Great Western Coffee Shop

I await the individual station use tables for the year 2014-2015 (we had them before Christmas last year) ... but an overall set of results has been published by the ORR at http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/19377/passenger-rail-usage-2015-16-q1.pdf


Much more of interest to pick over in this report.

If this rate of increase carries on, and I believe that it will*, then capacity is going to be an increasing problem.

IMO this needs to be addressed by both longer trains and by infrastructure improvements to allow more frequent services.
The new IEPs will provide SOME relief from crowding PROVIDED that the existing rolling stock thereby displaced is retained and used on other routes and not scrapped.
Elsewhere on these forums I have opined that too many of these new trains are too short, I stand by such remarks and feel somewhat vindicated by the significant increase in passenger numbers since the length and design of the new trains was more or less finalised.
Provided that the new trains work as reliably as is hoped for, I would hope that early consideration be given to lengthening them. Providing even more short trains may not be the way forward, partly due to lack of paths. However lengthening some of the 5 car sets to 9 or even 10 car will hopefully be considered.
Lengthening 5 car units to 6 or 7 is IMO not such a good idea as it restricts multiple operation.

In the longer term I suspect that major infrastructure work will be required in order to allow more paths and/or longer trains. I hope that such possibilities are being considered already, in view of the time it takes to deliver them.

*For an estimate of future passenger numbers, look at the birth rate ! or at the entire population figures including young children, rather than at only the ADULT population. Tomorrows potential rail passengers have already been born !

For this reason I fear we are now locked into the inadquate 5-car sets we are to be lumbered with. They appear to have been ordered on the basis of some multiple operation, so if you lengthen some you free up some sets which were previously coupled to others (but probably not enough to cascade the released ones elsewhere). As well as believing that not enough new coaches have been ordered for GW IEP, I believe that too many driving vehicles have been specified. And that could be a more difficult problem to solve than getting the extra intermediate coaches I feel will be needed.

I do believe you may have mentioned this one or two (thousand ?) times before.  I also recall that others have put forward the view that you might be mistaken in this view.  Whatever the case there is nothing we can do about it.  We can only wait and see what happens. 

If you remember the question I asked Ben Rule in our almost on-line meet the manger session, it was about exactly this topic. It read:
Ben's first answer was:

He made no attempt to answer the main question, which was about future growth of demand. That didn't surprise me at all; I'm sure he's been well trained by corporate comms in not answering questions.

I don't think DfT ever released any of the technical reports that would explain the various decisions made about the IEP requirement and the contract, hence they get accused of not having any good reasons at all. I'm sure that isn't true, and there was a reason for, for example, saying that the 10-car bi-mode trains have to be built so only half a train is used when passengers are scarce. I suspect it was to do with not burning diesel for purely air transport, and the relevant committee convinced itself that the adverse effects of that (which are many) were worth it for that benefit. I disagree, and so may you, but that's another matter.

Those missing reports should also make explicit what is now only alluded to indirectly: that all bi-mode services that need it are to be 10 carriages long. Perhaps DfT never wanted to bind themselves publicly to that objective, given that it is such an obvious homing chicken.

I recall at TravelWatch Southwest several years ago Chris Irwin and others expressing concern that rail planning for stock / infrastructure allowed for growth of up to x%, but that historic growth was higher than this (y%).  The questions asked were "will this growth continue" and "is it being allowed for"?  My understanding of the official view was that it would appear to be profligate / wasteful if the planners provided facilities for continued y% growth when it wasn't sustained, and ended up buying trains and track capacity in excess of what was needed.

I have just gone back to look at putting figures on this ... oh help! it's hard to find the old slides.   But I came across from the 23 June 2013 ^ Long Distance Market Study Draft Consultation available at http://travelwatchsouthwest.org/documents/


So planning is based on 3% compound growth, I think.  But South West growth (where all services are franchised, so we can take that figure from the report at the head of this thread) was 'snapshotted' at 5.7% several years into the process in which a 3% growth is what's being allowed for.    Let's look at what the 2.7% difference means

504 passengers on an HST in 2015 would rise to 677 on a replacement train in 10 years at 3% compound growth, and to 910 passengers in 20 years.

504 passengers on an HST in 2015 would rise to 877 on a replacement train in 10 years at 5.7% compound growth, and to 1527 passengers in 20 years.

While the steady and welcome growth in passenger numbers will be a general problem nationwide, here on the Western, we'll have both Crossrail and what was once called the Paddington Suburban Electrification (or PSE for the acronymn list).

There will be a lot of long emu formations with better point to point timings ("sparkling" as O S Nock used to say) replacing mostly 3-car turbos. These should remove the bulk of the medium distance commuters like me, from the IC services.

My only reservation is whether they can all be pathed through the main and relief line system, without loops.

Look on the bright side,

OTC

With great difficulty, especially if some trains continue stopping at Twyford/Maidenhead on the mains during the peaks

Very true, think Reading-Newbury, which is often a 2-car 165 currently, being replaced with at least a four (and maybe eight) car EMU.

Just the little issue that they need to get the wires up first!

Or put batteries in them, charge them from London to Reading and run them on to Bedwyn ... nah - the batteries wouldn't last.  Electric to Newbury then battery to Bedwyn?

Terminate at Newbury / turbo to Bedwyn.....I think Bedwyn have already been told

Out of curiosity, and having to stand on the 1641 Gloucester train from Temple Meads every night, I wonder what impact on growth the rail network would experience if there limits on standing in carriages existed.

I know it has been discussed many times, but unrestricted growth without the infrastructure is not safe and should not be allowed.

For the past few weeks the 1641 to Gloucester from B-TM is two carriage, hand has had 30+ people standing per carriage. Certainly not a record, but certainly not safe!

Why is it not safe?  Given the railway's record on safety, and the efforts over the last 20 years to minimise accidents, do you think that it would be allowed if there was a risk?

How would it not be allowed? How many trains have you seen on which boarding is controlled, even in situations of horrendous overcrowding?

There have been recent incidents of customers losing control of their bladders as trains have been so crowded as to prevent them getting to the toilets, but the line from GWR is always that overcrowding doesn't prevent a risk to H & S, no matter how many wedge themselves on board.

simonw said "certainly not safe".  I regard safe as "no threat of death or injury". What you describe is certainly unpleasant, and I wouldn't want to be on such a service. But I wouldn't regard it as unsafe.

......how would you assess the ability to undertake an emergency evacuation in the event of (for example) fire in a grossly overcrowded train?  A potential scenario on a daily basis.

Agree.

Rail can be a most unpleasant mode of travel when grossly overcrowded, but actually dangerous ? How many have died as a result ?

The only circumstances that I can think of when crowding could be actually dangerous would be in case of substantial delay in hot weather and combined with lack of air conditioning.
That could kill, and I fear that one day it will, but AFAIK it has never happened yet.

To avoid danger in such circumstances, IMHO the railway needs to give more attention to prompt evacuation of failed or badly delayed trains especially when this occurs in hot weather and when air conditioning is not available.
One of the few merits IMO of the new IEPs is the fitting of limited diesel power to the electric trains, in order that air conditioning may be supplied when the wires come down.

I would hope that sufficient rolling stock will be available to eliminate standing on long distance services UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. I fail to see how standing can be totally eliminated under abnormal circumstances.
For example if the trains leaving at 09-00, at 09-30, at 10-00 and at 10-30 are expected to be 90% full, what happens if the 09-00 is cancelled at the last minute ? It would take most of the day for an hourly service of trains already 90% full to clear everyone without a lot of standing.
For major sporting events, one would hope that extra or longer trains would be put on, but what happens if the railway plan for 5,000 extra passengers, but 8,000 turn up ? Standing though regrettable would be preferable to telling 3,000 that they cant go to the match.

It does appear to be a theoretical risk, but how many people have died in train fires in the UK in recent decades ? and was overcrowding a factor in even a single fatality ?
The risk appears insignificant in practice, and arguably getting less year on year as new trains are more fire resistant, and electric traction is (very slowly !) replacing diesel power.

That's a good question.

Firstly, in terms of risk assessment, I'd look at the likelihood of such an emergency evacuation being needed. Pretty low I'm guessing, although clearly not zero.

Then I'd consider the likelihood of the speed of the evacuation being critical. You mention fire, and that's probably the only one where speed is of the essence.

Then I'd look at the impact on the overcrowding of the train in terms of time taken for people to evacuate, and the potential delay in terms of fatality/serious injury.

Once I'd done all that, I would judge the overall probability in terms of passenger kilometres and probably conclude that the risk is so minutely small that it is worth taking. As the alternative would be to impose additional costs on the industry that would result in increased fares, more people travelling by road, and more road accidents as a result.

There hasn't been a fatality or serious injury (as a result of an rail related incident) of an on train passenger for nearly 9 years now, despite many trains being seriously overcrowded on a regular basis. The track record speaks for itself.

 

One death at Ladbroke Grove was attributed to the fire after the collision.  And I recall (but I can't find the reference) that people may have moved forward in the HST so been standing in coach H.    But then the ultimate is to have trains seated-only, and with people required to remain in their seats until the train has come to a complete halt. 

My experience of train crowding is that it is self-regulating. When a train becomes too full extra passengers choose not to try to board. This is most noticeable on LUL and no staff intervention is needed other than to allow the doors to be closed. The JNR of course employs "pushers".

As far as collision safety is concerned you are probably safer jammed together than flying the length of an empty carriage into shards of glass at the end.

Bombay/Mumbai 12-car trains rated at 3500 capacity regularly disgorge >5000 at VT, even with the 25kV OLE limiting numbers.

OTC