11 ms·

Acccording to [1] just 67% of all UK trains arrived on time (no more than a minute late), with 2.8% scheduled trains cancelled all togther. How does it fare

Acccording to [1] just 67% of all UK trains arrived on time (no more than a minute late), with 2.8% scheduled trains cancelled all togther. How does it fare against other EU countries? What is so different abount Japan trains, that they are just 0.7 minutes late on average? [1] https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1630/passenger-performance-2019-20-q2.pdf https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1630/passenger-performan...

kiwijamo 7y ago
67% for right time (i.e. <1min late) arrival seems to be pretty average. I’d be more interested in the % of arrival at destination within 5mins as that’s the standard used in many countries and thus easier to compare different systems.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  In many parts of the GB network, once you get more than a minute or two late you end up with delays propagating throughout the network, because enough is timetabled with lines near capacity. You get up to about ~82% within 3 minutes and ~88% within 5 minutes. Beyond that you see little gains.
rwmj 7y ago
I can tell you from experience the trains in the UK are expensive and miserable. The common theory for why is because of the mess made of privatising British Rail in the 1990s. The government did it in a way which managed to create monopolies while at the same time splitting out responsibility between different companies in such a way that millions are drained away on legal costs while the companies argue with each other about who is responsible for each problem. There are many articles analysing the problems you can find online, here's one that turned up at the top of search: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/railways-privatisation-nationalisation https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/railways-pri... Edit: Better article: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's a well worn topic. Had they not achieved the weird corporate separation, such that track, train, station building and ticket can all be separate companies putting on a new service, or adjusting timetabling and even putting up new posters could have been achievable things. As is they spend months, and millions going nowhere. [Edit: Not forgetting that station hotels, ferries and hospitality were separated out to yet more companies. Just because.] Had they just gone back to the big 4 of 1921-1947, or created a "medium 8" with extra rights to run charters on the tracks we might have rail that works by now. Then there's the 50+ year story of line and infrastructure upgrades... Each time we update, we seem to update to the previous generation's capability.
  - simplesleeper 7y ago
    Britain runs 20% of Europe's rail journeys. It has the least accidents and deaths of passengers and staff. It is considered the most improved rail network year on year since 1997. It has some of the lowest fares if you book far in advance (and count the cost of subsidisation for foreign fares).
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      How many decades did it take to electrify Europe's busiest line, the West Coast Main Line? Did it become modern? No. It used last generation signalling such that when we had 125mph HST they were limited to 80 and 100, when we bought back BR's APT as 150mph Pendolino they were limited to 1980s HST speeds as the tracks were electrified and upgraded to 125mph. In 2010. The "negotiations" between train operators wanting better rolling stock, railtrack (government), station upgrades and the inconvenient length of franchises made the whole process suitable for a Laurel and Hardy or Buster Keaton movie. Little wonder they're most improved, they gave themselves so much scope...
    - lentil_soup 7y ago
      Do you have any sources where I can read more about this? I find it surprising
rtpg 7y ago
I bet a big part of it in Japan is the sheer number of trains running drags down that average. If you count the Yamanote, with peak frequency of trains every 2 or 3 minutes, you’re gonna get a lot of stuff on time. Think about how rare power outages are nowadays. When infrastructure becomes important enough it becomes run pretty smoothly.
- fishnchips 7y ago
  Rail !== tube. You’d be comparing Tokyo’s Yamanote to London’s Circle. I used both to commute at one point or another and found them equally robust. OTOH rail in the UK and Japan are very different stories indeed.
  - rtpg 7y ago
    I think it would depend on the stats used. Yamanote is still JR. The Joban line goes all the way to Sendai, if you really want it to. So if you got lateness stats on trains, it would likely take all the JR stuff and mix stuff up I agree with your sentiment, my comment is more about my theory that stats would not make the distinction (though it would likely exclude things like Tokyo Metro or the monorails).
jacquesm 7y ago
One part may well be that some of the rolling stock should probably be in a museum, not transporting passengers daily.

kiwijamo 7y ago

67% for right time (i.e. <1min late) arrival seems to be pretty average. I’d be more interested in the % of arrival at destination within 5mins as that’s the standard used in many countries and thus easier to compare different systems.

gsnedders 7y ago
In many parts of the GB network, once you get more than a minute or two late you end up with delays propagating throughout the network, because enough is timetabled with lines near capacity. You get up to about ~82% within 3 minutes and ~88% within 5 minutes. Beyond that you see little gains.

rwmj 7y ago

I can tell you from experience the trains in the UK are expensive and miserable. The common theory for why is because of the mess made of privatising British Rail in the 1990s. The government did it in a way which managed to create monopolies while at the same time splitting out responsibility between different companies in such a way that millions are drained away on legal costs while the companies argue with each other about who is responsible for each problem. There are many articles analysing the problems you can find online, here's one that turned up at the top of search: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/railways-privatisation-nationalisation https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/railways-pri... Edit: Better article: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It's a well worn topic. Had they not achieved the weird corporate separation, such that track, train, station building and ticket can all be separate companies putting on a new service, or adjusting timetabling and even putting up new posters could have been achievable things. As is they spend months, and millions going nowhere. [Edit: Not forgetting that station hotels, ferries and hospitality were separated out to yet more companies. Just because.] Had they just gone back to the big 4 of 1921-1947, or created a "medium 8" with extra rights to run charters on the tracks we might have rail that works by now. Then there's the 50+ year story of line and infrastructure upgrades... Each time we update, we seem to update to the previous generation's capability.
- simplesleeper 7y ago
  Britain runs 20% of Europe's rail journeys. It has the least accidents and deaths of passengers and staff. It is considered the most improved rail network year on year since 1997. It has some of the lowest fares if you book far in advance (and count the cost of subsidisation for foreign fares).
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    How many decades did it take to electrify Europe's busiest line, the West Coast Main Line? Did it become modern? No. It used last generation signalling such that when we had 125mph HST they were limited to 80 and 100, when we bought back BR's APT as 150mph Pendolino they were limited to 1980s HST speeds as the tracks were electrified and upgraded to 125mph. In 2010. The "negotiations" between train operators wanting better rolling stock, railtrack (government), station upgrades and the inconvenient length of franchises made the whole process suitable for a Laurel and Hardy or Buster Keaton movie. Little wonder they're most improved, they gave themselves so much scope...
  - lentil_soup 7y ago
    Do you have any sources where I can read more about this? I find it surprising

rtpg 7y ago

I bet a big part of it in Japan is the sheer number of trains running drags down that average. If you count the Yamanote, with peak frequency of trains every 2 or 3 minutes, you’re gonna get a lot of stuff on time. Think about how rare power outages are nowadays. When infrastructure becomes important enough it becomes run pretty smoothly.

fishnchips 7y ago
Rail !== tube. You’d be comparing Tokyo’s Yamanote to London’s Circle. I used both to commute at one point or another and found them equally robust. OTOH rail in the UK and Japan are very different stories indeed.
- rtpg 7y ago
  I think it would depend on the stats used. Yamanote is still JR. The Joban line goes all the way to Sendai, if you really want it to. So if you got lateness stats on trains, it would likely take all the JR stuff and mix stuff up I agree with your sentiment, my comment is more about my theory that stats would not make the distinction (though it would likely exclude things like Tokyo Metro or the monorails).

jacquesm 7y ago

One part may well be that some of the rolling stock should probably be in a museum, not transporting passengers daily.