Trains 'too costly' for rail firm

[whole diary]

[inspector_blakey]

I'm afraid, just as the bit I quoted said, sentimentality is taking over from sense. Most people want to get from A to B, in a sensible combination of speed, comfort and price - not many want to read a book, or whatever, on route. Look at the figures, people vote with their feet (wheels) - even on long distance journeys the car wins on popularity, hands down. Journeys of 350 miles +: Cars 42%, Air 39% and train 12%. On shorter journeys, air drops hugely to 5%, trains increase to 14%, coaches are at 8%, the car is at 72%.

Another problem with the rail network is that 70% of journeys are made within London and the South East. These numbers are then used within the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)-wide context and give exaggerated and skewed figures.

On the subject of deaths, you are not comparing like with like. If I decide to commit suicide by standing in the middle of the M4, that is a "road death" and is added to the 3000 odd that die on the roads every year.
If I stand in the middle of the main line from Paddington, that doesn't appear as a "passenger" death (which you quote), it probably doesn't even appear as a railway death of any sort except in detailed figures.

"Every year about 200 people choose to die on the railways - a further 50 kill themselves on the London Underground." (RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) figs)

Rail is about 6 times safer than travelling by car - BUT air is 10 times safer than rail. Strong argument to fly more ?

Perhaps most telling all - an excerpt from Hansard 16 Jan 2001:

"Railway Accidents

Mr. Bradshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the annual average figure was of serious injuries and deaths on the railways per passenger mile travelled in the two decades preceding privatisation; and what has been the annual average figure since privatisation. [144823]

Mr. Hill: This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost."

This would appear to make even the passenger death figures somewhat suspect.

Before we start tossing statistics around, you need to be absolutely clear what you are using as your measure of "safety". In particular, when comparing rail versus aviation safety, are you referring to deaths per passenger mile or per passenger journey? This is a vital distinction - because of the sheer length of most journeys taken by air, the "deaths per passenger mile" statistic for aviation is very low. Further, you also need to be absolutely clear about the time-period to which your statistics refer, since they may not reflect current rail safety performance (which has improved hugely in the last ten years or so).

I'd find it pretty startling if you're claiming that aviation is ten times safer than rail on the basis of deaths per passenger journey.

Flinging those sorts of numbers around is a dangerous game, especially when you don't actually explain what figures you're quoting or give enough information for them to be critically evaluated and put into a context.

[moonrakerz]

Before we start tossing statistics around, you need to be absolutely clear what you are using as your measure of "safety".

Flinging those sorts of numbers around is a dangerous game, especially when you don't actually explain what figures you're quoting or give enough information for them to be critically evaluated and put into a context.

Thank you  Inspector -  that was exactly my point with Tim's previous post, I quote:-

"3000 people die every year on UK^▸ (United Kingdom) roads.  About 3000 passengers have ever died on the UK's railways" (my highlighting) - hardly a realistic comparison.

Even you are doing the same to some extent:- "rail safety performance (which has improved hugely in the last ten years or so" Not on level crossings it hasn't ! As Chris from Nailsea pointed out quite recently it has got markedly worse since 2003.

You are quite right about air safety - my figures were per million passenger miles (lies, damned lies and statistics !); but as I said, most rail journeys (70% in SE) are of relatively short distance, but by quoting absolute figures or deaths per journey the end figures are distorted.
Aviation must be unique, in that the longer the journey, the safer you are, using some methods of calculation.

By the way, I didn't raise the subject of rail deaths in the first place - just commenting on a book that raised some interesting points about transport in general.

Finally: would anyone have commented had I just said that rail was 6 times safer than a car and left out the bit about air ? I am inclined to think not   

[Mookiemoo]

Thank you  Inspector -  that was exactly my point with Tim's previous post, I quote:-

"3000 people die every year on UK^▸ (United Kingdom) roads.  About 3000 passengers have ever died on the UK's railways" (my highlighting) - hardly a realistic comparison.

Even you are doing the same to some extent:- "rail safety performance (which has improved hugely in the last ten years or so" Not on level crossings it hasn't ! As Chris from Nailsea pointed out quite recently it has got markedly worse since 2003.

The point is - in a car, you are somewhat in control of your own destiny - on a plane, bus or train, you trust the driver.  I cannot be a passenger in a car - I'm not noticeably anxious but unless I am sitting behind the wheel, I get very very very sick.  Its a control thing. 

Now - apart from passengers who are non-participating - I would guess (although it is non PC) that 99.9% of other deaths on the railway only have the deceased to blame.  So these can be discounted from the figures.

Fatality - dont jump
Level crossing - use common sense
Mashed brats - learn railways are dangerous before its too late

In 99.9% of cases, it is NOT the railway that is the cause but the deceased - although I guess telling the parents of a squished teenager they only have themselves to blame is probably not done therefore will skew the figures as someone else has to be blamed.

[Electric train]

The point is - in a car, you are somewhat in control of your own destiny - on a plane, bus or train, you trust the driver. 

Not quite true, as a driver of a car you are reliant on the other drivers to do what you think they should be doing and them not misinterpreting what you are doing - - - all very random

[Mookiemoo]

The point is - in a car, you are somewhat in control of your own destiny - on a plane, bus or train, you trust the driver. 

Not quite true, as a driver of a car you are reliant on the other drivers to do what you think they should be doing and them not misinterpreting what you are doing - - - all very random

]

But you have the ability to react to it!

[moonrakerz]

Now - apart from passengers who are non-participating - I would guess (although it is non PC) that 99.9% of other deaths on the railway only have the deceased to blame.  So these can be discounted from the figures.

Fatality - dont jump
Level crossing - use common sense
Mashed brats - learn railways are dangerous before its too late

In 99.9% of cases, it is NOT the railway that is the cause but the deceased - although I guess telling the parents of a squished teenager they only have themselves to blame is probably not done therefore will skew the figures as someone else has to be blamed.

I totally agree with what you are saying but you seem to be missing the point.

The original statement was NOT comparing like with like -  road "people" are NOT rail "passengers".  In 2007 the total killed on Britain's road was 2964 - for a start, 646 were pedestrians, to re-use your statement "so these can be discounted from the figures". BUT these were NOT discounted in the original quotation - so it would be quite correct to include suicides, level crossings etc in the rail figures to obtain a valid comparison.

[Tim]

Ok statistics are a mess and distorted by what you are measuring (deaths per mile, per hour, per journey) and FA has made a good case for discounting suicides and people who kill themselves by being down right stupid (although I dislike her arguement that risk in a car is lower because the driver is in control - you only have an illusion of control and i'd much rather hand my life over to a well trained train driver (and accompanying safety systems such as signalling) than trust my own limited car driving abilities and those of teh otehr idiots on the road. 

The air vs rail comparison is also misleading I think because IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the air industry only counts deaths of passengers during flights whereas if you fall down an escalator at a station and kill yourself you will be counted as a railway death.  According to Eurostat in 2004 1,450 people were killed on the EU^» (European Union - about)'s railways 9excluding suicides).  But only 62 of them were passengers.  Most of the rest were trespassers, level crossing (ab)users and track workers and shunters. 

BUT whatever way you slice the stats, air and rail are safer than road and a reducion in road traffic and an increase in rail traffic would be expected to save lives.  Lives saved are considered when analysis cost-benefit of buildig a new (safer) road or upgrading a dangerous road.  the same consideration shoudl be factored into rail investment.   

[Tim]

When BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) brought new stock it was depreciated in their accounts over a fixed period of time (typically 20 or 30 years). 

BR were not allowed depreciation by the DoT they BR had to fund the full cost of new stock, but having said that BR did have spare stock, the current franchise system does actively encourage the only just enough stock after all the share holders will only fund to the point where they get the maximum return

You are right when it came to buying new trains.  but am I not correct in thinking that when carrying out a C:B analysis for an proposed new service, BR ignored the capital cost of the stock if teh proposal involved using old stock that was regarded as already "paid for"?