Great Western Coffee Shop

From The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/waverley-station-to-get-new-level-as-passenger-numbers-soar-1-3972452?)


This concerns Edinburgh's Waverley station - so how do those numbers stack up for elsewhere?

"Doubling in 30 years" is what you'll get from a constant compound growth of 2.3% per annum; current rolling stock provision for the future is calculated on 3% compound growth (which means there would be 2.42 passengers in 2045 for every 1.00 in the most recent figures) and the latest growth figure quoted for franchised services is 5.7%.  If that carried on for 30 years, we would have 5.27 passengers for every one today in 2045.

There is already "some concern" ( :D ) that parts of the rail infrastructure are unable to cope with today's demand, and that there is already a shortage of rolling stock, so we're not even starting out from an "up to date" position ... but that comment (from me) is complicated by the fact that improvements are not continual, but rather come in big steps, whereas traffic growth is much more a steady curve.

Where do you think we'll be in 30 years?   Will the growth continue?    Reduce?   Will we even see reductions in rail travel in some years?  Will better use of resources be made by levelling out the peaks?   Will any improvements simply fuel even more growth?

Some comments on the Scotsman's article:

I expect significant growth in passenger numbers for two main reasons.

Firstly, the population is increasing rapidly, look at the birth rate ! the rail passengers who will need space in 5, 10, or 15 years have already been born. Even a sudden drop in the birth rate will still leave a rapidly growing adult population for many years. In addition more and more people are moving to the UK, at least a million every 3 years. Even if a change of government policy reduces FUTURE immigration into the UK, those already here and en route need considering, remembering that many young children are among the immigrants, and will of course grow up.

Secondly, rail travel is becoming more popular as an alternative to driving or flying, and this is likely to increase as oil supplies deplete in coming decades. Younger adults are now less likely to drive than in the past, and whilst some no doubt walk, cycle or take the bus, most are probably taking the train rather than driving.

So we have a growing population AND a greater proportion of that increased population choosing to use trains.

As has been well reported on these forums, many trains are very overcrowded and increased capacity is urgently needed simply to accommodate the Present numbers, let alone allow for significant increases.

Suppose that a certain service has seats for 500 but is used by 750 passengers. One might suppose that the overcrowding could be eliminated by providing 750 seats.
I disagree, many potential customers might be put off travel by the gross overcrowding and decide to drive instead.  If a train with 750 seats was provided instead of the one with 500 seats, then the increased chance of getting a seat would almost certainly attract more passengers off buses and out of cars. 900 passengers might now use the train, 750 seated and 150 standing.
Chance of getting a seat on the 500 seat train=67%
Chance of getting a seat on the 750 seat train=83%
That is a worthwhile improvement, but still leaves 150 standing.
Providing a train with 1000 seats might be expected to leave 100 vacant seats, but in practice the virtual certainty of getting a sea would attract even more passengers.

If instead, the single train with 500 seats and 750 passengers was replaced with 2 similar trains running say 20 minutes apart, then the increased frequency would probably attract more customers IN ADDITION to those attracted by the increased likelihood of getting a seat, and both trains would probably end up nearly full in the first year and overcrowded thereafter.

Improvements in capacity always fuel growth, on rail as on roads and elsewhere, at least until something better comes along that makes the current method obsolete, such as rail and improved roads putting canals (mostly) out of business. This doesn't just hold true for transport, of course. So far, so obvious.

Then there are all the technological changes coming to transport which will make it ^ mostly for driving ^ cheaper and easier: electric cars are going to take off in the next decade as range increases and, probably more importantly, so does the charging network; self-driving cars are probably already technologically viable but it's some years till they become customer-ready (or the public ready for them); before fully self-driving cars (and lorries etc) become available we'll see an ever increasing array of aids to the driver in particular stressful situations such as parking, stop-start traffic and fog; the oil price is plunging but for how long?

I don't think we can say yet how these factors will interact to attract traffic off rails and on to roads, or vice versa, but travel is not a static quantity: more travel on one mode will tend to create more on other modes that feed into/from it.

What always strikes me in discussions about capacity is that it really depends on which flows you are considering.  There are some places like Waterloo or Edinburgh Waverley that will not be able to cope with more trains without drastic interventions like Crossrail 2 and 3, double decked trains and mezanies etc.  That will cost serious money and present major challenges

But there are also plenty of places were significant growth can be (or at least ought to be) accommodated easily.  Things like replacing 3 car trains with 4 car trains on the Cardiff-Portsmouth run would be one of those things.  Changes like that ought to make economic sense.  Because a 4 car train has the same staffing costs as a 3 car train and yet potentially carries more paying passengers.

So major schemes will be needed but we must not neglect smaller incremental schemes which in comparison cost peanuts and which make a real difference to both passengers and the productivity of the railway.  There is no fundamental reason why the Northern franchise should need a big subsidy whilst the SWT franchise pays a big premium.  If Northern ran longer trains their productivity would increase.  And the flip side of course is that adding capacity to some Northern routes will be much less expensive than re-engineering the routes into Waterloo.     

I'd also add, that thoughts like those above do make me wonder about re-balancing growth across the country.

Should we invest billions into keeping pace with demand growth in London where capacity improvements (not just on the railway but in terms of housing and offices too) would be cheaper to deliver in, lets say Swindon or Bristol or Sunderland?

You might say that London needs the infrastructure investment because lots of people want to live and work there.  But perhaps it is the other way round and the jobs in London are fuelled by the infrastructure investment.   Spend the money outside London and I think it might be a cheaper way to boost economic activity. 

The way of the future does seem to be for employment to become focused in cities.  South Wales is a case in point here.  Cardiff/Newport is booming and the valleys are depleted.  But South Wales actually has a huge amount going for it because the distances are small and the former industry in the valleys can be cleared for housing and the railway built to transport coal can be upgraded to carry workers to the shops and offices of Cardiff.     

I am about to go to Gemany for a Christmas weekend, and it is surprising {not} that every city we looked at had comprehensive, fully integrated train systems, connected by the ICE network.

If Network Rail are serious about planning for the future, then need with local cities to develop proper local transport systems, and link more cities to the HS network, with a high train gauge (not track) to allow double deck trains, longer trains, more flexible route options.

Having "rebased" my graphs - see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16599.msg189101#msg189101 - they now show recent growth trends much better - I would suggest this is a better base for extrapolation than the previous graphs based 10 years ago.

Cities in the South West (GWR territory)

(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=BS&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=EX&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=PL&baseyear=2010)

Cities in the South West (SWT territory)

(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=BH&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=SP&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=SO&baseyear=2010)

Cities elsewhere in the UK

(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=NE&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=LS&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=S&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=G&baseyear=2010)
(http://www.wellho.net/demo/railtrends.php?place=CF&baseyear=2010)

It seems to me, that the need for a lot more capacity by say 2045 has just become even clearer.
The government is about to announce plans to prohibit sales of new petrol and diesel fuelled cars by 2040.

Existing and reasonably foreseeable battery cars are already viable for short journeys and under optimum conditions for longer trips up to about 100 miles. It seems a bit unlikely that affordable EVs will be suited to doing hundreds of miles in a day.
This points to greater demand for rail travel, especially on intercity routes. 2040 may seem too far ahead to be worth worrying about just yet, but noting just how long major rail projects take to plan and execute, action needs to start now.

Do those plans extend to trains too??   Seems a bit odd to plan to ban diesel cars, and to prolong the use of diesel power in trains ....

No mention of trains AFAIK.
Trains make better use of fuel than cars, so cars are arguably a higher priority but hopefully electrification will be back on the agenda by 2045.

Oil is cheap at present, but I would expect that the long term trend will be upwards as supplies deplete. Oil derived fuels will be essential  for some purposes for the foreseeable future, so the sooner we start saving oil for such purposes the better.

And what about diesel generators, industrial and agricultural machinery, domestic and commercial heating, boats of all shapes and sizes, and of course aircraft?

Diesel generators, indispensable for emergency purposes. For outdoor events minimise use and consider temporary grid connections instead.

Industrial and agricultural machinery, unavoidable in many cases, battery power viable for the smaller machines, and horses are a possibility for some agricultural work.

Heating, minimise use by insulation, consider renewably generated electricity as a partial or total alternative.

Boats, minimise use of fuel and consider a return to sails, for both large ships and for pleasure craft. For ferries making frequent but relatively short crossings, battery power is already viable.

Aircraft, little alternative to oil derived fuels, we will have to fly less! Battery power is possible for smaller aircraft.

Seems others might agree ... from the RMT:


I don't always agree with Mick Cash ...

The announcement seems to only apply to cars and vans, not HGVs and buses (or even motorcycles) let alone sources other than road vehicles. In practice, 23 years is a very long time in this context and it's likely only specialist vehicles will still be made with internal combustion engines by then. Volvo is to cease their manufacture altogether from 2019, for instance. And it's only new vehicles from that – those already around will remain. At least under the current plan.

Taking a far more localised look at growth rates, I've taken the TransWilts journey numbers for the 2016 (9 months) and 2017 (3 months) period, and compounded them at various rates - firstly the 0.8% rate on which forward planning from 2006 to 2016 was based, then some rates that would reflect some of the achievements around the South West in the past decade

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/growthrates.jpg)

In reallity, growth rates will change from year to year, constrained by both supply and demand, and muted in how quickly it changes by the time it takes people to tie up something new (quite slow) or give up on something that doesn't work for them (quote fast, I fear).

On TransWilts, the current constraint is supply.  By various measures, latent demand is far in excess of that supply; we're getting to be full and standing in the "shoulder" as well as in the peak, and so much feedback suggests more passengers if some of the gaps.
* the train prior to the 17:36 is 144 minutes earlier on a "local" service!
* gap from 06:48 to 09:33 in arrivals at the county town of Trowbridge which rules out commuter traffic on the line to there from Swindon, Chippenham and Melksham
* later train - last train from Wesrbury 18:32 on Saturday, and from Swindon 20:06 on Monday to Friday
Demand is such that (I believe) the 15% growth rate could be achieved on average over the next 10 years.  It's hard to look that far ahead, but supply is such that I would be very surprised to see anything like that rate achieved without "Vision 2020" implemented.