Changing attitutes to crowding.

Social distancing will change future attitudes to crowding

travel patterns will be established once restrictions on non-essential journeys are relaxed in the coming months. There will also be different expectations about social distancing until a Coronavirus vaccine is widely available.

In the longer term, this may bring a change of opinion about the interior layout of trains, as passengers become less inclined to travel in close proximity to each other. A portent of things to come is the criticism being directed at the London Mayor for sanctioning a reduced timetable on the London Underground that has taken little account of the guideline to travel two metres apart.

It is hard to see that attitudes ingrained in the mind of public transport users will change quickly, if (as expected) the COVID-19 virus continues to return with new spikes of infection when travel restrictions are relaxed.

The increase in demand for rail travel in the past two decades has come about as a response to a number of product and socio-economic factors, where the solution to creating more capacity has been to reduce the space available for individual passengers - with high-density seating and a meagre standing area allowance.

This is the result of franchise agreements which require train operators to provide sufficient train service capacity in order to minimise the number of journeys where the PiXC crowding measure of passengers in excess of capacity is exceeded.

This calculation is based both on the number of seats provided and the standing space available. This varies between routes but can be as low as 0.25m2 per passenger (that it is acceptable for a space of a square metre to be occupied by four people).

There has been a long-standing debate about passenger preferences for a seat or for a comfortable standing area. The past interpretation had been to maximise seating using 3x2 layouts with minimal standing space, but studies by Transport Focus have indicated that for shorter journeys it is preferable to move away from the aim of everyone being seated in order to provide more space for standing.

The new generation of vehicles for routes used by commuters are based on this principle, but it is unlikely to be what people are comfortable with in the COVID-19 recovery period. The recommended two-metre social distancing is a long way from what is currently judged to be an acceptable standard.

Longer-distance services are dominated by passengers making trips for leisure purposes, and the rail journey experience receives high satisfaction ratings - in all likelihood because of comparisons with the seat pitch provided by budget airlines, where the discomfort of a lowpriced flight is seemingly tolerated because of the expected nirvana of taking a break in the sun.

Social distancing on a modern aircraft is an alien concept, as it is for many train journeys. The question is how long it will take for passengers to again accept interiors that maximise seating capacity at the expense of other amenities.

In a rail context, high-density seating has reduced other components of the journey experience. The list is lengthy and includes uncomfortable uncushioned seats, inadequate space for luggage, lack of toilets, seats that do not align with windows, an inability to choose First Class travel, and the removal of on-board catering facilities.

The Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) is used by the industry to forecast the market response to timetable changes, using the concept of Generalised Journey Time.

The formula attempts to forecast the elements that have an impact on overall travel time, such as a low timetable frequency (and resultant station waiting time) and the availability of connecting trains. These factors are added to what is known as the in-vehicle journey time (representing the time taken by the train between the stations concerned).

The revenue value of in-vehicle journey time also reflects comfort levels, with penalties calculated for what is likely to be a poor journey experience if trains are overcrowded (which reflects a dislike of passenger proximity that will not occur with an alternative car journey).

As physical proximity is already judged to be a factor in a worse journey experience, the impact of greater concern about social distancing is likely to reduce the level of tolerance for travel using busy trains. This has the potential to cause lower revenue in the future.

Better internal vehicle design can mitigate such trends. This will challenge the status quo about existing layouts, such as the design of the Class 800 series of inter-city rolling stock. There is little wow factor in using these vehicles, where there is an unbroken length of seating with utilitarian lighting. There are simply too many seats and insufficient tables in the vehicle.

The reason that a multiple unit design was chosen, instead of previous trainsets that either had power cars with van accommodation or were locomotive-hauled with a Driving Van Trailer, was to increase the train length available for carrying passengers.

Unfortunately, nobody asked the rather obvious question about providing luggage space to replace the previous van capacity. As a result, LNER Class 800 trains are being modified with seating removed to provide space for luggage stands.

The poor quality of seats (universally described as ironing boards) provided in the Class 700 trains used for journeys of close to three hours between Great Northern stations and the South Coast is the subject of continued criticism.

Not that the Government, as represented by Baroness Vere in the House of Lords, is ready to acknowledge that. In answer to a question as to whether any assessment concerning comfort had been made, she replied that train operators had worked with manufacturers to deliver compliant seating with input from passenger representatives.

That’s a new one on me. It would have been better to say that in the light of widespread criticism, the RSSB had produced a report in July 2019 ( RAIL 884) that identified the necessary attributes of a comfortable seat for various categories of use.

It was found that in every case the seats provided in newly delivered rolling stock had failed to meet expected standards, and that as a result lessons had been learned for the future.

Poor product quality will be punished as demand for rail travel returns. A huge effort will be needed to restore public confidence in the journey experience.

“In every case the seats provided in newly delivered rolling stock had failed to meet expected standards.”