What three things would you fix or change about the railway?

[Bletchleyite]

I would extend that wish, a properly integrated transport system, with through ticketing and connections for a complete journey. Bus, Train, Tram/Light Rail even Ferry/River Boat(foot passengers). 1 app/website to book a journey, 1 ticket. and if you need to buy a ticket when you join, anyone can price and sell and end to end ticket because system and ticketing is simplified.

One thing the Government could do fairly easily is to remove the vast majority of competition law as applied to public transport services. What's "anticompetitive" in say supermarkets is very often to the passenger's benefit in public transport operation - given how little on-road/on-track competition there is, far more people would benefit from "collusion" of transport operators than would lose by fares going up a bit as two operators agreed their level and interavailability.

 

[mike57]

One thing the Government could do fairly easily is to remove the vast majority of competition law as applied to public transport services. What's "anticompetitive" in say supermarkets is very often to the passenger's benefit in public transport operation - given how little on-road/on-track competition there is, far more people would benefit from "collusion" of transport operators than would lose by fares going up a bit as two operators agreed their level and interavailability.

It also extends to timetables, the journey I made today is a good example, at the moment the 'timetable planets' are in alignment:

Walk 7 mins
Train 25 mins Change, wait 5 mins Train (different TOC) 17mins
Wait 7 mins, short (5min) bus ride to save 25min walk

The reverse journey is similar

When the timetables work out journey door to door takes about 1h 20m which is competitive with driving, which will take a good hour, as roads are busy single carriageways with a lot of 30/40mph speed limits (also quite a tedious drive, and plenty of opportunity for further hold ups particularly in Summer), but when timetables change some of the waits increase to 50mins, and then driving becomes the better option. Problem is you have 2 different TOC and a bus company involved.

Ticket wise 2 separate rail tickets are required, for an £11 return fare (Off peak return end to end is £18) and a £1.70 bus fare.

Ideally GBR should try and align timetables to maintain connections, and bus companies should align their services with the rail ones. Its not just about competition, to me until public transport is properly integrated it will always be patchy and will not acheive its full potential even at current levels of service (and therefore is not delivering best value for money in terms of subsidy). This probably means some level of 'nationalisation', and as for the fares system, well I think everyone agrees its broken, it has certainly cropped up in this thread a number of times.

 

[david1212]

Keeping to what would be sensible and with the right DfT / Treasury attitude achievable and viable

Totally sort out fares, simplify ticket types, restrictions and discounts so all fair and consistent for similar journeys. This would end 99% if not 100% of split ticket savings. All tickets available on smartcard ( enhanced ITSO ). Expect to pay say 20% more per mile for ECML / WCML / GWR mainline etc with high quality trains ( see below ) than short distance basic and high density trains. Advance fares would only be available more than 6 hours before travel and be a counted place but not specific reserved seat.

Have trains appropriate to the journey and route plus of course combined with the service frequency adequate capacity. For long distance in addition to comfortable seating a good layout, pleasant decor, adequate luggage space etc. Have a quantity of go-most-places trains to provide extra capacity for sport fixtures and events plus peaks of travel e.g. summer weekends, around Bank Holidays & Christmas.

As a package ASAP rebuild routes that not only serve the stations along the route but provide an alternative during engineering and remove major bottlenecks. Top of list Uckfield - Lewes with normal hourly service to both Brighton & Eastbourne but if BML closed at least two 12 coach trains to/from Brighton per hour and good connection to Eastbourne, Colne - Skipton, Oakhampton - Bere Alston, Honeybourne - Stratford-upon-Avon plus redoubling Oxford-Worcester throughout. Four tracks Ordsall Chord - Manchester Piccadilly. New routes Manchester - Leeds and Manchester - Bradford - Sheffield. HS2 continuation from East Midlands Parkway / Toton to Sheffield, Leeds and to existing network close to York.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

@SouthEastBuses. Think you were only meant to have the three wishes!

Corrected. Only 3 wishes now

 

[A S Leib]

and be a counted place but not specific reserved seat.

Would there at least still be an option to reserve a seat?

 

[mike57]

a counted place but not specific reserved seat.

Would there at least still be an option to reserve a seat?

Raises an interesting question, are seat reservations a complication that could be abolished with the exception of disabled travellers?

Once expected 'open/season' ticket passengers + advance tickets sold = 90% capacity you stop selling advance tickets, even if that means there are no advance tickets sold for a particular service if it is predicted to be 90% full from full fare passengers.

Currently you have the bizzare situation where a traveller on an anytime ticket ends up having to stand whilst the holder of the cheapest advance has a seat. Doing away with seat reservations doesn't fully address it but it does feel like a simplification that might have benefit. You should also be able to access current seat count online, seat count would be advanced sold plus predicted open ticket holders travelling on a particular service. A few trains, e.g. sleepers, will be reservation only, and be managed by a different system.

 

[david1212]

Would there at least still be an option to reserve a seat?

Advance no Full Stop. One of the trade-offs for a reduced price ticket. Further there should only be allocations on trains that even if all the allocation is sold would still run well below 100% seats occuplied. Hence a group together should be able to find a block of seats. Even if not when joining once seats become free at stations when some depart and before others have entered the carriage.

With walk-up fare tickets then yes reservations available. Debatable how much of the train should be reservable. A suggestion posted in the past was only 50% of each coach / class section.

Raises an interesting question, are seat reservations a complication that could be abolished with the exception of disabled travellers?

Once expected 'open/season' ticket passengers + advance tickets sold = 90% capacity you stop selling advance tickets, even if that means there are no advance tickets sold for a particular service if it is predicted to be 90% full from full fare passengers.

Currently you have the bizzare situation where a traveller on an anytime ticket ends up having to stand whilst the holder of the cheapest advance has a seat. Doing away with seat reservations doesn't fully address it but it does feel like a simplification that might have benefit. You should also be able to access current seat count online, seat count would be advanced sold plus predicted open ticket holders travelling on a particular service. A few trains, e.g. sleepers, will be reservation only, and be managed by a different system.

This is what IMO must end. If there is standing then too many advance tickets allocated and sold. The exception here is totally unplanned and unpredictable overcapacity due to train failure, cancellation, infrastructure fault and similar. Further if a higher than usual number of walk-on fare tickets with reservations are sold the remaining advance allocation should be reduced or totally withdrawn.

 

[nw1]

- One company running all lines, for maximum integration. Don't care too much if it's public or private. Perhaps ShappsRail GBR will accomplish this?

- Compatible stock that works with each other becoming the norm again. A range of EMUs throughout the ex-Southern Region which are all compatible with each other, with different variants for express, medium-distance stopping (what some call 'outer suburban' though I dislike that label), and suburban. The compatible 4[123]x and 1[45]x concepts (i.e. EP-type SR stock, and Sprinter family) definitely took the right approach here.

- Enough excess stock to run additionals at peak times, even if they are sitting round in sidings much of the time (peak not necessarily meaning commuter peak, but could be things like holiday, shopping etc)

 

[uglymonkey]

A connection, deliberably pulling way, when they know passengers are rushing across the concourse/footbridge/lifts to get it ! - I know about delay minutes and terrfied of their bottom line, but really? Smacks of the railway being run for the benefit of the railway, rather than the customers. Especially if the next connection is 1/2 hour or hour away and the waiting room ( if it exists) is closed and its late at night.

 

[py_megapixel]

Advance tickets always coming with a reservation seem to just be a bodge to work around limitations in the computer system. It isn't set up to issue tickets for specific trains, so make the Advance ticket valid only with a corresponding reservation, and make sure a reservation is always issued.

And then we have counted places, a bodge to work around the bodge. Oh, we've realised that we don't want to make every train reservable to be able to issue advance tickets? No bother, just issue seat reservation coupons which don't actually correspond to a reserved seat. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Fyldeboy]

Well, if money no object*

• No stock older than 20 years old
• Providing enough stock/infrasructure to provide 20% extra capacity over actual need
• Stock specifications prioritising customer needs over cost

* No mention of fares because all 3 are going to involve considerable cost and fares don't matter if money no object.

 

[Class465pacer]

Including the ones where a 30 coach train would be long enough to reach the next station.

They could be merged into one station with 4 tracks and junctions within the station.

 

[antharro]

Wow, three pages. Some really good answers here for sure, and I find myself agreeing with most of them. Maybe we should all join up and form our own TOC.

Keep going, I'm enjoying reading these!)

(@SouthEastBuses I saw your original post. )

 

[miklcct]

1. passing loops at all minor stations on mainlines - maximising track capacity by allowing fast trains to pass slow trains, and a complete segregation of the fast intercity network and the slow local network
2. route numbers for all routes, with all urban routes running at least every 15 minutes, and all rural routes running at least hourly
3. complete standardising of rolling stock specification, including floor heights and door locations such that platform screen doors / automatic platform gates can be installed at all stations, and complete step-free access for the whole network

 

[zwk500]

1. passing loops at all minor stations on mainlines - maximising track capacity by allowing fast trains to pass slow trains, and a complete segregation of the fast intercity network and the slow local network

This doesn't allow maximisation of track capacity I'd done at all stations, only at specific locations where the different journey times intersect.

2. route numbers for all routes, with all urban routes running at least every 15 minutes, and all rural routes running at least hourly
3. complete standardising of rolling stock specification, including floor heights and door locations such that platform screen doors / automatic platform gates can be installed at all stations, and complete step-free access for the whole network

As has been explained before, not every part of the UK rail network functions like a supercity metro. Route numbers have a place, but PEDs are probably too limiting for the majority of the national network.

 

[HSTEd]

As has been explained before, not every part of the UK rail network functions like a supercity metro. Route numbers have a place, but PEDs are probably too limiting for the majority of the national network.

I'd argue that a supercity metros are exactly the sort of systems the UK rail network should be emulating - those are the most succesful passenger railways anywhere.

I don't think PEDs are ultimately too limiting in the long run but offer various operational advantages.

If we are standardising in the mould of Sprinterisation or the Irish Railways 22000 order, then the number of door patterns will fall prodigously. And even if a single pattern is not achieved for a significant time - PEDs can have multiple patterns so long as trains can be positioned in the platform so a platform door is available for each train door. Not every door has to open for every train and you could make the platform entirely out of doors if necessary.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As has been explained before, not every part of the UK rail network functions like a supercity metro. Route numbers have a place, but PEDs are probably too limiting for the majority of the national network.

PEDs = ???

 

[miklcct]

PEDs = ???

Platform Edge Door

Japan has some examples of these compatible with different door locations, but what I'm saying about standardisation is that, start with e.g. 5 doors each carriage for metro stock, and for trains with fewer doors, locate the doors at the positions as the metro stock.

 

[BayPaul]

PEDs = ???

Platform edge doors