Answers to some newcomer questions (FAQ)

Following on from a series of questions I've been asks of late, I felt it worth sharing these thoughts / answers.

In the CoffeeShop, many of our regular contributors are already darned well informed and perhaps we fail to answer the questions which newcomers to rail travel may have. So for those people, here goes. Members are welcome to add comments / new questions and answers, and newcomers to sign up and chat. With this thread, I may well go back and modify and build in your comments to the original post to make for an ongoing document.

Why can't extra carriages be provided on trains for summer holiday and weekend travel when buses can be increased?

Weekend and summer holiday extra buses can be provided using the same vehicles and drivers that are used for school traffic on weekdays during the rest of the year. But there are few (if any) train services that run 'term time only'. Modern safety, comfort and facility standards require rail (and road) passenger vehicles that are much more expensive to build and maintain that was the case in the past, so it doesn't make economic sense to have resource that spend most of their days unused.

Most train services are run under franchises for the Department for Transport, and one of the evaluation factor for bids is the number of trains to be leased, with the department's view being that best used should be made of carriages which, however, should be as low in number as practical. This has encouraged all franchise bidders to keep provision down, giving them little spare for traffic peaks.

Why do trains and buses always seem to be late when it's busy? Why does a late service always seem to get later?

Bus and train timetables allow a certain amount of time at each stop along the way. At quiet times, that's more than adequate, but at times that are very much busier than average, it takes longer to unload and load passengers, and in the case of buses to sell them tickets. Adding just an extra 90 seconds at each stop on a Cardiff to Portsmouth train would add nearly half an hour to the journey overall, and require an extra train on that route for no extra income. It would also irritate people at quieter times as the train waited at every stop. There are (now) clever driver advise systems which advise the driver to travel a little slower than maximum speed so the slower schedule doesn't manifest itself in irritating long waits at stations, but rather in somewhat better fuel efficiency!

You will see timing differences in the peaks, and on weekend days too, to take account of different passenger loadings but leisure travellers especially are fickle - depending on the weather, on what sport's on TV that day, and so on and it's impractical to have a schedule that's so generous it lets trains always run on time, yet so slick that it attracts people to use ths train in the first place.

Where trains are frequent, a delay to one train due to loading may mean that it starts to pick up passengers for the next train too, thus slowing it down even more, and getting it even more crowded. The same thing applies with buses - there's the old joke about London buses that you wait for half an hour then 3 come along together!

Buses suffer from traffic jams ... and in a way late running trains do too, as they turn up at junctions and other places at the same time as other services that are on time, and typically have to wait. Your private car still gets caught up in traffic too - and indeed at busy times journeys are often much slower.

Why are so many trains (over)crowded?

Proportionately, not a lot of trains are stuffed. It's just that because there's a lot of people on those trains, they're the ones that get noticed. Average loading over 35% would be excellent, and many services run at well under 20%. Until we move more away from the traditional 5 day, '9 to 5' working week you will always have these peaks which cause a real headache for the system's efficiency, and indeed for ticket pricing which attempts to encourage a levelling out but ends up being rather too complex for many passengers.

Why do [Insert Train Operating Company] delay and cancel so many trains?

Firstly - far fewer are delayed or cancelled than you might expect - it's just that they're the ones you remember. Statistics are kept, and individual delays and trends all carefully analysed so that lessons can be learned.

Secondly - where trains do get held up, it's the train operating company that takes the blame. There are hosts of reasons which are beyond their control, such as overruning engineers works (by Network Rail), someone else's train breaking down and blocking the line (by another operator), or a passenger dropping something between the train and the platform (by a passenger). But in each case, what you see is the train operator being flagged to the public as responsible. In many ways, that makes sense as it would be unfortunate to see different parts of the rail industry slagging each other off in public, and in the end it's the operator's train that has failed at the sharp end.

Thirdly - you can to some extent allow time for extended station stops at peak times where those peaks are regular, but at the weekend separate timetables for every combination of where the sports crowd are would be impractical, and you also need to bear in mind that loading can go up by a factor of 4 if the weather's good.

Why does my connection fail / not get held?

If a train is held awaiting a late connection, it delays that train too and the whole network can be effected with "pass on delays". Furthermore, most passenger at most junctions are not connecting, so holding a connection can damage the journey for many people for just a few. It may feel like rough justice, but typically it's better to let the outgoing train run on time. There are exceptions, which are noted and part of the operational plan ... this is done scientifically.

Why can't we have locohauled trains to the coast on summer saturdays like we used to?

Traditional locomotive hauled trains required engines to run around the train to be on the front in both directions, and that slowed down turn around. In steam locomotive days, each locomotive needed serviceing frequently and the changeover wasn't a huge loss of efficiency, but these days built in engines under or in the end of carriages is a more efficient way of doing things - even for long distance travel. Having carriages which are self-powered also means trains can be coupled up to each other more easily to form longer trains. In past times, uncoupling a locomotive from a local train and using it for goods traffic off peak was efficient, but there is little if any such local goods traffic left now.

Ironically, the "High Speed Trains" really are locomotive hauled (and pushed) with a class 43 locomotive on each end of 8 carriages. And they are used on summer saturdays from Bristol via Trowbridge to Weymouth. This is a slow and expensive operation, as locomotive hauled trains only power a few of the wheels making acceleration more limited without slipping, and mean there's one or two disproportionatley heavy vehicles in the train which make for more wear on the track and lower speed limits. You also need a 10 coach platform for just 8 passenger coaches!

Why can't train capacity be increase as passenger number increase?

If you have a 2 coach train and increase it to 3 coaches, that's a big step change, whereas passenger numbers increase smoothly. So even in an ideal system you're going to get peaks and troughs, and feel at times that nothing's being done. And once a train gets to maximum platform length (for example the 10 carriages / 8 for passengers + 2 locomotives at Paddington) you can't make the trains longer. With line capacity at almost 100% from Paddigton to Reading, do you try to squeeze in an extra train (at the cost of reliability), or what? With electrification, new trains will allow passengers to travel in all carriages and give some extra capacity, and a better performance curve may add a path or two - but all trains need to be replace before there's any path gain as mixing different envelopes on the same line reduces the overall number of trains that can run.

But ordering of new trains has been conservative over recent decades - with the government (which needs to underwrite the investment by short term franchisees into long term capital stock) erring on the side of too few rather than too many trains. And you can't just turn a tap to get a flow of new trains. Modern health and safety standards and customer requirements are also forcing certain trains to be withdrawn by the end of the decade, and they can't simply be life extended to provide more stock, not be put away in sidings just for occasional use. Take a look at the poor condition of many coaches on heritage railways, and imagine them out on the fast main lines at peak times ... they are (rightly in most cases) limited to 25 m.p.h.

Why isn't more luggage space provided on trains?

Most of the time, most train users are lightly loaded with luggage and it makes sense to use the space available for seating or (on short runs) standing. At certains times (and, yes, they can to a degree be forecast), there maybe a lot of luggage and / or bicycles, but it's hard to justify taking seats out to allow for such times, or bigger trains for those peaks carrying luggage or cycles free of charge.

Luggage check in and check out would be very costly indeed to set up, especially bearing in mind the need in current world conditions for security of that luggage. There *is* something to be said for charging for certain items / sizes - but it would be a real nightmare to clearly define the limits and to administer such a system. "If your bags occupy a seat (or your feet occupy the seat opposite) you should pay for that seat" perhaps?

Edit to correct typos