New DfT rail usage figures, big increase

[John R]

So, that’s “only” a 20% increase. That’s not trivial.

It’s actually a 33% increase. If for every 100 journeys now, “only” 25 are new, then the maths is 100/75=1.33.

 

[Haywain]

It’s actually a 33% increase. If for every 100 journeys now, “only” 25 are new, then the maths is 100/75=1.33.

D’oh, elementary maths failure! Even less trivial then.

 

[JamesT]

Agreed with the bolded bit. I use the Elizabeth line a lot, but I'd say only maybe 1/4 of my journeys are ones that I wouldn't have made if the Elizabeth line wasn't there; the remainder are journeys that I would have made anyway, but on SouthEastern/the DLR instead. So the 'excluding Elizabeth line' figures are actually excluding at least some journeys that should be included if you are to make a fair comparison.

As I understand it, it's those DLR journeys that are the issue with comparison. As previously they would have been counted in TfL's numbers, but are now in the National Rail set on Elizabeth Line. So including all of them makes it look like a massive increase when it's merely a shift from one operator to another. But it's not a trivial matter to figure out which journeys are which merely from the raw numbers.
Excluding Elizabeth Line does give a fair comparison for the rest of the network which doesn't have that issue.

 

[The exile]

As I understand it, it's those DLR journeys that are the issue with comparison. As previously they would have been counted in TfL's numbers, but are now in the National Rail set on Elizabeth Line. So including all of them makes it look like a massive increase when it's merely a shift from one operator to another. But it's not a trivial matter to figure out which journeys are which merely from the raw numbers.
Excluding Elizabeth Line does give a fair comparison for the rest of the network which doesn't have that issue.

What it does mean is that the 96% /97% figures for the “existing network” are in fact effectively now over 100% since a significant proportion of Eliz. Line traffic would otherwise be there.

 

[hwl]

As I understand it, it's those DLR journeys that are the issue with comparison. As previously they would have been counted in TfL's numbers, but are now in the National Rail set on Elizabeth Line. So including all of them makes it look like a massive increase when it's merely a shift from one operator to another. But it's not a trivial matter to figure out which journeys are which merely from the raw numbers.
Excluding Elizabeth Line does give a fair comparison for the rest of the network which doesn't have that issue.

Given that TfL has been able to get to the bottom of things, then DfT will have even less of a clue.

There is plenty more than just the DLR:

In another example the new housing developments along the Crossrail GWML corridor in zones 3-6 have increased numbers there but at the intermediate stations to Reading beyond Z6 usage is effectively down as there is much more WFH despite the much better service levels.

Users using SE to get to Abbey Wood from further out instead of using SE further in for DLR interchange (as already covered above) or SE to zone 1 (LBG/CST/CHX) and then often walk. Hence in the latter case there are still plenty of SE + Crossrail journeys that were just SE before that won't be understood from the SE+DLR data from pre Crossrail.

Those living closer to offices tend to go in more (cheaper and quicker) so while the passenger numbers might look good the revenues don't.

Overall the analysis required is complex and there are no definite answers but ranges based on best understanding. What is positive though is that the data coming through (e.g. the next ORR quarterly release) is largely based on the same service levels as the year before so localised usage data and growth rates will be much more meaningful going forwards.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2025 ==

What it does mean is that the 96% /97% figures for the “existing network” are in fact effectively now over 100% since a significant proportion of Eliz. Line traffic would otherwise be there.

Yes - But DfT may not like the numbers being over 100% because that puts more pressure on them.

The vibe from the last Transport Select Committee hearing was that DfT were aiming to improve service levels/capacity primarily though more staff (drivers), then grudgingly with more / new rolling stock with more capacity and trying to avoid infrastructure investment in bottleneck removal (good luck).

Gatwick Airport is effectively calling their bluff as the SoS's proposed public transport usage targets for the airport are predicated on at least 2tph more to central London on GTR (which will need the 377 not to be with SE or new stock found) , more GWR North downs. While Gatwick will fund the local station works there are potential other infrastructure requirements like some elements of CARS that might be needed.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Currently travelling Plymouth to Paddington (0815 ex Penzance 9 car) - train is moderately loaded but what is striking is how full the car parks are at stations en-route. I guess tomorrow will be different but it is very noticeable from last year. Even little Bedwyn was full with on-street parking as well.

 

[Snow1964]

Totally unscientif

what is striking is how full the car parks are at stations en-route. I guess tomorrow will be different but it is very noticeable from last year. Even little Bedwyn was full with on-street parking as well.

My local station car park (also in Wiltshire) was completely full at noon today too, with some cars circling trying to find non-existent spaces.

So not only are the trains busy, they now need to increase car park capacity too (not that there seems to be any discussion or plan of doing so)

 

[John R]

Nailsea and Backwell car park is frequently full now, but I have a suspicion somebody is using it as an airport parking business, as the number of cars staying there for days (all parked at the far end) is very noticeable.

 

[Class 170101]

Nailsea and Backwell car park is frequently full now, but I have a suspicion somebody is using it as an airport parking business, as the number of cars staying there for days (all parked at the far end) is very noticeable.

I don't know this area but if it is being used by an airport parking business and Network Rail are being paid for its use, I don't see why not.

 

[Sleepy]

Spot on, but you forgot the next line:

DfT: So we'll jack the prices up to price people off & reduce demand.

The same Dft that has fallen in love with Advance tickets for yet more shorter journeys ? No surprise that revenue is lower !

 

[Annetts key]

Nailsea and Backwell car park is frequently full now, but I have a suspicion somebody is using it as an airport parking business, as the number of cars staying there for days (all parked at the far end) is very noticeable.

IIRC, part or all of it is owned by the council.

 

[John R]

IIRC, part or all of it is owned by the council

Yes, it’s wholly owned by the council, which spent a lot of money tripling the size to 300 a couple of years before COVID and then introduced charges to fund it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2025 ==

I don't know this area but if it is being used by an airport parking business and Network Rail are being paid for its use, I don't see why not.

Because its purpose is as a car park for station users, not for a commercial business to use it as an unofficial car park for cheap airport parking. If, as seems to be the case, some rail users can’t use it, that would seem to be a problem.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Yes, it’s wholly owned by the council, which spent a lot of money tripling the size to 300 a couple of years before COVID and then introduced charges to fund it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2025 ==


Because its purpose is as a car park for station users, not for a commercial business to use it as an unofficial car park for cheap airport parking. If, as seems to be the case, some rail users can’t use it, that would seem to be a problem.

Sounds like they should raise the parking fees if it's getting full up

 

[The exile]

Sounds like they should raise the parking fees if it's getting full up

Or - if it is getting used unofficially for airport parking, ban overnight parking 1 night a week (midweek). Will affect most airport users but a minimal number of rail users.

 

[John R]

Or - if it is getting used unofficially for airport parking, ban overnight parking 1 night a week (midweek). Will affect most airport users but a minimal number of rail users.

I think there are some people who will park there on Monday morning to travel to London returning Friday eve. So that suggestion would seem to disadvantage them unfortunately.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2025 ==

Sounds like they should raise the parking fees if it's getting full up

No, as that will disadvantage genuine rail customers, and is unlikely to solve the problem of somebody running a commercial business undercutting airport parking, which is of course much more expensive. I don't know what the answer is, but in the first instance, a condition should be added that the parking is not to be used for commercial purposes and putting temporary signs to that effect at the entrance to make the change abundantly clear. Then it's a question of how that is policed.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Chesterfield is another example of the Nailsea long term parking syndrome. I often arrive back at Chesterfield late at night to pick up my car after a long day away and am staggered at the number of vehicles clearly parked for days at a time by people staying over in London or wherever.

 

[Haywain]

I often arrive back at Chesterfield late at night to pick up my car after a long day away and am staggered at the number of vehicles clearly parked for days at a time by people staying over in London or wherever.

Why is that a problem if they are travelling by train?

 

[The exile]

I think there are some people who will park there on Monday morning to travel to London returning Friday eve. So that suggestion would seem to disadvantage them unfortunately.

In which case offer regulars a season parking ticket and register their registrations as an exception to the Tuesday night no parking rule.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Why is that a problem if they are travelling by train?

I wasn't trying to suggest that overnight or longish-term parking by rail users was necessarily a 'problem' in itself. However, I will observe that before covid Chesterfield station car park was quite often full, to the point where a 'day' user couldn't risk being unable to find a space (and might then decide to drive down the M1 or whatever instead). I.e. one return rail ticket for a Mon-Fri trip away sold but four other day trip tickets 'suppressed off'.

Corby station is another one with which I am familiar where the car park is always full early in the day, including some over-nighters. A relative often drives to meetings in the London area as a result.

 

[John R]

In which case offer regulars a season parking ticket and register their registrations as an exception to the Tuesday night no parking rule.

I think it might come to something like that. Atm you can book for any time period without restriction.

 

[Class83]

I wasn't trying to suggest that overnight or longish-term parking by rail users was necessarily a 'problem' in itself. However, I will observe that before covid Chesterfield station car park was quite often full, to the point where a 'day' user couldn't risk being unable to find a space (and might then decide to drive down the M1 or whatever instead). I.e. one return rail ticket for a Mon-Fri trip away sold but four other day trip tickets 'suppressed off'.

Corby station is another one with which I am familiar where the car park is always full early in the day, including some over-nighters. A relative often drives to meetings in the London area as a result.

If the station car park is busy with cars left there by passengers using the train to travel then there are 3 options:

1: Extend the car park, though will often require multi level so expensive.
2: Improve public transport, though often people travelling intercity arrive/depart late so again likely to be expensive for the number of people served by each bus.
3: Charge more, runs the risk of making train travel unattractive for non-London destinations where driving the whole way is an option. How are the airport users getting from the station to the airport? If by rail they are rail customers as well, offering a discount on parking as a % of rail ticket price might disincentivise it in places where there is a cheap ticket to an airport station.

 

[Haywain]

2: Improve public transport, though often people travelling intercity arrive/depart late so again likely to be expensive for the number of people served by each bus.

How many places is this improved public transport intended to serve? It cannot cover every possible use case - for Chesterfield, for example, people may be driving because they live out in the wilds of Derbyshire and travelling very early or very late in the day.

 

[Dr Hoo]

How many places is this improved public transport intended to serve? It cannot cover every possible use case - for Chesterfield, for example, people may be driving because that live out in the wilds of Derbyshire and travelling very early or very late in the day.

Exactly!

 

[Llandudno]

I wasn't trying to suggest that overnight or longish-term parking by rail users was necessarily a 'problem' in itself. However, I will observe that before covid Chesterfield station car park was quite often full, to the point where a 'day' user couldn't risk being unable to find a space (and might then decide to drive down the M1 or whatever instead). I.e. one return rail ticket for a Mon-Fri trip away sold but four other day trip tickets 'suppressed off'.

Corby station is another one with which I am familiar where the car park is always full early in the day, including some over-nighters. A relative often drives to meetings in the London area as a result.

In the last few years the number of parking spaces very near (not at) Chesterfield Station has increased significantly at much cheaper prices, whether they seem as secure though is another matter, but there doesn’t appear to be any security issues.

 

[Krokodil]

How are the airport users getting from the station to the airport?

I suspect that this is one of those dodgy valet parking firms. Claims that your car is being stored securely but sticks them wherever is cheapest.

 

[dk1]

I keep a very close eye on several station car parks but particularly Manningtree and Cambridge North. Now the former was extended controversially before the pandemic and has never reached its potential until the last six months or so proving that even more cars park at this station (Tuesday-Thursday) than at ever before. Cambridge Norths car parks on these days and occasionally at weekends is also the busiest in its history now that passenger numbers are up and over the one million per annum.

 

[Starmill]

How many places is this improved public transport intended to serve? It cannot cover every possible use case - for Chesterfield, for example, people may be driving because they live out in the wilds of Derbyshire and travelling very early or very late in the day.

It isn't necessary to serve every property though, nor every village, for a bus service to bring benefit. It only needs to serve some people who currently use the station car park. It's not easy to get an earlier first service and later last service on a lot of the routes in question, but this is the only proper long-term alternative to expanding car parking spaces. Unfortunately bus services in this country are often so unreliable that few people will trust them for a connection to a long haul train journey.

 

[Sonic1234]

Unfortunately bus services in this country are often so unreliable that few people will trust them for a connection to a long haul train journey.

A problem with Advances being the only affordable way to travel in a lot of cases.

 

[Haywain]

Unfortunately bus services in this country are often so unreliable that few people will trust them for a connection to a long haul train journey.

But they can never be sufficient to serve a sparsely populated rural area.

 

[Llandudno]

It isn't necessary to serve every property though, nor every village, for a bus service to bring benefit. It only needs to serve some people who currently use the station car park. It's not easy to get an earlier first service and later last service on a lot of the routes in question, but this is the only proper long-term alternative to expanding car parking spaces. Unfortunately bus services in this country are often so unreliable that few people will trust them for a connection to a long haul train journey.

Similarly I wouldn’t rely on our rail network to get me to the airport for a flight either…