Passengers want a seat… reliability and affordability

It’s very nice to read about lots of lovely new trains and tracking the average age of rolling stock, but is what really matters to us passengers being tracked?

The first thing that matters is reliability - can we depend on the train to get to work or a leisure event.

Second is capacity - can we get on a train? Third is cost - we need to be able to afford it. And fourth (harder to measure) is quality - ease of paying/booking, cleanliness, comfort, chances of finding a seat.

To guide policy, can I therefore suggest the following more appropriate metrics:

1: Rolling stock Public Performance Measure (delays and cancellations due to rolling stock failure).

2: Total m2 of space available provided on rolling stock at peak times as a capacity indicator - it would not be fair to measure crowding, as success on the other points could increase it. I suggest £/m2 to avoid issues of configuring seats vs standing vs toilets, catering, and so on.

3: Cost £ per m2 of space on rolling stock per year as a cost indicator.

4: Satisfaction scores as already collected.

These measurements will show how well our fleets are being procured and managed, and the comparative costs of IEP, rolling stock companies, and so on.

Most passengers don’t care how old the train is, and where it was previously so long as it turns up… you get on it… and it is fit for purpose. Four carriages of refurbished cascaded stock or Pacer or Vivarail will always beat three carriages of the newest shiniest build, especially when you find it’s half the cost.

So good luck to Vivarail and other innovators. Give me a seat and keep my fares down. Mike Napthine, Glasgow