Train standing at Platform 1 is not overcrowded, it's 'acceptably loaded'
The Times: October 15, 2008
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Among the passengers crushed into the corridors of commuter trains, the Department for Transport’s latest solution for rail overcrowding is unlikely to provoke spontaneous applause.
Officials have found a way of reducing the number of trains deemed to be overcrowded without requiring any passengers to get off and without adding a single seat.
They have achieved this by changing the definition of the “acceptable loading of passengers on trains”.
Under the old standard, used in the West Midlands and some other parts of the country, it was considered acceptable to have ten people standing for every hundred seats. The new national standard, which will apply to all routes, has tripled the acceptable number of standing passengers to 30 per 100 seats.
The department said that its loading standard assumed that each standing passenger would have 0.45 sq m of floor space: any less and the train would be officially overcrowded.
Centro, the public transport authority in the West Midlands, has complained to the National Audit Office (NAO) that the new definition would result in even worse conditions on trains in the region and encourage people to travel by car.
Despite being easier to meet, the revised standard is being breached on hundreds of trains each day. According to the DfT, the most overcrowded service is First Capital Connect’s 7.15am service from Cambridge to King’s Cross, which has 76 people standing for every 100 seats.
In a report published today, the NAO said that overcrowding would continue to get worse until the Government fulfilled its pledge, made 18 months ago, to introduce 1,300 extra carriages. To date, only 423 of the carriages have been ordered from manufacturers and none has been delivered.
The department said that it was unable to give details of when the carriages would arrive except to say that they should all be in place by 2014. It was also unable to say to which lines the carriages would be allocated.
Demand for rail travel has been outstripping the supply of extra capacity for the past decade. Passenger numbers have grown by 50 per cent and the amount of freight carried by trains has grown by 60 per cent. But the number of trains has risen by only about 20 per cent. The Government announced last year that it would in- crease capacity by 22.5 per cent in the seven years to 2014. Network Rail has said that this would be inadequate if passenger numbers continued to grow at the present rate of 7 per cent a year.
The NAO, which investigated the value for money of eight train franchises signed by the Government since 2005, said that they all faced “severe capacity pressures on a number of routes, with increasing levels of crowding on peak commuter services, notably to London”. It said that the train companies, encouraged by the Department for Transport, were increasingly opting for “airline-style pricing techniques” to deter passengers from travelling on the most crowded trains.
Virgin charges £215 for an open single in standard class from London to Warrington, but as little as £13 for passengers able to book several weeks in advance.
The NAO said that the Government’s approach of encouraging train companies to maximise income from passengers meant that fares would continue to rise above inflation. It concluded: “Most passengers can expect to pay higher regulated and unregulated fares in the future.”
Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: “The news that fares are likely to rise above inflation in these difficult times will infuriate many passengers who have no alternative but to travel day after day on packed trains.”
Theresa Villiers, the Shadow Transport Secretary, said: “Excessive government micromanagement of our railways is delaying the delivery of vitally needed capacity enhancements, which means passengers suffer.”
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, said: “People are being forced off the trains and into their cars by unacceptable ticket prices.”
See also:
Railway terminology places passengers at risk
The Times: October 17, 2008
Letters
Putting words in our mouths: the redefinition of 'overcrowding' is an outrage
Sir, The Department for Transport has decided that in future a train will not be classed as overcrowded unless it is carrying more than 130 passengers for every 100 seats compared with 110 at present (“Rail misery solved at the stroke of a pen: a new definition of the word ‘overcrowded’ ”, Oct 15).
Over the years, the railways have been responsible for a number of innovative definitions of common words and phrases that mean something different to the rest of us. For example, “on time” or “punctual” can include trains that are up to ten minutes late, despite the likelihood that many passengers will have missed key connections because of the delay. A train is not regarded as “cancelled” if it has completed 50 per cent of its journey, however many passengers are left stranded at the stations on the rest of the route.
Now “overcrowding” has been redefined to mean “packed in like sardines” rather than “a few standing passengers”. Indeed, the railway industry tends to use the term “crowding” rather than “overcrowding” as if to lessen the import of what is in reality a miserable daily experience for many passengers. The sad fact is that the the new definition of overcrowding will be used to determine the need for additional trains as they come on stream, so the trains will not be used to alleviate the new high levels of overcrowding; they will merely perpetuate this situation.
Perhaps the only light at the end of the tunnel is that the oncoming recession will reduce demand for peak train services drastically. For a time at least, those passengers who remain will have more chance of getting a seat —- until, of course, the drop in revenue and subsidy lead to capacity being slashed again.
Michael Patterson
Secretary, Central Rail Users Consultative Committee 1987-97
Sir, Your report was very welcome for the accompanying diagram. This showed that where there are more than six passengers standing within the area between the sliding doors of a modern railway carriage it is impossible for them all to hold on to anything without invading one another’s personal space.
A few years ago I corresponded with a railway company that refused to accept that passenger numbers could be a safety issue unless a train’s undercarriage was overburdened by their weight.
Your item illustrates graphically that a far lower level of overcrowding presents the danger of crushing through inadequately supported travellers becoming loose cannon on a change of speed or direction.
John Harvey
Caterham, Surrey
Sir, Surely redefining the term “overcrowding” will place passengers at an increased risk of injury.
Where are the health and safety police when you need them?
Mark D. Williams
Swansea
Sir, The proposal to solve rail misery by redefining “overcrowded” does not go nearly far enough. We should abolish such negative adjectives altogether.
I suggest that there could be degrees of passenger density, described as “sociable”, “cosy”, and so on. “Intimate” would mean one sits on seated passengers’ knees. Trains where one might find a vacant seat would be “deluxe” and cost more.
Nigel Macnicol
Greetham, Rutland