UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[OneOfThe48]

We need an elegant and engaging way of demanding that the resources promised to meet pre-pandemic commitments - infrastructure and service - are delivered, albeit distributed differently according to the current demands.

What the TOCs seem to need is the money, I don't think their objection to running pre-Covid service levels is that they don't want to at all, but that they, in general, don't have the money to do so.

So it seems like a task of writing to your MP and asking them to lobby the Treasury and the DfT to give TOCs more money is required.

 

[squizzler]

A petition would be better, passionately argued and recognising that investment needs to be focussed on different parts of the country than previously to reflect the more nationally distributed demand nowadays.

Over half the British use the train more than once a year, and the petition needs to state that front and centre. I also think for the same reason that the petition would have a lot more signees than many might think. People are returning to the rails big time now industrial action is being resolved, as Easter has just illustrated.

I reckon there will be an about-turn on the retirement of the HSTs and the GWR 769s will be needed after all before the year is out.

 

[Trainbike46]

A petition would be better, passionately argued and recognising that investment needs to be focussed on different parts of the country than previously to reflect the more nationally distributed demand nowadays.

Over half the British use the train more than once a year, and the petition needs to state that front and centre. I also think for the same reason that the petition would have a lot more signees than many might think. People are returning to the rails big time now industrial action is being resolved, as Easter has just illustrated.

I reckon there will be an about-turn on the retirement of the HSTs and the GWR 769s will be needed after all before the year is out.

Set one up!

If you do, please share the link here so those of us here who agree can sign it

 

[Dr Hoo]

By way of comparison, does anyone know how many signatories Roger Ford’s ‘electrification’ petition garnered in 2007?

 

[JamesT]

A petition would be better, passionately argued and recognising that investment needs to be focussed on different parts of the country than previously to reflect the more nationally distributed demand nowadays.

Over half the British use the train more than once a year, and the petition needs to state that front and centre. I also think for the same reason that the petition would have a lot more signees than many might think. People are returning to the rails big time now industrial action is being resolved, as Easter has just illustrated.

I reckon there will be an about-turn on the retirement of the HSTs and the GWR 769s will be needed after all before the year is out.

Is that bit I've quote in bold actually true? Based on the numbers in https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/...ten-brits-havent-set-foot-train-last-12-month we can only say 46% use the train more than twice a year, there isn't a breakdown of 1/2 times, though I'd argue that a single return trip really only counts as once a year.

The HSTs have had their day and GWR never got the 769s to work, I'd be amazed if they were running by year's end.

 

[squizzler]

Okay, I should have said over half of us use the train one or more times per year. Only 39% of British manage somehow not to use a train in a given year, so that leaves 61% who do ride the rails at least once, which is actually quite a bit better than I thought.

Ahead of the annual outcry over rail fare increases, YouGov shows that freezing fares would benefit more households with higher incomes than lower incomes

I disagree with the thrust of the article that reduced fares would only benefit the more affluent of the population. Surely rail users tend to be affluent precisely because the trains are expensive? Cheaper trains will be ridden by more of society. Wealthy people might fly helicopters, but if helicopters were as cheap to run as bicycles, they would not be the preserve of the rich either.

The article shows that younger demographics tend to be more avid train users. Demographics are destiny, so we need to increase capacity now.

 

[slowroad]

Is that bit I've quote in bold actually true? Based on the numbers in https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/...ten-brits-havent-set-foot-train-last-12-month we can only say 46% use the train more than twice a year, there isn't a breakdown of 1/2 times, though I'd argue that a single return trip really only counts as once a year.

The HSTs have had their day and GWR never got the 769s to work, I'd be amazed if they were running by year's end.

National Travel Survey for 2019 (pre Covid) shows 59% use rail at least once a year. But only 25% use rail more than once a month. So the large majority who use rail infrequently or never are heavily subsidising the minority who use rail frequently. Of course, some subsidy is justified to offset the external costs of road travel. But there must be a limit.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906847/nts-2019-factsheets.pdf

 

[Meerkat]

Okay, I should have said over half of us use the train one or more times per year. Only 39% of British manage somehow not to use a train in a given year, so that leaves 61% who do ride the rails at least once, which is actually quite a bit better than I thought.

Using something a couple of times a year doesn’t mean it really matters to you.
I probably use John Lewis that often. If they disappeared It would be a shame but oh well never mind.

 

[squizzler]

I don't ride the train frequently at all. But I'm a regular compared to how often I ride an ambulance (don't think I ever did). But just like trains I still think ambulances are a service worth retaining.

 

[miklcct]

National Travel Survey for 2019 (pre Covid) shows 59% use rail at least once a year. But only 25% use rail more than once a month. So the large majority who use rail infrequently or never are heavily subsidising the minority who use rail frequently. Of course, some subsidy is justified to offset the external costs of road travel. But there must be a limit.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906847/nts-2019-factsheets.pdf

The survey itself is flawed because it mentions:

*For the purposes of this survey, respondents were told to count the full trip to their destination as one journey and coming back as another. Therefore a return trip would count as two train journeys. We also asked respondents not to include journeys on the London Underground, London Overground or any other metro systems

As most of the rail travel in this country are on metro systems such as Elizabeth line, this survey misleads people to think that rail is little used while in fact rail is a key part of urban travel.

 

[JamesT]

Okay, I should have said over half of us use the train one or more times per year. Only 39% of British manage somehow not to use a train in a given year, so that leaves 61% who do ride the rails at least once, which is actually quite a bit better than I thought.



I disagree with the thrust of the article that reduced fares would only benefit the more affluent of the population. Surely rail users tend to be affluent precisely because the trains are expensive? Cheaper trains will be ridden by more of society. Wealthy people might fly helicopters, but if helicopters were as cheap to run as bicycles, they would not be the preserve of the rich either.

The article shows that younger demographics tend to be more avid train users. Demographics are destiny, so we need to increase capacity now.

You can argue over which is cause and which is effect. The majority of train users are commuters into large cities. Cities skew demographically younger, as older people get fed up of the rat race and move out to the country and stop using the trains as frequently. If that pattern continues then there In the peaks the issue wasn't with attracting more custom as they were full, so a reduction in fares would just be a price cut for those already using the service, who as it says tended to be the more affluent.

 

[43066]

Using something a couple of times a year doesn’t mean it really matters to you.
I probably use John Lewis that often. If they disappeared It would be a shame but oh well never mind.

I rarely use buses, they don’t really matter to me, and they account for a lower transport mileage per person than trains based on the figures upthread. Let’s abolish them entirely, and plough the savings into railways. Schools don’t matter to me either, so let’s close those down, too.

National Travel Survey for 2019 (pre Covid) shows 59% use rail at least once a year. But only 25% use rail more than once a month. So the large majority who use rail infrequently or never are heavily subsidising the minority who use rail frequently. Of course, some subsidy is justified to offset the external costs of road travel. But there must be a limit.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906847/nts-2019-factsheets.pdf

Except that focussing only on spending on rail misses the point that this spending results in net positive economic benefits (which is why the railway is subsidised in the first place). Rail enables the economy in London in the south east which in turn is a net contributor and subsidises many less affluent areas of this country.

 

[slowroad]

I rarely use buses, they don’t really matter to me, and they account for a lower transport mileage per person than trains based on the figures upthread. Let’s abolish them entirely, and plough the savings into railways. Schools don’t matter to me either, so let’s close those down, too.



Except that focussing only on spending on rail misses the point that this spending results in net positive economic benefits (which is why the railway is subsidised in the first place). Rail enables the economy in London in the south east which in turn is a net contributor and subsidises many less affluent areas of this country.

But this provides no reason why affluent commuters in the South East should be heavily subsidised. If they paid a bit more it’s not going to materially affect the relative performance of London.

 

[yorksrob]

Is that bit I've quote in bold actually true? Based on the numbers in https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/...ten-brits-havent-set-foot-train-last-12-month we can only say 46% use the train more than twice a year, there isn't a breakdown of 1/2 times, though I'd argue that a single return trip really only counts as once a year.

The HSTs have had their day and GWR never got the 769s to work, I'd be amazed if they were running by year's end.

That sounds like a very biased agenda orientated article.

I dare say that if they looked at PTE areas with more regulated fares, they would find that the proportion of lower income users was a lot higher.

One could just as easily draw the conclusion that already high fares more widely are keeping lower income households off of the railway, but it behoves supporters of the status quo to argue that lower income households don't want to use trains.

 

[mrmartin]

At the end of the day the best way to reduce road congestion is to invest in railways. People who don't use the trains benefit massively from the investment due to much reduced comparative journey times on the roads - imagine the traffic loads on the M6/M1/M40 if the WCML was to shut. It would probably double the traffic volumes on the roads at least, meaning complete gridlock far far worse than what currently exists.

 

[yorksrob]

National Travel Survey for 2019 (pre Covid) shows 59% use rail at least once a year. But only 25% use rail more than once a month. So the large majority who use rail infrequently or never are heavily subsidising the minority who use rail frequently. Of course, some subsidy is justified to offset the external costs of road travel. But there must be a limit.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906847/nts-2019-factsheets.pdf

And that limit seems to be arbitrarily set.

59% use rail at least once a year. If people use the railway rarely, it's less likely to be for something routine like a trip to tesco, and more likely for a fairly important one off, such as going to the airport or visiting relatives.

 

[slowroad]

At the end of the day the best way to reduce road congestion is to invest in railways. People who don't use the trains benefit massively from the investment due to much reduced comparative journey times on the roads - imagine the traffic loads on the M6/M1/M40 if the WCML was to shut. It would probably double the traffic volumes on the roads at least, meaning complete gridlock far far worse than what currently exists.

But very little additional road traffic on strike days, and even in countries that have invested very heavily in rail, rail usage is not very different from UK. Japan may be a partial exception - but context v different.

 

[43066]

But this provides no reason why affluent commuters in the South East should be heavily subsidised. If they paid a bit more it’s not going to materially affect the relative performance of London.

Because not everyone who commutes is affluent, and most have no choice but to use the train because driving into London isn’t exactly an option…

Why should London subsidise hospitals and schools in Wales?

 

[Meerkat]

As most of the rail travel in this country are on metro systems such as Elizabeth line, this survey misleads people to think that rail is little used while in fact rail is a key part of urban travel.

Does the Lizzie count as a Metro or overground for this purpose? It isnt particularly misleading.

I rarely use buses, they don’t really matter to me, and they account for a lower transport mileage per person than trains based on the figures upthread. Let’s abolish them entirely, and plough the savings into railways. Schools don’t matter to me either, so let’s close those down, too.

That's just a strawman

Except that focussing only on spending on rail misses the point that this spending results in net positive economic benefits

Not all of it.

59% use rail at least once a year. If people use the railway rarely, it's less likely to be for something routine like a trip to tesco, and more likely for a fairly important one off, such as going to the airport or visiting relatives.

That's a fairly big assumption. Just as easy to say it was likely to be for a random day trip which they could have done by car, or not at all, without any drama.

 

[Killingworth]

At the end of the day the best way to reduce road congestion is to invest in railways. People who don't use the trains benefit massively from the investment due to much reduced comparative journey times on the roads - imagine the traffic loads on the M6/M1/M40 if the WCML was to shut. It would probably double the traffic volumes on the roads at least, meaning complete gridlock far far worse than what currently exists.

A sweeping statement that has very limited validity. In very few places would it double road traffic volumes and in far more it would barely be noticed.

The plain fact is that passengers can and do manage without railways when they have to. Tbey get too much practice be it engineering work, strikes, incidents, weather and canellations due to shortage of crews or serviceable trains. Clearly trains are more essential in built up conurbations but we delude ourselves if we think that applies across the board.

Those wanting to promote rail transport may feel better by signing petitions but encouraging non users to use them more may have more effect. How? Do all we can to make more trains run on time every day and ensure they get more positive headlines and reviews. Currently no matter how much TOCs put into advertising they're undermined by the unreliability of their services for so many reasons, not all unavoidable.

Freight is a different matter. Writing from the Peak District I see very long trains of linestone and cement which could not all transfer to road any time soon. There aren't enough trucks or drivers to do it. It would cause uproar on local roads if they could. It would be similar around tbe main container ports.. There is much more that could be moved by rail but containers don't sign petitions or write to newspapers.

I hope to maks a long distance rail journey tomorrow. Hoping the weather doesn't disrupt it.

 

[yorksrob]

Does the Lizzie count as a Metro or overground for this purpose? It isnt particularly misleading.

That's just a strawman

Not all of it.

That's a fairly big assumption. Just as easy to say it was likely to be for a random day trip which they could have done by car, or not at all, without any drama.

Knowing the motorists that I know, if they could have done it by car, they usually would have done it by car. If they've done one trip by train, they probably had a good reason to do it that way.

A sweeping statement that has very limited validity. In very few places would it double road traffic volumes and in far more it would barely be noticed.

The plain fact is that passengers can and do manage without railways when they have to. Tbey get too much practice be it engineering work, strikes, incidents, weather and canellations due to shortage of crews or serviceable trains. Clearly trains are more essential in built up conurbations but we delude ourselves if we think that applies across the board.

Those wanting to promote rail transport may feel better by signing petitions but encouraging non users to use them more may have more effect. How? Do all we can to make more trains run on time every day and ensure they get more positive headlines and reviews. Currently no matter how much TOCs put into advertising they're undermined by the unreliability of their services for so many reasons, not all unavoidable.

Freight is a different matter. Writing from the Peak District I see very long trains of linestone and cement which could not all transfer to road any time soon. There aren't enough trucks or drivers to do it. It would cause uproar on local roads if they could. It would be similar around tbe main container ports.. There is much more that could be moved by rail but containers don't sign petitions or write to newspapers.

I hope to maks a long distance rail journey tomorrow. Hoping the weather doesn't disrupt it.

Passengers may be able to make other arrangements for periodical disruption such as the strikes - i.e. get the bus, go another week, book a hotel. Making a permanent change to one's routine could be prohibitively expensive - running a car, moving house etc.

This is the bit that a lot of politicians don't get. Just because people are coping with disruption now, the longer and more frequently it goes on, the more of a running sore it gets.

 

[squizzler]

That's just a strawman

Every false argument seems to be termed a “strawman” here, but isn’t that more accurately reductio absurdum?

 

[Bald Rick]

People are returning to the rails big time now industrial action is being resolved, as Easter has just illustrated.

Except that the trend has actually been downwards in recent weeks. Over Easter particularly so. AIUI passenger numbers on Good Friday / Easter Saturday and Easter Monday were roughly the same as a typical Sunday, whilst numbers on Easter Sunday were the same as a strike day. Clearly there was some reduced traffic due to engineering works, but a very significant majority of the network was not affected.

At the end of the day the best way to reduce road congestion is to invest in railways. People who don't use the trains benefit massively from the investment due to much reduced comparative journey times on the roads - imagine the traffic loads on the M6/M1/M40 if the WCML was to shut. It would probably double the traffic volumes on the roads at least, meaning complete gridlock far far worse than what currently exists.

Well the WCML was shut this weekend, as was the main line from Paddington to Oxford. Traffic volumes didn’t seem to double.


Theres no doubt that the industry needs to attract more passengers, but it is clear that passenger numbers across the whole network are not back at Pre Covid levels and show no sign of getting there. It’s a varied picture, but AIUI some operators are still below 60% and none are above pre Covid levels (Except the Elizabeth Line for obvious reasons).

 

[yorksrob]

Except that the trend has actually been downwards in recent weeks. Over Easter particularly so. AIUI passenger numbers on Good Friday / Easter Saturday and Easter Monday were roughly the same as a typical Sunday, whilst numbers on Easter Sunday were the same as a strike day. Clearly there was some reduced traffic due to engineering works, but a very significant majority of the network was not affected.



Well the WCML was shut this weekend, as was the main line from Paddington to Oxford. Traffic volumes didn’t seem to double.


Theres no doubt that the industry needs to attract more passengers, but it is clear that passenger numbers across the whole network are not back at Pre Covid levels and show no sign of getting there. It’s a varied picture, but AIUI some operators are still below 60% and none are above pre Covid levels (Except the Elizabeth Line for obvious reasons).

The question is whether Government should use reduced commuter traffic in the South East as an excuse to reduce:

-Socially necessary services elsewhere that have a comparatively sparse service to begin with
-Capacity on regional and InterCity services which at times have recovered passenger usage pre-covid or increased it.

The answer to the above is clearly no, however due to the shortfall in revenue the Government think the answe is yes.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Except that the trend has actually been downwards in recent weeks. Over Easter particularly so. AIUI passenger numbers on Good Friday / Easter Saturday and Easter Monday were roughly the same as a typical Sunday, whilst numbers on Easter Sunday were the same as a strike day. Clearly there was some reduced traffic due to engineering works, but a very significant majority of the network was not affected.



Well the WCML was shut this weekend, as was the main line from Paddington to Oxford. Traffic volumes didn’t seem to double.


Theres no doubt that the industry needs to attract more passengers, but it is clear that passenger numbers across the whole network are not back at Pre Covid levels and show no sign of getting there. It’s a varied picture, but AIUI some operators are still below 60% and none are above pre Covid levels (Except the Elizabeth Line for obvious reasons).

The Sunday of a Bank Holiday weekend has always been lower than a typical weekend (less long distance travel). However as all the major retail outlets are closed on Easter Sunday the shorter distance "shopping trips" are non existant.

 

[Horizon22]

The Sunday of a Bank Holiday weekend has always been lower than a typical weekend (less long distance travel). However as all the major retail outlets are closed on Easter Sunday the shorter distance "shopping trips" are non existant.

Plus notice of engineering works means that instead of replanning a journey (e.g. going to Marylebone or St Pancras this Easter) some will just not travel.

It’s always hard to measure how much are reductions because it would be quieter anyway or how much is because of the notice given and passengers making non-rail alternative arrangements, or not travelling at all.

 

[Bald Rick]

The question is whether Government should use reduced commuter traffic in the South East as an excuse to reduce…

Yes I understand that question, very well. Albeit reduced commuter traffic in the south east has actually been used as a reason to reduce services in the south east.

There‘s another question, though, that appears to be missed by many:

Should Government use reduced passenger numbers on long distance and regional routes outside the South East as an excuse to reduce services on those lines?

Because the reduced numbers are across the network, and affect regional operators just as much.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes I understand that question, very well. Albeit reduced commuter traffic in the south east has actually been used as a reason to reduce services in the south east.

There‘s another question, though, that appears to be missed by many:

Should Government use reduced passenger numbers on long distance and regional routes outside the South East as an excuse to reduce services on those lines?

Because the reduced numbers are across the network, and affect regional operators just as much.

I suppose on those questions, how much lower can some regional services get? Lower than 1tph on moderate regional routes it’s not much use at all - and probably just inconvenient entirely - and also at this point has a social benefit to connect communities.

Obviously the picture is very varied dependent on local circumstances; some metro/suburban lines are suffering, whilst some regional routes are holding up very well.

 

[43066]

That's just a strawman

No more so than what you said yourself. You’ve said you don’t care if John Lewis closes, I’ve said I don’t care if schools close and buses are withdrawn. It was the absurdity of your own argument I was highlighting by using those examples.

Not all of it.

On average every pound spent on the railway results in a positive benefit. We have established that you don’t accept this. You also don’t apply the same critical approach to other areas of government spending that you do towards the railway.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes I understand that question, very well. Albeit reduced commuter traffic in the south east has actually been used as a reason to reduce services in the south east.

There‘s another question, though, that appears to be missed by many:

Should Government use reduced passenger numbers on long distance and regional routes outside the South East as an excuse to reduce services on those lines?

Because the reduced numbers are across the network, and affect regional operators just as much.

Where are the reduced passengers on LNER, where there are constant threats to withdraw fleets without replacement ? Clearly there is no justification for reductions in services/capacity here.

And what about regional services, where the social justification is stronger than ever - and where pre-covid they were under-resourced with too few, too short to begin with anyway.

No justification for reduced services/capacity there either