Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
CunningPlan

Effect of new train timetable on house prices

Recommended Posts

Will be interesting to watch prices in Letchworth. I believe the fast, 30 minute route has been replaced with a slow 56 minute train into London.

Any other areas likely to be hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

Will be interesting to watch prices in Letchworth. I believe the fast, 30 minute route has been replaced with a slow 56 minute train into London.

Any other areas likely to be hit?

That is interesting - a big increase. No doubt there'll be faux  dinner party concern at the damage to "the community", when it's really about their own house price falling. Keep us posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Southern strikes didn’t appear to make any difference.  Don’t underestimate the masochism of the UK commuter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Will! said:

The Southern strikes didn’t appear to make any difference.  Don’t underestimate the masochism of the UK commuter.

absolutely...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people only tend to look at the length of the journey time, with the frequency of the trains and the cost being far lesser factors.

My local station (Surbiton) hasn't been affected by the current shake-up, but will be in December when it loses one train at rush hour. That doesn't sound like much, but when the trains are already critically overcrowded it will make a difference.

It won't stop people moving here because they are attracted by the advertised 15 minute commute time, and realise after they move that it is impossible to get on the first train, so they'd have been just as quick to move somewhere with a 30 minute journey with more capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, worried1 said:

The problem is that people only tend to look at the length of the journey time, with the frequency of the trains and the cost being far lesser factors.

My local station (Surbiton) hasn't been affected by the current shake-up, but will be in December when it loses one train at rush hour. That doesn't sound like much, but when the trains are already critically overcrowded it will make a difference.

It won't stop people moving here because they are attracted by the advertised 15 minute commute time, and realise after they move that it is impossible to get on the first train, so they'd have been just as quick to move somewhere with a 30 minute journey with more capacity.

Frequency doesn't enter it much because many people can fit in around the frequency, as long as it's not too low. Probably don't really need more than one train an hour for that. More trains around rush hour help with the number of people to be moved more than anything else. Total journey time (of which I get the impression getting to and from stations is somewhat overlooked) does matter to people (they'll move to wherever is in their limits, so no matter how fast you make the trains the commute doesn't change and people will always grumble about it in the same way) but I'm surprised at the suggestion that the price doesn't.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be some relative winners in this as well - at least, until they change the timetable again. Direct routes to certain stations matter a lot, as as soon as you add a change into the mix your journey reliability drops like a stone (if your connecting train is 5 mins late, you might end up an hour late waiting for the next train). My local station has just introduced 2 trains a morning and evening direct to/from London Bridge (instead of Victoria at all other times), and a faster train to boot. LBG is often more handy for London commuters than VIC, and to do it direct makes it even more appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/05/2018 at 08:54, CunningPlan said:

Will be interesting to watch prices in Letchworth. I believe the fast, 30 minute route has been replaced with a slow 56 minute train into London.

Any other areas likely to be hit?

That's massive. There's a huge difference between 2 x 30 min journeys (essentially the same ballpark as living in a London suburb) and an hour each way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Frequency doesn't enter it much because many people can fit in around the frequency, as long as it's not too low. Probably don't really need more than one train an hour for that. More trains around rush hour help with the number of people to be moved more than anything else. Total journey time (of which I get the impression getting to and from stations is somewhat overlooked) does matter to people (they'll move to wherever is in their limits, so no matter how fast you make the trains the commute doesn't change and people will always grumble about it in the same way) but I'm surprised at the suggestion that the price doesn't.

I guess it's different priorities for different stations, but here it is definitely perceived commute time that rules.

The reason that frequency matters in my example is that if I turn up to get a train at 8.00 that is scheduled to arrive into London at 8.15, but because of overcrowding I can't get on one until 20 minutes later, then my total journey time is 35 minutes so I might as well have lived somewhere further out where I can get on any train easily.

I definitely agree that most people will aim for one particular train every day, but increasingly they may find that more stations move to the situation where all of the trains are so overcrowded so they have to wait for the next one. Better frequency also helps on the return journey when it is not always so easy to get the same one each time.

Price is a strange one. My station is in zone 6, but has a faster commute than lots of zone 3-4 stations. People still seem to flock here more.

One station on the same line has trains that take 10 minutes longer but is in zone 4 making a travelcard £500 cheaper, which is quite a lot of there are two commuters in a household paying that out of taxed income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure.

Theres a coule pf factors that people have to be well aware of:

1) Trains subs are being withdrawn. They expect train users (70% of trains jouneys leave or end in London) to pay the full cost. And with Crossrail theres a lot of cost to pay.

2) MMR means that the old trick of moving out and getting a bigger house no longer works as MMR will deduct the commuting cost from the mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, worried1 said:

The reason that frequency matters in my example is that if I turn up to get a train at 8.00 that is scheduled to arrive into London at 8.15, but because of overcrowding I can't get on one until 20 minutes later, then my total journey time is 35 minutes so I might as well have lived somewhere further out where I can get on any train easily.

I think that plays in to the argument that the main job of the higher frequency is to move more people rather than being important in its own right. People do like predictability though, and not just for situations like changing trains where it can be awkward if you miss a connection. If you've got exceptionally frequent services (every few minutes) that can make up for the lack of predictability, but needs a very busy route to justify the expense of being able to run it.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, spyguy said:

1) Trains subs are being withdrawn. They expect train users (70% of trains jouneys leave or end in London) to pay the full cost. And with Crossrail theres a lot of cost to pay.

The idea that public transport should be a profit making entity in its own right always gets me. Public transport should be a service, through which the economy as a whole benefits. There are many routes and modes of transport that could never realistically be expected to make a profit, just as there are loss making postal routes. That's not the point, nor should it be. Affordable, efficient public transport is vital for the economy. How often do we hear "economy lost £xBn" because of some rail strike? How about putting some of that hypothetical £xBn into public transport, if it really does have as direct an effect as this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mattyboy1973 said:

There may be some relative winners in this as well - at least, until they change the timetable again. Direct routes to certain stations matter a lot, as as soon as you add a change into the mix your journey reliability drops like a stone (if your connecting train is 5 mins late, you might end up an hour late waiting for the next train). My local station has just introduced 2 trains a morning and evening direct to/from London Bridge (instead of Victoria at all other times), and a faster train to boot. LBG is often more handy for London commuters than VIC, and to do it direct makes it even more appealing.

This is true of my line (Oxted) into London. It now has two trains an hour (in rush hour) to LBG, Blackfriars & Farringdon etc. This  means I now  have easier access to more London job locations via one train journey.  At the moment i have a relatively nice walk from LBG along the river to my place of work but in future I might consider jobs walkable from Blackfriars or Farringdon.

I suspect my line into London is going to get a lot more popular :( 

p.s  I do anything to avoid the over-crowded shambles that is Victoria Station

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spyguy said:

Im not sure.

Theres a coule pf factors that people have to be well aware of:

1) Trains subs are being withdrawn. They expect train users (70% of trains jouneys leave or end in London) to pay the full cost. And with Crossrail theres a lot of cost to pay.

2) MMR means that the old trick of moving out and getting a bigger house no longer works as MMR will deduct the commuting cost from the mortgage.

I keep hearing reference to MMR, but from what I understand it came into effect 4 years ago (April 2014). Has it actually had a real impact on demand? 

Edited by PropertyMania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PropertyMania said:

I keep hearing reference to MMR, but from what I understand it came into effect 4 years ago (April 2014). Has it actually had a real impact on demand? 

Well, it was introduced in 2014.

I think there were a couple of tweaks.

The changes in the residential sales would hve only been seen from mid 2015.

And, keep in mind, that the AFAICT, a large percentage of housing asles have been connected to BTL, who have only just been stopped dead by PRA and S24.

Again, in another post from today- Nationwide mortgage lending falls 30%.

Thats a sign of MMR kicking in and BTLers leaving the mortgage market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mattyboy1973 said:

The idea that public transport should be a profit making entity in its own right always gets me. Public transport should be a service, through which the economy as a whole benefits. There are many routes and modes of transport that could never realistically be expected to make a profit, just as there are loss making postal routes. That's not the point, nor should it be.

Affordable, efficient public transport is vital for the economy. How often do we hear "economy lost £xBn" because of some rail strike? How about putting some of that hypothetical £xBn into public transport, if it really does have as direct an effect as this?

You are right, in principle. The question has always been on the efficiency of delivery. Can a state owned company with no strong motive to control costs compete with a privatised firm? Can a private company still achieve a profit and do it for less than a non-profit-making entity?

It is not always an easy one to answer. An example that is often held up was the experience of Japan Railways - went very quickly from being massively loss-making to profit-making following its 1987 privatisation. During the privatisation, it became apparent that it employed a surplus of 50,000 employees. Funnily no one noticed while it was state-run!

There is still the tension between profit-making city areas and loss-making rural areas. Obviously a balance needs to be struck - what level of emptiness is acceptable?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/04/editorials/privatization-jnr-30-years/#.WwRESY3fPAA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

I keep hearing reference to MMR, but from what I understand it came into effect 4 years ago (April 2014). Has it actually had a real impact on demand? 

Ideally MMR would have helped, as it limited how stretched people could become and meant that they could afford much higher interest rates if necessary. The downside to being able to afford up to 7% interest rates was that you could not afford so much today.

The other problem was that BTL remained unregulated and it grew to fill the space that owner-occupiers had filled. It led to wannabe owner-occupiers lying that they were BTL investors simply to buy a house. Plenty of people could afford to rent houses that they were not allowed to get a mortgage on, even if their rent was actually higher than what their mortgage would have been.

S24 and PRA affordability criteria have done a lot to balance the situation out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, worried1 said:

 

It won't stop people moving here because they are attracted by the advertised 15 minute commute time, and realise after they move that it is impossible to get on the first train, so they'd have been just as quick to move somewhere with a 30 minute journey with more capacity.

So is there a queueing system to get in the train?

 

Some of these stories make me think the trains are crowded to the point where it is dangerous.

 

There will probably be a huge accident one day, followed by and enquiry with everyone asking how did we let people travel on such crowded trains. 

(You heard it here first!!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

You are right, in principle. The question has always been on the efficiency of delivery. Can a state owned company with no strong motive to control costs compete with a privatised firm? Can a private company still achieve a profit and do it for less than a non-profit-making entity?

It is not always an easy one to answer. An example that is often held up was the experience of Japan Railways - went very quickly from being massively loss-making to profit-making following its 1987 privatisation. During the privatisation, it became apparent that it employed a surplus of 50,000 employees. Funnily no one noticed while it was state-run!

There is still the tension between profit-making city areas and loss-making rural areas. Obviously a balance needs to be struck - what level of emptiness is acceptable?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/04/04/editorials/privatization-jnr-30-years/#.WwRESY3fPAA

 

Transparency might be the solution.  For example, if a renationalised British Rail had to publish:

1) Financial data such as expenditure exceeding £500, Government Procurement Card transactions, procurement information etc similar to that specified by the Local Government Transparency Code for local authorities.

2) The broken-down total costs of employment, non-individually identifiable job titles and administrative groups of all staff including agency staff and contractors.

3) Detailed non-individually identifiable staff sickness data by department.

4) Procurement contracts and related documents, excluding those parts British Rail can demonstrate need to be confidential for commercial reasons.

then overstaffing, one of the curses of the public sector, might be checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, reddog said:

So is there a queueing system to get in the train?

 

Some of these stories make me think the trains are crowded to the point where it is dangerous.

 

There will probably be a huge accident one day, followed by and enquiry with everyone asking how did we let people travel on such crowded trains. 

(You heard it here first!!)

 

No queueing system. Basically, whoever has the pointiest elbows. The trains I get daily to Manchester are dangerously overcrowded, but believe it or not, there's no legal limits to how full a train can be (funny that, eh?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mattyboy1973 said:

The idea that public transport should be a profit making entity in its own right always gets me. Public transport should be a service, through which the economy as a whole benefits. There are many routes and modes of transport that could never realistically be expected to make a profit, just as there are loss making postal routes. That's not the point, nor should it be. Affordable, efficient public transport is vital for the economy. How often do we hear "economy lost £xBn" because of some rail strike? How about putting some of that hypothetical £xBn into public transport, if it really does have as direct an effect as this?

Well... im actually very pro public transport.

I rarely drive, train it to work.

Most towns of 10,000+ are not vuable to have everyone driving in. The congestions a probkem. Tge parkings a pita

However... its less about profit and more about efficuencies - Uk trains are about 30% as effecient as germany. A lot of that is down to civil service like working practises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dpg50000 said:

No queueing system. Basically, whoever has the pointiest elbows. The trains I get daily to Manchester are dangerously overcrowded, but believe it or not, there's no legal limits to how full a train can be (funny that, eh?)

For people, yep.

Animals - strict rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, reddog said:

So is there a queueing system to get in the train?

 

Some of these stories make me think the trains are crowded to the point where it is dangerous.

 

There will probably be a huge accident one day, followed by and enquiry with everyone asking how did we let people travel on such crowded trains. 

(You heard it here first!!)

 

I travelled on the London Underground in rush hour last week for the first time in...…...oh about 20 years.  My much younger colleague who does it regularly said to me at King's Cross "There will be a huge queue to get on the underground as they shut half the barriers at rush hour to manage the number of people on the platform".  Oh my word, the crowd to get through the 3 remaining open barriers was like when a football match or gig kicks out.  Around 18 minutes to get on to the platform.  Whilst I appreciated the saving of my life by these measures it did make me wonder how other people do this every day of their lives.   Sobering moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, reddog said:

So is there a queueing system to get in the train?

 

Some of these stories make me think the trains are crowded to the point where it is dangerous.

 

There will probably be a huge accident one day, followed by and enquiry with everyone asking how did we let people travel on such crowded trains. 

(You heard it here first!!)

 

It depends where you go, I suppose.

There is no queuing system at my station. Generally, everyone gets onto the platform and if everything is running ok, should be able to squeeze onto the first train. If there are minor problems (one train cancelled or short-formed), then some people won't be be able to get onto the next train and might have to wait for the next one or two.

When delays/cancellations get more severe, the station can be closed altogether. They will wait for the platforms to be dangerously full and then decide no one else can enter until it has calmed down. The problem is that this can take a long time because the problems will mean that the trains that are still running actually come into the station rammed full of people so no one actually gets on.

If it is like that, I just work from home unless I really need to be in the office. It isn't worth the hassle of going into London because it is very likely there will be similar delays on the way home.

The service is basically teetering on the edge - any problem on the line or increase in passenger numbers will push it over. 

Edited by worried1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.