Theres a great report here >>
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/3932/demand-forecasting-report.pdf
*
Theres a graph showing how different stations compare, albeit only based on stations opened over a certain time period rather than everything since privatisation.
*
It shows, as many rational people may expect, that the forecast and observed demands are often out, and that they are broadly as likely to be over-estimated as they are under-estimated.
*
Some of the figures may look rather surprising, but it suggests that over-all the guesses are as often over as they are under. Whilst its easy to point to one that over-performed, theres no press releases from Community Partnerships and what-not to highlight the fact that their local line *
hasnt* met its business case.
For example, people have gone quiet about Ilkeston, but if it had over performed then we'd see lots of people using the argument that "Ilkeston worked well, therefore they should reopen XYZ...".
*
Its worth pointing out, for anyone looking at Figure 3.2 of the document that there are some damned lies and statistics. Ebbw Vale got 451% more than expected whilst Imperial Wharf sees a reduction of 42% - but they are both wrong by 200,000 a success from a low base looks more significant than a failure from a high base even though the different in journeys is similar. So some of the negatives dont look as significant as the positives, but thats the nature of using percentages lose half your passengers and you are only down 50% but double your passengers and youve gained 100%. Every gain seems amplified.
*
Ive written more about it here (
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=2521778#post2521778 ) but the short version is that once you take out the two outliers (which were badly forecast for known reasons that are explained on the Demand Forecasting Report reasons that dont affect other schemes) then youve probably got as good a chance of being ten thousand passengers down as you have of being ten thousand passengers up.
*
Im not against
every re-opening proposal Id look at what has worked well (short simple cheap branches that link decent sized towns to the nearest city with relatively regular commercial bus services to show that theres a market for public transport Alloa, Ebbw Vale etc) and look at other schemes that fit that kind of pattern (Blyth, Washington, Portishead, Skelmersdale, Renfrew etc). Forget about 1960s maps of pretty lines running through National Parks, forget about tourists, forget about London links, forget about diversionary resilience, forget about waterfalls and castles you could build several short branches for the cost/time of a thirty mile route through Dartmoor/ Peak District/ Dorset/ Lake District/ South Downs.
*
Thats why Tavistock Plymouth seems a good bet. Decent enough size of town at one end, can sustain at least four buses per hour (Stagecoach every fifteen minutes plus an irregular Citybus service), decent enough size of city at the other end, doesnt have to be particularly complicated get it built.
*
Thats also why Tavistock Okehampton seems a bad bet nowhere large on the route, unattractive to regular commuters, cant sustain a proper hourly bus service (there are plenty of examples of routes that can support a relatively frequent bus service over ten miles that we should consider for train services before we have the luxury of worrying about Tavistock to Okehampton).
*
Thats relatively sober reading though, which is why its easier to ignore the facts and repeatedly say but Ebbw Vale and Alloa did better than expected so any half-baked scheme with a terrible BCR will similarly beat expectations. It becomes about faith rather than reality.
So the bit of the Midlothian stations with everyday regular commuters is underperforming but the tourist/leisure dominated market into the Borders is doing well - the former section is the bread and butter, the latter section is the one more liable to drop in numbers given the novelty factor.
Agreed.