some services, on others simply the provisioning of more standing space.

Tip-up seats are good too, if they're placed strategically. they are well used by passengers with prams, and I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to provide them in "Wheelchair" areas: provided, of course, that any wheelchairs on board get full priority.

 

[Mojo]

What needs done, IMO, is the complete removal of 2+3 seating. In a row of 2+2 "table" seating (as can be seen on 334s), 8 people can easily find a seat. In a similar row if 2+3 seating, which should be able to seat 10, it will only take 5-8 people, depending on size and "level of snobbery". Very rarely is there a group of 6 sitting together, who are probably the only people to use all 6 seats in one "cluster".

I keep hearing this statement being made by various people and on my experience of travelling peak times on Chiltern 121 & 165s, Silverlink & Great Eastern (as was) 321s, and, more recently London Midland 323s have never, ever known this to be the case.

 

[me123]

On Scotrail it is true, although perhaps the size of seats is different. This morning, despite my attempts to free the seat beside me, no one sat down. There were 3+2 seats facing each other, so capacity for 10. Five were sitting as follows:

OXO-OX
XOX-OX

(X is a person, O is a free seat, -is the aisle)

With about 10 standing. Five could have sat down, although to be fair it wouldn't have been easy. You could, however, easily have got another 3 people in. Another 2 would have fitted, but this would result in an unconfirtable journey, and having to bother others. It simply does not work, up here anyway, and you find that people will use 2+2 seating more fully than 3+2 seating, which means that removing 2 seats actually increases capacity!

Of course, as I've said, your experiences may be different, but on Scotrail almost all "overcrowding" on North Clyde, Argyle and probably services south of the Clyde, is a result of this.

 

[laseandre]

Too true, especially down my way on the 1601? from Dalreoch to Balloch and the Drumgelloch before it, as my school packs into the train, but nobody wants to sit down with anyone if they're not friends with them, etc.

 

[Nym]

Thats entirely true, morning peak in GM, more pepole are sitting on a class 156 than on a 150 with 3+2. Especialy when you get the tw**s from G4s that run the barriers at BOL taking up 4 seats in one go, and damaging the stock that the're ment to be preventing damage to.

 

[devon_metro]

45 people standing on a two coach class 158 is quite a squeeze!

 

[Nym]

45 people standing on a two coach class 158 is quite a squeeze!

Come on, I've had 120+ standing on a TPE 2c 158 before now, the tables where full, corridors and the driver couldn't get into his cab, when 7 of us moved so he could, he refused to take the train, making us 76 late departing MAN, making me miss my connection from Leeds to Hull, I was not a happy bunny at this driver, nor where all of the Leeds FC fans that had just come from Trafford

 

[furryfeet]

i have seen on the bbc website that Tony Miles has stated that "the true figure is 800 new carriages, since the figure of 1300 INCLUDES carriages that are moving between franchises"

a) is this the case ?
b) how many new carriages HAVE actually been ordered ?
c) where and to which franchise will they be delivered ?

 

[Z12XE]

Pathetic; changing the numbers may mean that What needs done, IMO, is the complete removal of 2+3 seating. In a row of 2+2 "table" seating (as can be seen on 334s), 8 people can easily find a seat. In a similar row if 2+3 seating, which should be able to seat 10, it will only take 5-8 people, depending on size and "level of snobbery".

This drum, as Mojo says is banged quite frequently, and its BS. Here on the GEML trains can be wedged and the centre seats are used.

Take the 1838 one evening to see what happens, then where people additionally fit after the train has picked up a few hunded more people at Stratford......

 

[Nym]

this was in RAIL last week, and is available on the DaFT's website, I can't remember where spesificaly atm...?

 

[me123]

This drum, as Mojo says is banged quite frequently, and its BS. Here on the GEML trains can be wedged and the centre seats are used.

Come to Scotland, then, and you'll see that the seats are never used and that a 2+2 arrangement would ease the "apparent" overcrowding.

 

[mrcheek]

Not only do they need to get rid of 3+2 seating, they also need to get rid of seats that face each other.
I couldnt believe there are still trains designed to have some seats facing each other, and some back to back. this wastes TONS of room. high density seating (as FGW HSTs) may look kinda ugly (I recall it being heavily cricitcised both in the press, and on this site when it was first introduced), but it gets more seats in, and still leaves everyone with plenty of legroom. it needs to be brought in on all trains, soon

 

[Z12XE]

Come to Scotland, then, and you'll see that the seats are never used and that a 2+2 arrangement would ease the "apparent" overcrowding.

If there are seats empty, then the level of overcrowding cannot be so bad.

If you took the 3rd seat out of all the trains in this area, and those people had to stand, you wouldn't phyisically fit the rest (who currently also stand) in at all!

I suppose the SE commuters have accepted, no one is going to fix the problem by getting more trains, so make the best of a bad situation, or for some they'd have to stand for 120+ minutes per day

 

[me123]

If there are seats empty, then the level of overcrowding cannot be so bad.

If you took the 3rd seat out of all the trains in this area, and those people had to stand, you wouldn't phyisically fit the rest (who currently also stand) in at all!

But the third seat isnt being used, and in some cases only one seat out of three is used, and overall this can be as low as 5 out of 10 seats are empty with people standing. I don't know about your area, but up here the seats are very narrow, so that they can fit into the train, and that is what causes the problem. By widening the seats, making the arrangement 2+2, you can seat 8 people and there is additional room for people standing in the aisles, as the aisles are wider. If you look at 334s (the outer carriages are 2+2, the middle is 3+2), this proves my point; 3+2 seating does not leave enough room for three people to sit comfortably.

The exception is the 318 fleet, which have big enough seats and work well, so I wonder if there are any similar cases in your area.

I appreciate that there is in fact no real overcrowding on the trains, thats why I put "overcrowding" in inverted commas.

 

[Mojo]

The NAO report can be found at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/07-08/07081047.htm.

 

[thefab444]

Is it just me who thinks this is straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four? Ministry of Undercrowding anyone?

 

[thelem]

I'd be interested to see a study into loading and passenger perceptions of individual trains in the central Thameslink area. Some of the 319s are 2+3, but others are 2+2 (at least between the doors) with the same seats, leading to a wider isle.

Personally I'm happy to sit on either of the narrower 2+2 seats with someone sitting next to me. Admittedly, if I'm on the asle seat then I will choose to not sit fully on the seat, to avoid getting too comfortable with the person next to me! I only have a 15 min journey from Brighton though, so there are always seats available somewhere.

Interestingly, it is proposed that the new Thameslink trains will have narrow 2+2 seating, so it seems that layout does have some merit. They are also talking about replacing some seats with LUL-style perch seats, which seems a sensible idea for metro trains.

 

[thaitransit]

30 people standing on a train is nothing!

Up my way most intercity trains have around 70 to 100 people crammed in the aisles and the carriage layout is 100% 2 + 3 seating all in facing pairs.

I have gone to take intercity trains at the central station only to find the train totally full even with people crammed to the doors. This train was about to start a 7pm Friday trip that would see people standing for up to 10 hours.

If there is an increasing problem with standing loads on intercity trains why not consider changing the layout to longitudinal seating and install extra grab handles along the roof. this way you can get in well over 100 people standing per carriage.

Some of our local intercity trains now have longitudinal seating just to ease the overcrowding. But it means metro like sardine cans on long distance trains every single Friday Saturday and Sunday.

 

[EE Type 3]

One thing I've noticed is people won't wait for the next train, even if it is a few minutes after (at Crewe for example), but pile onto the first train they can.

Now most of us would see the first one is wedged, and catch the second one, but that's cranks knowledge I guess.

Maybe more announcements saying about other trains shortly after the first one would ease overcrowding, or is that making too much sense? :???:

I know its not the case on most stations, but for stations like Crewe and York it could work?

 

[thaitransit]

Would you wait for the next one if you know its 3 hours away and is going to be be just as bad as the sardine can your trying to force your way on to.

Or do you head for the intercity bus terminal and take a bus and hope you don't have to stand on that too.

 

[EE Type 3]

Would you wait for the next one if you know its 3 hours away and is going to be be just as bad as the sardine can your trying to force your way on to.

Or do you head for the intercity bus terminal and take a bus and hope you don't have to stand on that too.

3 hours? I don't think there is a station on any part of the national network with a 3 hour gap between services!!

I'm on about places like Crewe, where trains to certain locations are quite regular, although usually alot shorter.

I was at Shrewsbury the other day, saw everyone cram on a 158 to Wrexham, and about 10 minutes after, a WSMR servce came in!

 

[Mintona]

3 hours? I don't think there is a station on any part of the national network with a 3 hour gap between services!!

I'm on about places like Crewe, where trains to certain locations are quite regular, although usually alot shorter.

I was at Shrewsbury the other day, saw everyone cram on a 158 to Wrexham, and about 10 minutes after, a WSMR servce came in!

CoughAviemoreCough.

Can see where you're coming from though, don't think many passengers would listen though.

 

[EE Type 3]

CoughAviemoreCough.

Can see where you're coming from though, don't think many passengers would listen though.

I knew you'd be here proving me wrong

 

[glynn80]

I knew you'd be here proving me wrong

God forbid you were letting the last Saturday service from Kirton Lindsey go for being overcrowded. You'd be waiting a whole 7 days for the next one!