Commuting 'not coming back': Harper

[43066]

Whilst there is certainly an element of double standards here, unfortunately the Elizabeth line isn't contributing much to overall revenue due to the short nature of most of the journeys - not to mention the fact that the lion's share of that revenue is going straight to TfL.

The line as a whole is (AIUI) due to break even imminently due to how high usage has been. How that is actually seen by the treasury due to the DfT/TfL split I don’t know.

Equally, the reason why hypothetical alternative 'non Covid' comparisons have to be made is that this is what investments and costs are based on. The industry would otherwise certainly not have grown or invested as much as it did immediately prior to Covid.

No indeed, albeit there is a political decision around looking for short term costs at the expense of further growth. The investments made were for the next few decades, and that growth will still come eventually, so I would argue the focus now really should be on how best to grow revenue further, rather then quibbling over relatively paltry sums in government spending terms.

Sadly the current government clearly disagrees!

There is a key difference - the CCOS is owned by Rail for London (a TfL subsidiary)*, whereas the Thameslink Core is owned by Network Rail. So access payments from EL to NR are only charged for Stratford - Shenfield and West of Paddington.

* - The ELL between New Cross Gate and Dalston Junction (and possibly into Highbury & Islington) is also RfL infrastructure.

Good points. As usual the pathetic politicking between central government and TfL gets in the way of a coherent and sensible railway strategy.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The line as a whole is (AIUI) due to break even imminently due to how high usage has been. How that is actually seen by the treasury due to the DfT/TfL split I don’t know.

as an isolated entity it might cover its operating costs. Furthermore traffic has leached away elsewhere worsening the economics on other routes (i would imagine SE must be particularly affected)

No indeed, albeit there is a political decision around looking for short term costs at the expense of further growth. The investments made were for the next few decades, and that growth will still come eventually, so I would argue the focus now really should be on how best to grow revenue further, rather then quibbling over relatively paltry sums in government spending terms.

Thing is if the govt challenged the industry to find the sweet spot on service provision vs income generation im pretty sure it would outperform DfT efforts.

 

[zwk500]

Good points. As usual the pathetic politicking between central government and TfL gets in the way of a coherent and sensible railway strategy.

Crossrail may well be unique in the UK in running over infrastructure owned by 3 parties - NR, RfL and Heathrow Airport Holdings. Not sure what the Heathrow section does for NR access fees and revenue distribution.

 

[bramling]

if I were you, I’d have stayed downstairs. That’s what it’s for in such conditions. Rather better options than the previous London Bridge, that’s for sure.

Without wishing to turn this too much into a Thameslink discussion (*), it wouldn’t have been London Bridge in those days in this instance. I’d have been sitting on a cosy 365 at King’s Cross able to make productive use of the time.

As regards staying downstairs, I would have done exactly that, however I foolishly didn’t think to check before going upstairs. One would have thought that with the reduced timetables the remaining service would be reasonably robust, but clearly not. It shouldn’t be necessary to have to keep monitoring everything, the trains should run. As I said, hardly encouraging, though to be fair when I did manage to get on a train (after waiting in the wind and rain for 25 minutes) the journey was reasonably agreeable. There’s only two seats on a 700 which meet that criteria for me, you can probably guess which ones, I was fortunate enough to get one.

(*there is some relevance, however, as this sort of experience - which given this was a bog standard snapshot journey taken completely at random - simply doesn’t encourage one to rely on rail nor provide an attractive experience. It seems the 2010s philosophy of “we can design things as awful as we like and the punters will still use it cos they have no choice” *is* over).

 

[James H]

Wednesday’s TfL customer service panel meeting included a question about TfL’s current assessment of likely demand trends.

The TfL top brass indicated they certainly weren’t expecting a return to pre covid 5 day commuting patterns.

It’s notable that tube passenger numbers seem to have flatlined since the new year, with the highest post lockdown figures to date being recorded in the run up to Christmas but not matched since then.

 

[bramling]

Wednesday’s TfL customer service panel meeting included a question about TfL’s current assessment of likely demand trends.

The TfL top brass indicated they certainly weren’t expecting a return to pre covid 5 day commuting patterns.

It’s notable that tube passenger numbers seem to have flatlined since the new year, with the highest post lockdown figures to date being recorded in the run up to Christmas but not matched since then.

The latter shouldn’t really be a surprise, as LU always normally records its highest usage figures in the approach to Christmas.

In terms of what LU’s top brass might be expecting, I daresay the top brass of the early 80s might have expected similar, and they’d have been wrong. This is dangerous territory if decisions on long-term capacity provision are being based on such expectations, and even more so if capacity is being taken out.

 

[yorksrob]

Whilst there is certainly an element of double standards here, unfortunately the Elizabeth line isn't contributing much to overall revenue due to the short nature of most of the journeys - not to mention the fact that the lion's share of that revenue is going straight to TfL.

So it's simultaneously increased industry operating costs, has masked fall in passenger use elsewhere and is not contributing much to the coffers. It's easy to see why a level comparison can only be made without including it.

Equally, the reason why hypothetical alternative 'non Covid' comparisons have to be made is that this is what investments and costs are based on. The industry would otherwise certainly not have grown or invested as much as it did immediately prior to Covid.

I'm sorry, but if it's costs are being counted towards the national railway budget, so should it's revenue. Anything else is politically motivated book cooking.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s also notable how we have to pretend the EL doesn’t exist when considering passenger numbers, but pretend Covid never happened when considering the railway’s finances.

But that is consistent - we are comparing to 2019 when both those things were true, ie no EL and no Covid. But in 2023 we do have the EL and post Covid.

And yet they don't think that restoring services/capacity will add revenue now ?

Yes, “they” do, See my post #162 above.

Thing is if the govt challenged the industry to find the sweet spot on service provision vs income generation im pretty sure it would outperform DfT efforts.

All the proposals for service changes have been made by TOCs as a result of Government challenging the industry.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Yes, the DfT set each TOC a cost budget target figure and asked them for options to meet it. The DfT then have to make their choices.

That’s the process that has been going on for the last few months. A bit too late for anything too dramatic to be done in May but there is the likelihood of budget related service changes on some TOCs later in the year.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The £2bn (actually £3bn, remember) is an annual figure though.

I’m not dismissing the money spent on Covid - it was a huge sum - but to compare a one off spend with annual ongoing figures is slightly disingenuous.

I’m not sure I agree with this, given that £3bn a year for the next 15 years is still less than what was blown on test and trace.

My view is that the UK’s Thatcher-lite government are making the same mistakes that Thatcher made in the 80s, and the cost of rectifying these mistakes later will cost more than any cost savings today. The service cuts in West Yorkshire, as an example, are staggering, and I fail to see the rationale behind somewhere like Bradford Forster Square losing 40% of its train services. Cuts to that scale will just strangle any hope of growth, the car becomes the only option and the railway withers. 30 years of work on the Aire and Wharfe valleys down the drain.

HS2 remains the (gleaming white) elephant in the room. Commuting isn’t coming back but here we are blowing £100bn on a railway designed to alleviate peak capacity issues on the WCML south of Milton Keynes. Hmm.

 

[westv]

It doesn't affect me as I'm now 100% wfh but my City company has recently decided there needs to be a presence from all teams Monday to Friday as part of the current 3 days in office/2 days wfh.

 

[dk1]

It doesn't affect me as I'm now 100% wfh but my company has recently decided there needs to be a presence from all teams Monday to Friday as part of the current 3 days in office/2 days wfh.

Good to hear

 

[Bantamzen]

My view is that the UK’s Thatcher-lite government are making the same mistakes that Thatcher made in the 80s, and the cost of rectifying these mistakes later will cost more than any cost savings today. The service cuts in West Yorkshire, as an example, are staggering, and I fail to see the rationale behind somewhere like Bradford Forster Square losing 40% of its train services. Cuts to that scale will just strangle any hope of growth, the car becomes the only option and the railway withers. 30 years of work on the Aire and Wharfe valleys down the drain.

Indeed, prior to the pandemic the summer services on the Aire & Wharfe lines, including from Bradford FS were always the busiest especially for leisure. Talking to people who have businesses in Ilkley last summer during the pervious round of cuts, they noted that there seemed to be a marked downturn in footfall compared even with summer 2021. They suspected that a reduction in services meant that walk-up passengers might have been unaware of the cuts and found themselves with long waits ahead & subsequently changed their plans on arriving at one of the stations along the lines.

My view here is that the Bradford FS services are seen as an easy target that will hopefully fly under the radar. Northern can report to DfT that they are making cost cuts, the DfT bean-counters are somewhat appeased and the complaints from us locals are easily watered down by the time they get to Westminster. The reality is though that it feels like they are simply suppressing demand, who knows maybe purposely. Maybe they don't want a summer surge in numbers of punters looking for a nice day out in the sun making it more difficult to permanently reduce service numbers should the need arise...

OK that might be a little tin-foil hattish, but it does increasingly feel like the rail industry / DfT are allowing some parts of the network to suffer a death by a thousand cuts, when really they should be going all out to try and encourage more punters back on.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm sorry, but if it's costs are being counted towards the national railway budget, so should it's revenue. Anything else is politically motivated book cooking.

Are its costs being counted toward the national railway budget? Aren't they TfL's problem?

 

[Tetchytyke]

My view here is that the Bradford FS services are seen as an easy target that will hopefully fly under the radar. Northern can report to DfT that they are making cost cuts, the DfT bean-counters are somewhat appeased and the complaints from us locals are easily watered down by the time they get to Westminster.

I am more cynical, and assume that the DfT will attempt to blame WYPTE and, by extension, Tracey Brabin.

Especially as the one service that is a genuine duplication that could be removed without too much pain- the Forster Square-Leeds service- is not being cut at all.

 

[railfan99]

It is indeed! Some clearly just have agenda to moan and criticise constantly. It gets a little wearing.

They aren’t describing the railway I work on and use almost every day, I imagine it’s the same for you!

Coming from Australia, when I travelled extensively in late Sep/early Oct 2022, overall I thought the level of usage high.

Three quick examples from my trusty A$2.50 red and black notebook: on a morning peak period train from Preston (Lancs) to Manchester Oxford Rd, the train was well utlised. (Perhaps per-COVID it would have been 'chockas'/rammed, I know not).

On GWR's 0910 hours Penzance-Taunton-London Paddington (weekday) patronage was extremely high: 5+ on at Hayle, 17 on and 3 off at Camborne, 9 on Redruth, 33 on and 4 off at Truro, 22 on St Austell, 20+ on at Par, 4+ on at Bodmin Parkway, 15+ on at Liskeard, then not recorded until Exeter St Davids 50+ on, Tiverton Parkway 14 on and Taunton, 14 on and 5 off. That's a minimum of 203 passengers joining but doesn't include the loading ex Penzance and nor is it every station.

On Avanti WC's 0940 hours Glasgow Ctrl-London Euston I did a walkthrough passenger count after departing Carlisle. 26 including me in 1st, 5 in Standard Premier and 246 in Standard (economy). After Oxenholme car G had 12, not 4 passengers; car H had 7 instead of 1 and car J 21 rather than the earlier count of 18. There were at least another 155 joining between Lancaster to Crewe inclusive. Some of the 271 recorded after the Carlisle stop may have alighted.

Granted, not every branch line or secondary main line train are as 'good' as these but I don't understand naysayers who claim your impressive network carries few paying passengers. False!

I also should note the Scottish bloke on the initial section of the run down from Glasgow to Euston was constantly asking me and others in 1st if we'd like anything more. Diligent and pleasant.

 

[A0]

Without wishing to turn this too much into a Thameslink discussion (*), it wouldn’t have been London Bridge in those days in this instance. I’d have been sitting on a cosy 365 at King’s Cross able to make productive use of the time.

As regards staying downstairs, I would have done exactly that, however I foolishly didn’t think to check before going upstairs. One would have thought that with the reduced timetables the remaining service would be reasonably robust, but clearly not. It shouldn’t be necessary to have to keep monitoring everything, the trains should run. As I said, hardly encouraging, though to be fair when I did manage to get on a train (after waiting in the wind and rain for 25 minutes) the journey was reasonably agreeable. There’s only two seats on a 700 which meet that criteria for me, you can probably guess which ones, I was fortunate enough to get one.

(*there is some relevance, however, as this sort of experience - which given this was a bog standard snapshot journey taken completely at random - simply doesn’t encourage one to rely on rail nor provide an attractive experience. It seems the 2010s philosophy of “we can design things as awful as we like and the punters will still use it cos they have no choice” *is* over).

BIB - except you'd still have needed to get to Kings Cross somehow which if you were sitting at London Bridge would mean, presumably, the Northern Line or similar.

TBH, given the way the GN works now, if I still lived in that area, I'd be using Finsbury Park as it means you get the choice of the Moorgate, Kings Cross or Thameslink services depending on your destination.

 

[Ashfordian6]

The £2bn (actually £3bn, remember) is an annual figure though.

I’m not dismissing the money spent on Covid - it was a huge sum - but to compare a one off spend with annual ongoing figures is slightly disingenuous.

You are dismissing the £20bn+ ongoing annual cost of financing the Covid overreaction, so you should add this figure when putting the above annual comparisons together

 

[bramling]

BIB - except you'd still have needed to get to Kings Cross somehow which if you were sitting at London Bridge would mean, presumably, the Northern Line or similar.

Not in my case. Pre 2018 I would have walked from my office to King’s Cross. Last night I decided to walk to London Bridge instead, that was simply my personal choice. Had I chosen to walk to a different core station I would have still had to wait on a platform, though of course in the event I wouldn’t have got wet. I could have opted to use a slower service starting from King’s Cross, but that would have added a considerable extra journey time.

TBH, given the way the GN works now, if I still lived in that area, I'd be using Finsbury Park as it means you get the choice of the Moorgate, Kings Cross or Thameslink services depending on your destination.

Not really convenient for me, plus Finsbury Park station is a dive.

 

[Meerkat]

Any chance we can stay clear of a Covid argument?
whataboutism regarding any other government spending doesn’t justify throwing billions at railways, if anything it just shows how there are other huge demands on government spending and railways are a relatively low priority.
If you accept ‘it’s just £2bn’ then little changes as every other interest group will have their own ‘it’s just £2bn‘ - more tanks, planes, hospitals, less sewage etc etc.

 

[43066]

there are other huge demands on government spending and railways are a relatively low priority.

It isn’t a “Covid argument”. However reflecting on other areas of spending puts railway spending into context and shows how the amounts involved are relatively trivial in the grand scheme of public spending.

If you accept ‘it’s just £2bn’ then little changes as every other interest group will have their own ‘it’s just £2bn‘ - more tanks, planes, hospitals, less sewage etc etc.

What are you expecting to change? Shall we close the railway down?!

There is a need to grow passenger numbers and revenue and, as discussed above, many of the cuts proposed may prevent this. Therefore in another few months you’ll be back here calling for more cuts to be made and so on and so on.

The alternative is accepting a (small) shortfall for now as part of the ongoing Covid fallout, and getting the railway back into a growth position. That’s what anyone who is in favour of decent rail transport should want - it’s bizarre that so many on here struggle with the concept.

 

[Edsmith]

Another factor is that fewer people are avoiding peak hour travel like they did in the past, a neighbour of mine has to go to London for hospital appointments from time to time and would previously try and get a midday appointment to avoid the "rush hour hell" but he's quite happy to travel early morning nowadays.

 

[Meerkat]

It isn’t a “Covid argument”. However reflecting on other areas of spending puts railway spending into context and shows how the amounts involved are relatively trivial in the grand scheme of public spending.

It is a covid argument because you and others are making statements about the value of and justification of the covid spending. Its also not particularly relevant as covid spending applied to the whole population and economy - £2bn is never trivial, but particularly not when it applies to a small corner of government spending ( its an awful lot when compared to the net government support to the railway of £7bn in 2018-19)

The alternative is growing passenger numbers and revenue and, as discussed above, many of the cuts proposed may prevent this.

You keep saying 'growing revenue' but that isn't relevant if you are growing costs faster.

 

[yorkie]

Surely the service gaps are suppressing demand.

yes the less frequent service (affecting multiple operators, but especially XC up here) and the appalling reliability (particularly in respect of TPE here), when combined with sky high fares, are indeed very offputting. The rail industry (as a whole; there are of course many exceptions) is not working very hard to win people back.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, the DfT set each TOC a cost budget target figure and asked them for options to meet it. The DfT then have to make their choices.

That’s the process that has been going on for the last few months. A bit too late for anything too dramatic to be done in May but there is the likelihood of budget related service changes on some TOCs later in the year.

Umm i thought that all the much heralded cut backs hadn't actually amounted to that much in the May TT change. One has to hope that the additional losses from the industrial action are ring fenced and the DfT aren't further pressurised by the HMT.

 

[yorksrob]

It is a covid argument because you and others are making statements about the value of and justification of the covid spending. Its also not particularly relevant as covid spending applied to the whole population and economy - £2bn is never trivial, but particularly not when it applies to a small corner of government spending ( its an awful lot when compared to the net government support to the railway of £7bn in 2018-19)

You keep saying 'growing revenue' but that isn't relevant if you are growing costs faster.

If covid spending isn't relevant to this discussion, why do they keep trotting out the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown as a justification for cuts ?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If covid spending isn't relevant to this discussion, why do they keep trotting out the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown as a justification for cuts ?

Not sure they use it as an excuse for cuts more as a reason why staff should be grateful that they are getting any pay rise at all.

 

[zwk500]

If covid spending isn't relevant to this discussion, why do they keep trotting out the money they spent keeping trains running in lockdown as a justification for cuts ?

Because politicians like to say any old rubbish if they think the papers will reprint it? Surely by now you've seen the contempt with which ministers treat the ordinary public.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Yorksrob, to show that they have committed resources to the railway and (by implication), they are not willing to cover the current level of increased losses anymore.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure they use it as an excuse for cuts more as a reason why staff should be grateful that they are getting any pay rise at all.

Or equally a reason why passengers should be grateful to have to put up with any old rubbish service.

Because politicians like to say any old rubbish if they think the papers will reprint it? Surely by now you've seen the contempt with which ministers treat the ordinary public.

My point was somewhat rhetorical, but you are correct