Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 18:15 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
* Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1917)
Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore closed (link)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:48 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:04 Bedwyn to Newbury
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
18:26 Newbury to Bedwyn
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
18:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
18:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:30 Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
17:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
18:18 Newbury to London Paddington
18:19 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:06 London Paddington to Bedwyn
20:42 Bedwyn to London Paddington
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
Additional 17:26 Castle Cary to Penzance
17:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 18:25 Shalford to Reading
18:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:23 Reading to Gatwick Airport
etc
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 18:32:51 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Rail still safer than road during Covid-19  (Read 1112 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« on: August 28, 2020, 15:27:00 »

From the RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board)

Quote
Passengers can be a lot more confident about travelling by train safely according to RSSB – with the risk of Covid-19 infection being less than 0.01% on an average journey.

Rail safety experts worry that people may be assuming the roads offer a less risky alternative during the pandemic, when in fact trains are safer and greener.

Analysis by the rail safety body has shown the risk of contracting Covid-19 while travelling by train is about 1 in 11,000 journeys. This is equivalent to a chance of less than 0.01%, based on an hour-long train journey in a carriage with no social distancing or face coverings.

The report also shows that the risk more than halves if passengers wear a face covering. These have been mandatory when travelling by train since June, unless exempt.

On safety alone, for an individual traveller per kilometre travelled, the car is 25 times less safe than rail. Cycling is 403 times, walking is 456 times, and travelling by motorcycle is 1,620 times less safe.

When the effect of the virus is taken into account and compared against the average road safety risk, the risks are almost the same (road is 1.14 times the risk of rail). Across all transport modes risks of catching the virus are very low, and certainly tolerable. Experts accept that most people will want to use a combination of different modes of transport to get around.

The infection risk findings have now been published by RSSB and verified by the Chief Scientific Adviser’s team at Department for Transport in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.

Public transport had been perceived as an infection hotspot due to the vast number of people being in a close proximity. However, research is challenging this, showing that passengers are not as prone to infection as previously assumed, certainly not given the current underlying national infection rates, and people generally conforming with government Covid-19 guidelines.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Trowres
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 749


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2020, 23:52:43 »

I'm a little surprised that there have been no comments so far on the RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s report (nor many views of this thread).

The webpage that grahame has quoted seems to go further in drawing conclusions than the PDF papers on numbers and methodology to which the webpage links. That is to say, the PDF article and methodology covers risk of infection, while the webpage refers to risk of dying.

I am wondering if the comparison has missed out one issue in its comparison of different modes - the difference between individual risk and community risk. One fatality in an accident is just that, but one fatality from CV19 picked up on a train implies 100+ non-fatal cases picked up on the train (depending on chosen fatality rate) and these 100+ would have been the start of a further chains of infections, which (depending on choice of R)  would have likely led to about 10 further fatalities.

Note also that the RSSB has based its fatality risk on the age profile of rail travellers, the majority of whom are well under 70 and assessed as low-risk of fatality. If you are 70+, your personal risk might be higher than the RSSB figures.

Nothing to do with Covid-19, but the personal vs. community hazard arises again in the comparison of risk for each transport mode. The community risk of driving is higher than shown because motor vehicles kill pedestrians and cyclists (in significant numbers) in addition to vehicle occupants.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2020, 06:18:19 »

I'm a little surprised that there have been no comments so far on the RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s report (nor many views of this thread).

There is some evidence that lots of people read to be informed, and in that mode many regulars use "recent posts" which displays the article but does not include it in counts.     92 different people uses "action=recent" in the 24 hours to 03:30 this morning - 336 different people in the last 11 days.  Also some evidence that on 'heavy' topics that people read but offer fewer comments, not joining until until the subject has been softened up into commentable pieces.

Risk stats are riddled with issues, as you've highlighted, and are difficult to comment on raw of semi-raw for many of us.   Thank you for helping to start breaking them down and pointing out contexts and likely skews.  I noted that the article mixed journey numbers, journey lengths in distance, and time taken to travel at various points and that did not help me.   Having said which, the modes of travel differ and it's an unusual journey from Trowbridge to London on foot, or from Bradford-on-Avon to Avoncliff by train, and hard to know which unit type to use.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7746



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2020, 07:46:41 »

I'm a little surprised that there have been no comments so far on the RSSB (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s report (nor many views of this thread).

The webpage that grahame has quoted seems to go further in drawing conclusions than the PDF papers on numbers and methodology to which the webpage links. That is to say, the PDF article and methodology covers risk of infection, while the webpage refers to risk of dying.

I am wondering if the comparison has missed out one issue in its comparison of different modes - the difference between individual risk and community risk. One fatality in an accident is just that, but one fatality from CV19 picked up on a train implies 100+ non-fatal cases picked up on the train (depending on chosen fatality rate) and these 100+ would have been the start of a further chains of infections, which (depending on choice of R)  would have likely led to about 10 further fatalities.

Note also that the RSSB has based its fatality risk on the age profile of rail travellers, the majority of whom are well under 70 and assessed as low-risk of fatality. If you are 70+, your personal risk might be higher than the RSSB figures.

Nothing to do with Covid-19, but the personal vs. community hazard arises again in the comparison of risk for each transport mode. The community risk of driving is higher than shown because motor vehicles kill pedestrians and cyclists (in significant numbers) in addition to vehicle occupants.

Tucked away in the footnotes

It is assumed that those in the vulnerable age bracket (60+) are not using the railway

Covid 19 fatality risk only includes the risk to those travelling, not knock on risk to others in the community

One huge assumption, one huge omission.

Logged
Marlburian
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 689


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2020, 10:05:54 »

I have two friends (yes, honestly) who used to visit me by train. One lives in Southend and until last year drove, until I pointed out to her that she was often delayed by accidents on the motorway and that even when everything went perfectly it still took longer than by train. (She and I both live very close to convenient stations.)

This year, once visits to other households were allowed, both friends opted to use their cars, mainly to avoid the Tube. Just had a text from my Southend friend saying that, yet again, there are delays on the motorways and she'll be 90 minutes late.

The other lives in South East and would cycle to Paddington. But she has vulnerable family members and now doesn't want to risk the train, so she drives. (Having to get across London, it takes her almost as long to get here as it does the lady from Southend.)
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1532



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2020, 13:57:22 »

Quote
It is assumed that those in the vulnerable age bracket (60+) are not using the railway

Sorry - that assumption is wrong - me for example.......!
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2020, 14:26:22 »

Quote
It is assumed that those in the vulnerable age bracket (60+) are not using the railway

Sorry - that assumption is wrong - me for example.......!

One of the big pattern changes I have notice in a sample of journeys this week is the plummeting of numbers of car parked at stations for the day.  I suggest that a traffic that has not returned to the degree of others is the people who used to drive to the station then leave their car there while they commuted.   These pictures from Tuesday (29.9.20) - locations in which I would have expected to find more spaces taken than not back in February.  Decimations far worse that train passenger number drops.







Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
FarWestJohn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 235


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2020, 19:04:16 »

And me!
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page