Train Overcrowding

[Greenback]

I appreciate that its a big gamble, but the fact that there is nothing "spare" at the moment, and passenger number keep rising, would convince me that it'd be worth building a few new trains, even just to test the market, I can't imagine they'd sit idle

Just make sure its "standard". You could even build them to take advantage of damaged stock, like the Scotrail/ NXEA 156s which has accidents recently

We really need someone to grab the bull by the horns and get additional trains built. It won't be the new Government. It won't be short term TOCs. It won't be PTEs.

I agree with you, I think the ROSCO's are the ones who should be buying new trains. At the moment they seem to be too risk averse, I thought one of the ideas behind the creation of ROSCO's in the first place was that they would order new trains on the strength of being able to earn far more money out of them over their lifespans than they cost. I'm a bit lost as to why this isn't happening.

 

[LE Greys]

I agree with you, I think the ROSCO's are the ones who should be buying new trains. At the moment they seem to be too risk averse, I thought one of the ideas behind the creation of ROSCO's in the first place was that they would order new trains on the strength of being able to earn far more money out of them over their lifespans than they cost. I'm a bit lost as to why this isn't happening.

It's a flawed model. Railway companies don't order stock on the basis that someone else will put it into service, they order stock because there is a demand for a service that requires it. That's the way it works with most companies (which own their own workshops). However, this intermediate stage of the ROSCOs produces two problems. One, it puts someone between builder and user, who acts as both customer and supplier. As a result, the ROSCO decides when to order, not the user. Two, it is of benefit to the ROSCOs if they maintain a stock shortage, they can charge higher prices for leasing while not having any unused assets around.

The best way out of this is for TOCs to order directly, only selling to the ROSCOs at the end of the next franchise term. That way, they get the stock they want in a shorter timeframe, and do not have to take it with them at if they lose their franchise.

 

[swt_passenger]

The worst overcorwding a few years ago was found to be the Northern service in the morning peak that calls at Darlington, Durham and Chester-le-Street on route to Newcastle. Most likely still is one of the worst.

That service was one of the worst according to the then 'national rules', but at the same time some London and SE operators had different crowding standards, percentages, floor areas etc etc. Famously some LM services running between Euston and New St had different rules at either end of the journey.

I saw an analysis somewhere that showed that particular service wasn't as bad as quite a few London inner suburban routes, and of course many London Underground routes are far worse than any National Rail.

 

[Greenback]

It's a flawed model. Railway companies don't order stock on the basis that someone else will put it into service, they order stock because there is a demand for a service that requires it. That's the way it works with most companies (which own their own workshops). However, this intermediate stage of the ROSCOs produces two problems. One, it puts someone between builder and user, who acts as both customer and supplier. As a result, the ROSCO decides when to order, not the user. Two, it is of benefit to the ROSCOs if they maintain a stock shortage, they can charge higher prices for leasing while not having any unused assets around.

The best way out of this is for TOCs to order directly, only selling to the ROSCOs at the end of the next franchise term. That way, they get the stock they want in a shorter timeframe, and do not have to take it with them at if they lose their franchise.

I suppose that's the way it works in practice, but that wasn't the intention originally as I understood it in the early 90's. It's probably another failure of the particular model that was chosen for privatisation.

 

[mickey]

The most overcrowded train I've ever been on was [...] on the last day of the regatta week at Henley-on-Thames.[...]
For the train back I had to queue for almost 1.5 hours at Henley station and then got on a train that was jammed to overcrowded and beyond.

Some of the ones at Aintree for the Grand National week can be just as bad - there are plenty of ordinary commuters who deliberately stay off work those days as they just can't be bothered with the hassle.

Here's a theory, based on passengers 'self regulating' to a certain degree.
[...]
If you magically upgraded the service so that these two services were now 3 car, I reckon what would happen is they'd simply fill up with existing 'early or late travellers' until the same sort of density of passengers as before becomes the limiting factor.

I agree entirely with this theory. There's one train on my branch (Merseyrail) that I try to avoid if at all possible as it's just a nightmare (relatively, nothing like the Tube I know). The trouble is that the ones either side of it are starting to get nearly as bad, meaning there's now a whole 45 minutes I try to avoid, which is much harder to achieve, yet I know that if they were to double up on one service (which they do on all the other branches, incidentally, except ours) everyone would just go back to using that one and loads on the others would lighten. It's becoming a catch-22 thing.

I remember reading a few years back about the length of journey people would stand before it became 'unacceptable' - does anyone remember what it is? I think it was in relation to one of the south London operators ripping out seats for more standing space, saying everyone over (for example) 20 minutes would still have a seat.

And is there a reason, other than platforms, that we can't have 15 or 16-car units in the south east?

 

[Drsatan]

I remember reading a few years back about the length of journey people would stand before it became 'unacceptable' - does anyone remember what it is? I think it was in relation to one of the south London operators ripping out seats for more standing space, saying everyone over (for example) 20 minutes would still have a seat.

And is there a reason, other than platforms, that we can't have 15 or 16-car units in the south east?

SWT has removed the first class accommodation and a few seats from some of its 450s creating higher capacity 450/5s (identified by having 'HC' printed above the driver's window.)

I think spacing between signals is one reason why 15 or 16 car trains cannot operate in the south east.

 

[Dennis]

Some excellent points raised there. Of course, LM will have 172s shortly which will release some 150s to FGW. That will hopefully make a difference to them...

Last time I checked the rolling stock plan, FGW will end up with 1 additional carriage from the cascade. Don't forget they have quite a lot of 'borrowed' stock at the moment and the loco hauled which is all planned to go.

 

[tbtc]

Last time I checked the rolling stock plan, FGW will end up with 1 additional carriage from the cascade. Don't forget they have quite a lot of 'borrowed' stock at the moment and the loco hauled which is all planned to go.

I'm not sure of the maths (since I've seen various versions, depending on whether LM are allowed to keep some 150s etc), but the 150s will be longer (and therefore have more seats) than the 142s which FGW will lose

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

:roll: This is what annoys me...
People in the south east don't have a clue what its like up north, we have the same problems, but the moneys always invested there. You're looking for 12-16 car trains, and we're still looking for 3 car or 4 car trains!

 

[MCR247]

Length is irrelevant, the north does not need 12 car trains, the south does. Think about it like this, a peak time northern 142 is the equivalent of a 8 car 377 on a London bridge rush hour

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

Length is irrelevant, the north does not need 12 car trains, the south does. Think about it like this, a peak time northern 142 is the equivalent of a 8 car 377 on a London bridge rush hour

How on earth is it? London/South east gets a lot more investment than the north, and im not saying we need 12 car trains - we need stock with either more seating or lengthened 142s! We don't have any of that because its all being put into the south east, im sorry - but they moan about 12 car trains, and we get a mere 2 car full and standing, pulling away with another hour to wait...

 

[tbtc]

Length is irrelevant, the north does not need 12 car trains, the south does. Think about it like this, a peak time northern 142 is the equivalent of a 8 car 377 on a London bridge rush hour

Quite simply, the problems experienced outside London are a lot easier to solve, since there is capacity (in terms of platform space and some spare paths), if not capacity of units. But it'd be a lot easier to double up a Pacer on an hourly service (or find an additional path) than a costly upgrade like Thameslink/ Crossrail. But where is the money being spent?

 

[WatcherZero]

I agree with you, I think the ROSCO's are the ones who should be buying new trains. At the moment they seem to be too risk averse, I thought one of the ideas behind the creation of ROSCO's in the first place was that they would order new trains on the strength of being able to earn far more money out of them over their lifespans than they cost. I'm a bit lost as to why this isn't happening.

Yeah, that was the way the model was supposed to work. Companies would risk their own capital investing in new stock to lease. What went wrong was all the ROSCO's were bought by banks who saw the potential to milk the assets. Essentially all they had to do was own the stock, some light refurbishments now and then that the Franchises would contribute too, its a captive market with little competition, the demands always going to be there especielly when it outstrips supply, all they had to do was put their feet up and it was a license to print money. There is no innovation or investment going on, made all the worse by the gradual growth of meglomania at the dft feeling they had to specify each deal and approve new orders since they were the ones paying for the services to be operated.

 

[MCR247]

How on earth is it? London/South east gets a lot more investment than the north, and im not saying we need 12 car trains - we need stock with either more seating or lengthened 142s! We don't have any of that because its all being put into the south east, im sorry - but they moan about 12 car trains, and we get a mere 2 car full and standing, pulling away with another hour to wait...

Yes, and I agree to a point with you to a point, people can you to line that they had slammers until a few years ago etc but I'm not condoning spending loads on London but I've realised that you can say London can't complain with its 12 car trains when we have 2 car trains in the peak. I used to say that but I've realised that they are that busy that a 2 car pacer is the equivalent of a London class 377 in an 8 car formation. Once again, I'm not condoning spending more money on London

 

[thefab444]

On the national network, the commuter fasts between Waterloo and Woking are horrendous, but there's not much anybody can do about that unless they started running double-deck trains.

Part of the problem in the evening peak is that many of these trains are only booked for an 8 450.

 

[Class377/5]

And is there a reason, other than platforms, that we can't have 15 or 16-car units in the south east?

I think spacing between signals is one reason why 15 or 16 car trains cannot operate in the south east.

Its the cost of the extra works. To change from 12 to 16 car trains on the Brighton MainLine was costed at £1bn+ and the extra cost of rolling stock. New trains aren't cheap. Whats forgetten about the Thameslink Project is that out of the £5.5bn its costing, £3.5bn is for stations, track and signalling. £2bn is what its going to cost to get all the new trains and depots up and running.

Simply put its not good valve for money. Signalling was mentioned but you also have to do platform extensions, change track layouts in stations. But the biggest concern isn't actually anything to do with the running line. Basically of you start running 16 car trains in peak your concourse can't cope so somewhere like Victoria would need expansion and that isn't going to be cheap.

This is why there is work on Crossrail/Thameslink style routes as they going through London they should in theory allow for more balanced traffic flows.

:roll: This is what annoys me...
People in the south east don't have a clue what its like up north, we have the same problems, but the moneys always invested there. You're looking for 12-16 car trains, and we're still looking for 3 car or 4 car trains!

How on earth is it? London/South east gets a lot more investment than the north, and im not saying we need 12 car trains - we need stock with either more seating or lengthened 142s! We don't have any of that because its all being put into the south east, im sorry - but they moan about 12 car trains, and we get a mere 2 car full and standing, pulling away with another hour to wait...

Right I say this as someone who lived in the Northwest (Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington) for 18 years and have been in London for the last 3 years.

London simply has more people travelling. Yes the north has massively overcrowded trains but London does as not just people within the London area travel but people from all over the Southeast creating extra pressure.

Basically once Crossrail and Thameslink is finished the north needs to get extra units and plough some funds into getting either more trains or lengthing the ones they have. Putting up OHL seems to be one way to achieve this as you can have new eletric trains on the major routes and used the spare units to double up other services.

The north problem are easlier to solve but don't think that because you have a 2 car train that you have worse situation than people with 8 and 12 car trains. You don't. London and the Southeast needs longer trains but still gets worse overcrowding than the North.

But if the Northern council's and PTE's could work together to propose something then they should get the funding. But its not going to be easy.

Look at what Manchester has done with the trams and raising its income to achieve massive investment in its Metrolink system. Its even paying for the Airport extension without money from the Central Government because it wants the extension so badly. Hell the Canary Wharf group is building the Canary Wharf Crossrail station to a tune of £500m. (And if Woolwich station gets built on Crossrail then its will be privately funded as well).

And before anyone says anything, Id actually like to see some major investment in the North's railways and I mean major. Its easy to solve the problems. But everyone is going to have to put into the fund. If business actually put more money then there could be more investment.

 

[swt_passenger]

Part of the problem in the evening peak is that many of these trains are only booked for an 8 450.

And that's why SWT supposedly need about 200 extra EMU cars, to both increase the remaining long distance trains from 8 cars to 12, as well as the inner suburban strengthening from 8 to 10 cars.

Regarding double decker trains, the DfT's 'double decker report' DID come down in favour of lengthening peak long distance trains on the SWML to 15 or 16 coaches - but also presumed a route would be made available into the International terminal.

My theory would be to extend just one suitable station to deal with these extra long trains, say Winchester, for simplicity, and change the peak fast services that currently split and join at Southampton to split and join there, and run fast to/from Waterloo.

 

[moonrakerz]

also, FGW turned overcrowded 2 car 158s into marginally-less-overcrowded 3 car units.

...........only after they got rid of the original Wessex liveried "marginally-less-overcrowded 3 car units" and replaced them with TPE liveried (grossly) "overcrowded 2 car 158s" - then the peasants revolted and we are now back to were we were years ago ! No ! it's not a laughing matter ! :-x

 

[thefab444]

My theory would be to extend just one suitable station to deal with these extra long trains, say Winchester, for simplicity, and change the peak fast services that currently split and join at Southampton to split and join there, and run fast to/from Waterloo.

That could work, the platforms at Winchester could be extended in both directions with some minor work (not too sure about the bridge in the Eastleigh direction though).

 

[12CSVT]

Does 150 people squashed onto a single 153 unit on the Cumbrian Coast line count as overcrowded ? Or a 142 on the Tyne Valley line which is so full that the conductor refuses to let anybody on at Haltwhistle and Hexham ?
And I have also had the dubious 'pleasure' of being on a XC 4 car voyager which was so full that the only place I could find to stand was in the toilet along with about 10 other people.

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed, it doesnt matter how long the train is, if its more than 80% of capacity then by the governments own definition its overcrowded.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed, it doesnt matter how long the train is, if its more than 80% of capacity then by the governments own definition its overcrowded.

This is why I wish we'd be grown up about "crowded" and "overcrowded". I've heard people describe trains/ buses as "overcrowded" just because they had to sit next to a stranger and didn't get a double seat to themselves.

Trains have a set number of seats, and a number of "standees" are planned for as well (not advertised, necessarily, but something that is designed for). If the upper limit of this is breached then, fair enough, that's overcrowded, but if anyone thinks a train 80% full is "overcrowded" then I despair

Incidently, the London Underground has often been mentioned as the worst for crowding. A look along a train as it pulls into the platform often shows that the middle carriage(s) are like sardine tins, whilst the front/ rear ones are pretty empty

 

[MCR247]

On the tube I remember getting on somewhere where the main entrance to the platform was in the rear 1/3 and when it arrived the front carriages were rammed and the very rear one empty! You can guess where I was Being able to walk through the train might help

 

[yorksrob]

Having spent the weekend travelling around the North, it struck me how crowded even some weekend services were. If the stock cascade ever gets going, I wonder whether it might be possible to do some re-building works on the 14* series to turn more (or even most) into 3-car units. I say this because their main problem seems to be that they are quite a bit smaller than a 2 carriage 15* unit so naturally they have to cram people in in an uncomfortable way.

These could then be refurbished to a less cramped higher standard with tables and facing seats etc which would make them more suitable for some of the heavily used commuter routes and longer distance cross country routes which form the mainstay of their work up here.

Apologies if someone has already considered this - I've seen some interesting refurbishment proposals for them on the internet but nothing so far concerning unit length.

 

[Geezertronic]

Incidently, the London Underground has often been mentioned as the worst for crowding. A look along a train as it pulls into the platform often shows that the middle carriage(s) are like sardine tins, whilst the front/ rear ones are pretty empty

Not on the Northern Line, or not at least when I use it between Euston & Bank - it's sardines all throughout any peak train

 

[causton]

Not on the Northern Line, or not at least when I use it between Euston & Bank - it's sardines all throughout any peak train

However at off-peak times it is definitely the opposite. There's one or two which have people standing and the rest are about 20% full - some people :roll: (But it does help I usually board at High Barnet so I can walk all the way to the front of the train where you get about 1 person per carriage at that point!)

 

[WatcherZero]

This is why I wish we'd be grown up about "crowded" and "overcrowded". I've heard people describe trains/ buses as "overcrowded" just because they had to sit next to a stranger and didn't get a double seat to themselves.

Trains have a set number of seats, and a number of "standees" are planned for as well (not advertised, necessarily, but something that is designed for). If the upper limit of this is breached then, fair enough, that's overcrowded, but if anyone thinks a train 80% full is "overcrowded" then I despair

Incidently, the London Underground has often been mentioned as the worst for crowding. A look along a train as it pulls into the platform often shows that the middle carriage(s) are like sardine tins, whilst the front/ rear ones are pretty empty

I presume that includes standing capacity as the other official description is '30 or more standing per 100 seats'. And 'if a standing passenger has less than 0.45 sq m of space'.

 

[Pumbaa]

:roll: This is what annoys me...
People in the south east don't have a clue what its like up north, we have the same problems, but the moneys always invested there. You're looking for 12-16 car trains, and we're still looking for 3 car or 4 car trains!

And this is what annoys me - people who assume the South always gets it better. For your information, I live in the North (well and proper) and have lived in the South (well and proper). I have experienced both (well and proper) and after two years of commuting in both territories, always will come down on the side of the South.

Both areas have hideous peak overcrowding, but relatively the South has a bigger problem. Remember that until recently, the situation was reversed. Scrapping the Mk1 derivatives on the SW/SE/SN side of things was the first big investment taken in the south. When RR got 156s, 158s, 323s between the PTEs etc, the South didn't get as much. Now the situation is reversed, and it will reverse again before long.

As for me, I'm looking forward to my 2-car 142 once again at 1730; it's far preferable to a 12-car 450 from Waterloo at the same time.

 

[WatcherZero]

At least there are several projects funded and underway to address it in the South, lengthening, incrasing frequency, Thameslink, Crossrail, Etc...

 

[tbtc]

Having spent the weekend travelling around the North, it struck me how crowded even some weekend services were. If the stock cascade ever gets going, I wonder whether it might be possible to do some re-building works on the 14* series to turn more (or even most) into 3-car units. I say this because their main problem seems to be that they are quite a bit smaller than a 2 carriage 15* unit so naturally they have to cram people in in an uncomfortable way.

These could then be refurbished to a less cramped higher standard with tables and facing seats etc which would make them more suitable for some of the heavily used commuter routes and longer distance cross country routes which form the mainstay of their work up here.

Apologies if someone has already considered this - I've seen some interesting refurbishment proposals for them on the internet but nothing so far concerning unit length.

That'd help, I think all Pacers are fifteen metre coaches, compared to twenty/ twenty three on "normal" trains