And yet many franchises seem on the edge.
My own thoughts:Rail passenger journeys in Great Britain in 2019-20 Q1 increased to 439 million (2.4% rise compared to 2018-19 Q1). The number of journeys for the 12 months to the end of June 2019 was 1.77 billion.
The increase in total passenger journeys nationally was driven by a 3.0% rise in the London and South East sector to 303 million in 2019- 20 Q1.
Northern had a 10% increase in passenger kilometres but a 23% increase in train kilometres. Not good.
The instructive figure is really the year-on-year passenger figure. They've been losing passengers since the end of 16-17, down from 107.7 million to 101.3 million in 2 years.How is that not good? New services (tgus train kilometres) are introduced to cater for many years growth, not just one.
The data don't show a huge amount of evidence of recovery from strikes and poor performance as a result of the May 2018 timetable change at Northern?
How is that not good? New services (tgus train kilometres) are introduced to cater for many years growth, not just one.
Wonder whether they are trying to massage the figures upwards with all these loss leading 10p ticket and newspaper offers?The drop isn't really surprising, given the industrial action and reliability problems.
It's a shame we can't see whether the drop has been greater on the west side, where the reliability problems have been worse.
The new figures are out and the good news is passenger miles are increasing at their fastest rate since the 2013 - 2014 period.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1482/passenger-rail-usage-2019-20-q1.pdf
My own thoughts:
- At HS2 gets underway, on the great North - South routes VTWC grew by 3.2%, LNER by 4.4% and Caledonian sleepier by 19.9%.
- GWR, with the class 800s now in place registered a growth of 5% in passenger miles despite a drop in journeys overall due to losing some commuter operations to TfL Rail.
- Northern, with a step change in fleet quality still to come and with the worst of its timetable travails past it, recorded double digit growth.
Wonder whether they are trying to massage the figures upwards with all these loss leading 10p ticket and newspaper offers?
Exactly. There's hardly any change compared with the Q1 2016. I would have expected 3 years to produce significant uplift given temhe franchise terms.It's their best Q1 on that chart, there are clear seasonal demand fluctuations. They have run a lot more trains and probably spent a lot more money to achieve that relatively modest increase though.
I wondered this too. 80,000 isn't much, though.Wonder whether they are trying to massage the figures upwards with all these loss leading 10p ticket and newspaper offers?
Northern had a 10% increase in passenger kilometres but a 23% increase in train kilometres. Not good.
They have run a lot more trains and probably spent a lot more money to achieve that relatively modest increase though.
All the costs are introduced immediately.
Seems like SWR and London Overground are still down as well as GWR (largely due to to TfL). SWR are due to strikes. London Overground is apparently due to Euston works which may explain the dip. I also suspect GOBLIN reduction and reliability issues and the fact it only recovered in June 2019 may be factor so London Overground may recover in Q2.
Or perhaps people are just claiming more back?
Many companies (including some sourts of justice!) will only refund daily tickets.
I hate expenses. It's just a way for companies to push up the price of their product.
I'm not at all convinced that this is a good metric.As a nation we are buying increasing numbers of new trains, but the number of cars purchased continues to see year on year decline.
We were also looking at Q1 of 2019 which shows little change.The recent statistics run from April to June and thus will not show the CAF units coming into service.
GWR's long-distance market on which their new trains run is entirely unlike Northern's.GWR's performance is illustrative of what to expect, being a year or two further down the road of of fleet renewal and pacer elimination
Sorry to spoil your riposte but I consider my factoid to be an indicator rather than a metric - that would be modal share.I'm not at all convinced that this is a good metric.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.We were also looking at Q1 of 2019 which shows little change.
You might have said that in Northern territory TPE, LNER and VTEC - not forgetting Caledonian Sleeper! - offer long distance express services akin to those on the GWML proper. That leaves a lot of other stuff that is comparable. Leaving aside the 387s are doing similar work to many of Northern's electric diagrams, the new trains and electrification have led to a cascade of stock to the less prestigious routes. Without getting distracted by what route is comparable with which in GWR and Northern territories, my takeaway point is that they took on a massive influx of new trains and electrification starting from an earlier point than Northern and are further down that particular road. Fact stands GWR have surrendered routes and passenger numbers to TfL but managed to grow their passenger miles.GWR's long-distance market on which their new trains run is entirely unlike Northern's.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happier with 170s replacing Sprinters and Sprinters replacing Pacers, but it might be a long way until we get to the point where the percentage increase in passenger kilometres matches the percentage increase in train kilometres (notwithstanding that other expenses will be going up too, with the cost of longer trains, given the four coach EMUs and three coach DMUs replacing short Pacers/153s... and that the farebox may be going up by even less than that, given the ten pence giveaways and the petty competition on a handful of routes)... and for Northern to properly bounce back they need to be increasing passenger kilometres much faster than train kilometres.
I think some people have too rosy an assumption about "untapped demand" and how people would be keen to use trains if only we could start to replace Pacers... it's taking a long time to turn things around, and it feels like we're not turning things around as fast as we should have - three and a half years into the franchise... struggling to deliver a lot of the things that they promised... I've not seen any 769s running under their own power yet... I'm sure that the strikes will have had an impact but at the moment it feels like taking a school that was in Special Measures a few years ago and it still being at "Requires Improvement" (rather than "Good" or the "Outstanding" that we were promised by now).
All true, but there are also lines where the previous years saw disruption (but we are quick to forget lines affected by strikes/engineering etc in previous years when the most recent figures apparently show a huge increase in passenger numbers). Not a personal criticism, just tempering some of the excitement we'll have in twelve months time when people jump on an apparent big increase in SWR/ Overground (ignoring the fact that the "old" figures for SWR/ Overground were lower than they would have been due to the issues you've mentioned above).
In a few years time when they move jobs they might consider the train for commuting, whereas before it might never have occurred to them.
I disagree that longer trains nessasarily mean a great increase in running costs. You need the same number of staff to keep the show on the road, whether you are running a single dog-box or an 8 car people-eater, so the wages bill remains constant. The variables are leasing costs and track access charges.
I would imagine that the example you give where a four coach EMU replaces a (say) 2 coach DMU might even be cost negative, as a cascaded EMU such as a 319 might have lower losing costs than the DMU it replaces, electricity is cheaper than diesel, and the maintenance is less..
I subscribe to the 'all publicity is good publicity' adage. In the bad ol' days when rail was in a period of decline strikes would serve to illustrate that train travel was irrelevant to many. Nowadays the disruption caused by strikes illustrates how important it is to the smooth functioning of cities and regions, and how many people are choosing the train. People talk about their train journeys in the home and workplace whereas they might not if everything goes to plan. Every time people talk about train problems, even keen motorists will be becoming more 'rail-minded' and building up greater savvy about travel choices. In a few years time when they move jobs they might consider the train for commuting, whereas before it might never have occurred to them.
I agree that EMUs are cheaper to run than DMUs of equivalent length, and that staffing costs ought to be unchanged, but Northern's bills will still be going up - four coach 319/331s, three coach 170/195/331s, additional services (and extensions to some other services)... the subsidy level was high enough in the first place but costs have increased since then (with income not rising as fast just yet)
Northern had a 10% increase in passenger kilometres but a 23% increase in train kilometres. Not good.
I agree that EMUs are cheaper to run than DMUs of equivalent length, and that staffing costs ought to be unchanged, but Northern's bills will still be going up - four coach 319/331s, three coach 170/195/331s, additional services (and extensions to some other services)... the subsidy level was high enough in the first place but costs have increased since then (with income not rising as fast just yet)
I admire the optimism but rail still is an irrelevance to most people - probably over half of the population who don't use the train each year (certainly outside of London) - rail is pretty much essential to 5% of the population but it's not even an option for most journeys - but I certainly know from colleagues who do use rail that people are quick to complain about a bad journey and tell several people about it - rail's reputation amongst "normal" people isn't great
Nonetheless there seems to be a ratchet effect where ridership rises during the periods when the industry enjoys good publicity, and stays the same during bad publicity. This suggests that when people start using rail, they don't go away during bad spells. But people won't think to try the train if rail does not occupy public mind-share. Hence my assertion that all publicity is good publicity.I think that around 4 - 5 years ago, there was definitely awareness amongst the non-enthusiasts that I associate with, of the train as a generally decent way to get about, particularly for leisure.
That's taken a battering recently with the reliability and industrial relations problems, however it might return with a prolonged period of stability and improvement.
Nonetheless there seems to be a ratchet effect where ridership rises during the periods when the industry enjoys good publicity, and stays the same during bad publicity. This suggests that when people start using rail, they don't go away during bad spells. But people won't think to try the train if rail does not occupy public mind-share. Hence my assertion that all publicity is good publicity.