UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[HSTEd]

Yup, the Nationalisation obsessives don’t seem to realise how badly things have backfired, and instead want more Government control

I see little evidence that what you call "nationalisation" has caused any of our current problems.

The recent pay disputes have been a result of the collapse of the political consensus that there is always more money available to forestall railway strike action.
Coronavirus would have killed that even if the franchise system had survived. Arguably the repeated catastrophic project failures in the industry since privatisation was doing that before Coronavirus even happened.

Even if the Government was not in charge of pay negotiations, all that would have happened is the franchise management would have gone to the Treasury/DfT to ask for more subsidy.
The Government would have then said no and we'd be in exactly the same position we are now.

The TOCs would not be able to settle because doing so would condemn them to inevitable bankruptcy.

You can't expect the government to write a blank cheque for franchises, any more than you can expect them to write blank cheques under the current arrangements

 

[yorksrob]

And then we have the current private rolling stock leasing structure which incentivises the scrapping of serviceable rolling stock and the running of trains with inadequate capacity.

 

[Meerkat]

And then we have the current private rolling stock leasing structure which incentivises the scrapping of serviceable rolling stock and the running of trains with inadequate capacity.

It doesn't incentivise it.
I am pretty sure that the ROSCO structure has brought in far more new trains than the Treasury would have funded BR to buy.
And BR would have just priced off the excess demand rather than add trains.

 

[43066]

You can't expect the government to write a blank cheque for franchises, any more than you can expect them to write blank cheques under the current arrangements

To suggest a blank cheque would be necessary to solve the current disputes is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. What is peak in terms of volume, however, probably isn't the same as peak in terms of value any more. High peak fares used to be a way of maximising what the railway could get from those that didn't have any choice in when they could travel, and pushing those who were a bit more price sensitive onto quieter times.

We have had threads about Monday-only and Friday-only timetables before, but the industry has an incredibly difficult job on its hands balancing supply and demand in a cost-effective way at a price the market can bear, whilst at the same time trying to 'simplify'. You could probably throw everything into an optimising computer programme, but you would end up with a different timetable and different fares every day of the year, and even then the net subsidy may not be a figure the Treasury/taxpayer will accept or the timetable on certain routes would be politically unacceptable. Fixing one or the other is likely to be sub-optimal hence a tricky balance.

Perhaps a "business" day timetable for Tuesday - Thursday and a "leisure" day timetable for Friday - Monday. Seaside and rural services could be strengthened on the leisure days with city commutes strengthened on the business days.

Alternatively, Mondays might fall into the business timetable, bank holidays into leisure, etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2023 ==

It doesn't incentivise it.
I am pretty sure that the ROSCO structure has brought in far more new trains than the Treasury would have funded BR to buy.
And BR would have just priced off the excess demand rather than add trains.

Really. Compare rolling stock built in the ten years before privatisation with the ten years after it. You'll find numbers aren't that different.

 

[tbtc]

I completely understand the capacity problems at Leeds station and understand why all trains on the route between Leeds and Sheffield through Barnsley can only be two coaches. The bigger problem is that these are not just local trains on the Hallam Line but that they run through to Nottingham or Lincoln. Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham has become a busy route and needs more than a 2 carriage train to serve these major cities. The last few times I have travelled on this route on a Saturday morning have been horrendous with overcrowding and it’s not just between Leeds and Sheffield. The train was also so busy south of Sheffield that people were having difficulty boarding at stations like Alfreton and Ilkeston.

Oh, I agree, we need more seats, everything on the line from Nottingham (and Lincoln) seems limited by the problems at Leeds, truly “tail wagging the dog” stuff

I was just trying to explain it since a previous poster was complaining about Leeds services through Barnsley as being at the minimum possible length, when it’s also true to say that they are at the maximum possible length

Even if it does get extended, Platform Seventeen is going to be a pain, a narrower platform furthest from the main entrance

The only solution I can see (other than needing mega-bucks) is combining diagrams so that a half hourly Sheffield - Barnsley - Leeds becomes a half hourly Leeds - Castleford - Pontefract/ Knottingley service and vice versa (scrapping the existing Sheffield stopper at the Leeds end) so you could allow each one to dwell ten minutes at Leeds (i.e. four times an hour)

That would allow three/ four coach trains to be used on any service, but you’d have to tinker to accommodate pesky Normanton!

 

[Bald Rick]

Mondays and Fridays are still being treated as busy commuter times, not as leisure times like weekends.

Mondays are still busy on commuter routes, as are Friday evenings. Friday mornings - not so much.

Actually hardly anyone works the fixed 9-5 anymore,

Actually, quite a lot do. Just not all of them every day of the week in the office (although there are many that still do). And that’s part of the issue. If you want to fill trains up on Friday morning by discounting the price, you are guaranteeing that people already travelling will get a reduction. And by the looks of it, there’s no other big market to fill trains at 0700 on a Friday from Colchester, Winchester, Northampton, Bedford, Cambridge, Haslemere etc at any price.

.

Probably a case for operating Saturday timetables on Friday too, simply copying it over to save work. Instead of having a Friday timetable that is basically a copy of Thursday.

a Friday TT is a weekday TT transitioning into a Saturday TT. It wouldn’t be a copy and paste. (Although much of the timetable would look similar)

 

[Meerkat]

Actually, quite a lot do. Just not all of them every day of the week in the office (although there are many that still do). And that’s part of the issue. If you want to fill trains up on Friday morning by discounting the price, you are guaranteeing that people already travelling will get a reduction.

That wouldn't be a problem if it helped spread demand so capacity costs could be reduced.
If.......

 

[Iskra]

Oh, I agree, we need more seats, everything on the line from Nottingham (and Lincoln) seems limited by the problems at Leeds, truly “tail wagging the dog” stuff

I was just trying to explain it since a previous poster was complaining about Leeds services through Barnsley as being at the minimum possible length, when it’s also true to say that they are at the maximum possible length

Even if it does get extended, Platform Seventeen is going to be a pain, a narrower platform furthest from the main entrance

The only solution I can see (other than needing mega-bucks) is combining diagrams so that a half hourly Sheffield - Barnsley - Leeds becomes a half hourly Leeds - Castleford - Pontefract/ Knottingley service and vice versa (scrapping the existing Sheffield stopper at the Leeds end) so you could allow each one to dwell ten minutes at Leeds (i.e. four times an hour)

That would allow three/ four coach trains to be used on any service, but you’d have to tinker to accommodate pesky Normanton!

Couldn’t you just do something simple like run Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-York through trains, and then terminate the current Blackpool North-York trains at Leeds instead?

 

[tbtc]

Couldn’t you just do something simple like run Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds-York through trains, and then terminate the current Blackpool North-York trains at Leeds instead?

That sounds okay (albeit only benefiting one of the semi-fast, the Lincoln trains would presumably be restricted to just two coaches) but then you’re removing Bradford’s ECML link, and they won’t take that lightly

(Tradition dictates that i point out that the Arriva franchise commitments included an hourly Nottingham - Sheffield - Westgate - Leeds - Bradford service which would have knocked ten/fifteen minutes off Nottingham - Leeds journeys as well as not having the capacity constraints that the Woodlesford trains do)

 

[Iskra]

That sounds okay (albeit only benefiting one of the semi-fast, the Lincoln trains would presumably be restricted to just two coaches) but then you’re removing Bradford’s ECML link, and they won’t take that lightly

(Tradition dictates that i point out that the Arriva franchise commitments included an hourly Nottingham - Sheffield - Westgate - Leeds - Bradford service which would have knocked ten/fifteen minutes off Nottingham - Leeds journeys as well as not having the capacity constraints that the Woodlesford trains do)

It would be a start! That was literally just one idea off the top of my head, I’m sure with some serious expert consideration, that a platform-capacity neutral solution could be worked out. There are always going to be winners and losers in any change, but at least a Bradford resident can virtually always actually fit on a train to change at Leeds for York, whereas a Barnsley resident doesn’t always have that luxury…

Yes, that additional service appearing would be useful.

I’m not expecting the wheel to be reinvented, but the current situation has gone on for far too long now, with zero evidence of any action, or even intent to sort it out. I don’t even think it is that difficult a situation to solve with the existing resources, with just a little bit of flexibility in thinking.

 

[tomuk]

And then we have the current private rolling stock leasing structure which incentivises the scrapping of serviceable rolling stock and the running of trains with inadequate capacity.

It isn't the leasing structure it is the way DfT had scored replacement rolling stock in the more recent franchise competitions. I'm sure that the incumbent ROSCOS would be much happier coining it in leasing older ex BR stock.

As is widely known DfT don't like the ROSCOS so did their own over expensive PFIs for Thameslink 700s and IEP 80x plus the promotion of new stock in the franchise competitions coincided with moves to bring in newer ROSCOs and financiers like Rock Rail, more conspiring by DfT?.

 

[Krokodil]

Perhaps a "business" day timetable for Tuesday - Thursday and a "leisure" day timetable for Friday - Monday. Seaside and rural services could be strengthened on the leisure days with city commutes strengthened on the business days.

Alternatively, Mondays might fall into the business timetable, bank holidays into leisure, etc.

Too complicated for the public. Offer a simple timetable which is in most respects the same seven days per week (at the very least identical timings, even if there's a bit of thinning early on a Sunday morning). Then manage loadings by having rolling stock diagrams which reflect different levels of demand on different routes by providing different length formations.

It would really help of course if we had some standardisation in rolling stock, so that they could go anywhere, be driven by almost anyone - obviously I'm not suggesting that Southern drivers sign IETs, just that an IET should be an IET, with standardised cab layouts and software versions. A GWR driver who signs his own company's 800s should equally be able to work one of LNER's 801s hired in to boost capacity on a Cardiff rugby international day, or an Avanti 805 hired in to assist with services to the South West. We had that flexibility with HSTs, with LHCS and DMMUs, but the modern world is needlessly complicated and there's no standardisation any more.

 

[Hadders]

Not everybody can work from home. On my local line the trains are bust around 06:00-07:00 with the 'hard hat brigade' going into work on the building sites in central London. Places like Battersea, Old Oak, Stratford etc.

Around 08:00 is the office workers heading in, this is quieter on Mondays and Fridays but very busy on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

 

[gabrielhj07]

A GWR driver who signs his own company's 800s should equally be able to work one of LNER's 801s hired in to boost capacity on a Cardiff rugby international day, or an Avanti 805 hired in to assist with services to the South West.

Is ATP still in operation on the GWML? If so, would it be acceptable to have non-ATP stock, ie 801s running among otherwise ATP controlled traffic?

 

[Krokodil]

Is ATP still in operation on the GWML? If so, would it be acceptable to have non-ATP stock, ie 801s running among otherwise ATP controlled traffic?

Not at 125mph, true. 110 wouldn't be an issue. Can't remember what the arrangement is for XC Voyagers running between Didcot and Reading. The point was though that trains should be standardised - eventually that will mean ETCS.

 

[yorksrob]

It isn't the leasing structure it is the way DfT had scored replacement rolling stock in the more recent franchise competitions. I'm sure that the incumbent ROSCOS would be much happier coining it in leasing older ex BR stock.

As is widely known DfT don't like the ROSCOS so did their own over expensive PFIs for Thameslink 700s and IEP 80x plus the promotion of new stock in the franchise competitions coincided with moves to bring in newer ROSCOs and financiers like Rock Rail, more conspiring by DfT?.

Maybe, but would there really be the hurry to get rid of 30+ year rolling stock, without replacement and potentially creating all sorts of issues, without never-ending leasing costs ? I doubt it somehow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2023 ==

Too complicated for the public. Offer a simple timetable which is in most respects the same seven days per week (at the very least identical timings, even if there's a bit of thinning early on a Sunday morning). Then manage loadings by having rolling stock diagrams which reflect different levels of demand on different routes by providing different length formations.

It would really help of course if we had some standardisation in rolling stock, so that they could go anywhere, be driven by almost anyone - obviously I'm not suggesting that Southern drivers sign IETs, just that an IET should be an IET, with standardised cab layouts and software versions. A GWR driver who signs his own company's 800s should equally be able to work one of LNER's 801s hired in to boost capacity on a Cardiff rugby international day, or an Avanti 805 hired in to assist with services to the South West. We had that flexibility with HSTs, with LHCS and DMMUs, but the modern world is needlessly complicated and there's no standardisation any more.

I'm not sure it's too complicated.

The problem with the current split in services is that it doesn't suit current needs inadequate services on Saturday and Sunday, peak services on a Friday etc) rather than people not understanding it. A simple two way split between services would be easier to understand anyway.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Can't remember what the arrangement is for XC Voyagers running between Didcot and Reading.

They use the relief lines.

 

[Meerkat]

They use the relief lines.

Is that just because of the layout of Didcot East? There must be paths for them on the mains left by B&H services turning off at Reading (though obviously those paths might not line up with XC's needs)
Would they save noticeable time if they were on the mains?

 

[Dieseldriver]

The Voyagers can use either Main or Relief lines between Reading and Didcot and if on the Mains, they are permitted to run at 125

 

[coppercapped]

Is that just because of the layout of Didcot East? There must be paths for them on the mains left by B&H services turning off at Reading (though obviously those paths might not line up with XC's needs)
Would they save noticeable time if they were on the mains?

The constraints are that a train towards Oxford from Reading running on the Down Main has to cross the Up Main on the flat to reach the Down Relief and then cross the Up Relief to reach the Oxford Lines so there can be conflicts with Up trains.

If XC trains to or from Oxford arrive at or depart from platforms 3, 7 or 8 at Reading they can reach the Relief lines using the Festival line which flies under the Mains so removing any potential conflict with the Up Main at Didcot East. The Reliefs between Reading and Didcot are passed for 100mph so any time loss compared to using the Mains is measured in seconds - it's only just over 15 miles from one place to the other.

 

[Meerkat]

The constraints are that a train towards Oxford from Reading running on the Down Main has to cross the Up Main on the flat to reach the Down Relief and then cross the Up Relief to reach the Oxford Lines so there can be conflicts with Up trains.

If XC trains to or from Oxford arrive at or depart from platforms 3, 7 or 8 at Reading they can reach the Relief lines using the Festival line which flies under the Mains so removing any potential conflict with the Up Main at Didcot East. The Reliefs between Reading and Didcot are passed for 100mph so any time loss compared to using the Mains is measured in seconds - it's only just over 15 miles from one place to the other.

That is what I assumed about Didcot East. Are the mains not 125 then (my dodgy maths thinks you would get nearly a minute if they were)? Do they not get held up by/restrict paths for the locals and freights if they are wanting to belt down the reliefs at 100?

 

[modernrail]

I think it might be a noble but pointless endeavour though.

It's got to the point that for many, the flexibility of working from home, not commuting 2+ hours every day, improved work-life balance etc. is a bigger attractor. Therefore weighing all these WFH benefits up versus let's say 20-30% off their commute (because it might be 100% off currently!) is probably a no-brainer and might appear like desperation on part of the railway which hybrid commuters will just scoff at. Of course if they are trvaelling 3 times a week, its more marginal as if you go for the 4th or 5th day, weekly seasons start to become more attractive again, especially if they might use it on the weekend now.

Anecdotally one reason there is more people travelling on the weekend for leisure purposes is because all the WFH, white-collar commuters no longer have to take it for the previous 5 days and its a bit more attractive and there's a different image of rail as opposed to packed, expensive peak travel!

I for one would welcome cheaper long distance tickets in the peak on Mondays and Fridays to arrange meetings that are desirable but not vital.

I think a lot of people are wanting to travel by rail and be a bit savvy about when they do it if decent deals can be offered over the current eye watering peak fares. Virgin started the ball rolling by removing the Friday peak and there is further logic in that Fridays and Mondays are the days you might extend a long weekend to.

So I’m simple terms, maybe Monday and Friday should become shoulder peak. Long distance services have more advance fares or just go off peak all day. Shorter routes entice day trippers whether they be young kids or the retired.

It won’t completely reverse revenue drops but seats get used and every little adds to the pot in revenue terms.

 

[modernrail]

Not really, because Northern's revenue has never come anywhere near covering it's costs, and even at 103% pre COVID given the intervening cost increases since no doubt it is as far away from doing so as ever.

I entirely agree with the sentiment by the way - the Northern railway is busy and needs encouraging and supporting - but it has to remembered that these operators will never be anything other than dependent on external support.

Yes but it still busts the argument for reducing services. There is no way the Government can argue it is for levelling up, be presented with increased revenue so soon after the pandemic is over and not go for growth. Instead, as I have found on my last 3 trips up north, the service is utterly dreadful at the moment. These figures are hugely encouraging if delivered in a railway that is doing its best to turn people away one way or another.

From my ridiculously frequent rail travel in all shapes and sizes, it is those carriages of fresh air in the South East that are the biggest problem. I often struggle to get a seat on services on the north whatever time I travel and often think it is a shame they can not be tagged onto the back of a clunky smelly and often dirty class 150 that should have been in the graveyard a while ago.

 

[coppercapped]

That is what I assumed about Didcot East. Are the mains not 125 then (my dodgy maths thinks you would get nearly a minute if they were)? Do they not get held up by/restrict paths for the locals and freights if they are wanting to belt down the reliefs at 100?

We are getting off-topic here...

...but, yes, the Mains are 125 mph[1]. Assuming instant acceleration and braking a train on the Down Main would save about a minute and three quarters over one on the Reliefs but acceleration and braking are not instant so in practice any saving would be less than a minute. Yes, there are other passenger and freight trains on the section but that is what a timetable is for! Using the Reliefs for Down trains avoids the potential conflict at Didcot East which could cost much more than the theoretical time saving.

[1] except the Up Main between Cholsey at 49 miles 20 ch and Basildon at MP 44 where the limit is 120 mph.

 

[bib]

Just looking at the DFT stats for January, for 14-29 Jan which was strike-free, rail passenger numbers were on average at 93% of pre-covid, which is higher than car traffic at 90% pre-covid, which I think may be a first.
The usual caveats regarding Elizabeth line, split ticketing etc apply.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic - now only being updated monthly

 

[samulih]

^are all the services back to 100 % of pre-covid? does this mean quite a crowded trains?

 

[43066]

From my ridiculously frequent rail travel in all shapes and sizes, it is those carriages of fresh air in the South East that are the biggest problem.

From my ridiculously frequent rail travel, much of it in and around the South East, carriages of fresh air are a bit of myth! I do agree things are far worse in the north capacity wise, though.

 

[Meerkat]

From my ridiculously frequent rail travel, much of it in and around the South East, carriages of fresh air are a bit of myth! I do agree things are far worse in the north capacity wise, though.

The carriages of fresh air are sitting in sidings or off leased aren’t they? SWR was running crowded short formations before Covid!

 

[12LDA28C]

^are all the services back to 100 % of pre-covid? does this mean quite a crowded trains?

For some operators, certainly not, and not likely to return to pre-Covid levels of service any time soon.