• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

passenger growth continues

Status
Not open for further replies.

daccer

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2009
Messages
371
http://bit.ly/34la9fH

Interesting numbers, new trains and routes showing untapped demand maybe. the next two years should be interesting reading with so many new trains coming in and additional routes and capacity opening up. Revenue growth is also decent. Growth should lag the increase in train km but should catch up in time.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

daveshah

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2018
Messages
115
Unless, I'm mistaken, isn't per-station usage data also expected to be released by the ORR sometime around now?
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Is it fanciful to say so, or are the regions picking up the baton from satuated London as the engines of the next phase of growth?

AS for Northern, going for two car DMU's in the class 195s look like a bad call now. Wrong formation length, wrong ends (no gangways), wrong power source.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Regions have been growing faster for the last few years, this quarter is certainly going to be boosting Northerns finances and it wasn't as if they were really declining in the same quarter last year, just stalling.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
The growth rate at Northern needs putting into some sort of perspective.

A ridership growth of 12.8% means for every eight people waiting on the platform a year ago there is now nine.
And at 20% passenger miles that's six people on the train where there were five a year ago.

If there were doubts as to the urgent need for serious capacity expansion in that region, this growth rate highlights why.
 
Last edited:

Dr Day

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2018
Messages
541
Location
Bristol
Northern - Last year will have been down due to industrial action and the fallout from the May 2018 timetable introduction, so some of this year's growth is simply a reversal of that. GTR may be similar. Despite ongoing issues, confidence is likely to be returning and there are more trains running. Differences in year-on-year engineering works will be a factor too.
 

railfan100

On Moderation
Joined
31 Oct 2016
Messages
212
Location
London
If there is any sensible longer term capacity management still these days Northern and the powers that be should extend all Class 195 units to 4 cars. As there are no gangways it would seem a very sensible approach for a unit that may still be around in 2050.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Is it fanciful to say so, or are the regions picking up the baton from satuated London as the engines of the next phase of growth?

AS for Northern, going for two car DMU's in the class 195s look like a bad call now. Wrong formation length, wrong ends (no gangways), wrong power source.

If you don't have wires (or other electrification for that matter) then what other practical power source is there than diesel?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
http://bit.ly/34la9fH

Interesting numbers, new trains and routes showing untapped demand maybe. the next two years should be interesting reading with so many new trains coming in and additional routes and capacity opening up. Revenue growth is also decent. Growth should lag the increase in train km but should catch up in time.

Some disappointing reading there for those opposed to HS2, with long distance rail travel to 3.2% year on year (HS2 was justified on year on year growth of 2.5% for rail passengers).

Whilst it's lower than the year in year growth of 3.75% for all travel modes (including new travel and those who switch from road and air) to be not far off that before any HS2 trains are running (when most of the switch would take place) is fairly positive.

It should also be noted that it's likely that this still puts rail growth higher than this overall growth figure since 2009 when you look at travel between London and the region's which benefit from HS2. (We'll be able to see how well this is doing when there's updates on those figures, with the last update February 2019, so potentially fairly soon).
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
If you don't have wires (or other electrification for that matter) then what other practical power source is there than diesel?
Bi-mode of course - even if the self powered aspect is diesel for now. As modal switch continues to grow rail usage and the infrastructure is upgraded to cope, rolling electrification is almost certain and will reduce under wire running till other power sources become viable.

That said, in such a fast growth scenario, it would make more sense to get the higher capacity bi-modes additional to the 195's they already have and cascade the 195's sooner onto the secondary routes where they can displace all the 15x to the scrappy (or another operator).

I am more familiar with the Wales and Borders. Northern's rapid growth spurt excites me as TfW has all this to come in a few years.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Northern - Last year will have been down due to industrial action and the fallout from the May 2018 timetable introduction, so some of this year's growth is simply a reversal of that. GTR may be similar. Despite ongoing issues, confidence is likely to be returning and there are more trains running. Differences in year-on-year engineering works will be a factor too.

I have the theory that the expression 'there is no such thing as bad publicity' applies to rail services in meltdown. Think of it in 'post truth' terms: just so long as you remain in the news, hogging mindshare, you can bull**** your way to success.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Northern - Last year will have been down due to industrial action and the fallout from the May 2018 timetable introduction, so some of this year's growth is simply a reversal of that. GTR may be similar. Despite ongoing issues, confidence is likely to be returning and there are more trains running. Differences in year-on-year engineering works will be a factor too.

Wasn't down significantly last year, 168,000 or -0.8%, this year it was up 3,175,000 or 12.8%! The statistics are citing engineering work at Liverpool finishing as the most significant reason for the change.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
If there is any sensible longer term capacity management still these days Northern and the powers that be should extend all Class 195 units to 4 cars. As there are no gangways it would seem a very sensible approach for a unit that may still be around in 2050.

That would mean they couldn't put on longer than 4 cars though even when they needed something like 6 cars. Shorter lengths give more flexibility to increase the length of formations to meet demand.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,445
Location
London
It is always interesting to read these when you compare it to politics pledges in the recent election, such as Labour's stance. 50% of all journeys are on London and SE TOCs where Labour have minimal representation outside of London and so I imagine their nationalisation pledges just don't resonate with an electorate that hardly uses the train.

Interesting to see London and SE stall with the exception of GTR (which is still probably on the rebound after Southern strikes and the 2018 crisis).
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
Is it fanciful to say so, or are the regions picking up the baton from satuated London as the engines of the next phase of growth?

AS for Northern, going for two car DMU's in the class 195s look like a bad call now. Wrong formation length, wrong ends (no gangways), wrong power source.

Apart from those minor issues above they got it completely right!:rolleyes:
 
Joined
11 Jan 2015
Messages
677
It is good to see numbers going up. I did find the graphs a little unintuitive as anything above the line was still an increase just a lesser increase. Normally downward pointing lines suggest an absolute decrease.
 

railfan100

On Moderation
Joined
31 Oct 2016
Messages
212
Location
London
That would mean they couldn't put on longer than 4 cars though even when they needed something like 6 cars. Shorter lengths give more flexibility to increase the length of formations to meet demand.

They will likely need 8 car well within the lifespan of the units for some services. Clearly should have had a front gangway but ensuring all 195 units are 4 car units seems a sensible approach. But not sure if the rail industry and sensible are words that should be used together in this country.
 

MontyP

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2015
Messages
335
Some disappointing reading there for those opposed to HS2, with long distance rail travel to 3.2% year on year (HS2 was justified on year on year growth of 2.5% for rail passengers).

Whilst it's lower than the year in year growth of 3.75% for all travel modes (including new travel and those who switch from road and air) to be not far off that before any HS2 trains are running (when most of the switch would take place) is fairly positive.

It should also be noted that it's likely that this still puts rail growth higher than this overall growth figure since 2009 when you look at travel between London and the region's which benefit from HS2. (We'll be able to see how well this is doing when there's updates on those figures, with the last update February 2019, so potentially fairly soon).

Does anyone know what the headline annual growth rate used as justification for Crossrail 2 is? With SWR figures going backwards, the business case can’t be looking rosy. Or are the figures just one-offs because of the industrial action?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Does anyone know what the headline annual growth rate used as justification for Crossrail 2 is? With SWR figures going backwards, the business case can’t be looking rosy. Or are the figures just one-offs because of the industrial action?

SWR was, in my mind, always going to be tough to keep passenger numbers growing.

To give some perspective on the current numbers it's still comparable to Q2 2012/13, which although is bad isn't overly surprising given that there's not been much in the way of extra capacity or increase in frequency, especially given that there's been significant strikes happening.

The problem with the SWR network is that there's little that can be done. As such growth is always going to be risk of not being great.

In addition the DfT want their cash cow to keep paying out, so are unlikely to accept changes which would run the risk of this income falling. This means that TOC's won't risk running extra secondary services which may or may not pay off.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was just add much suppressed demand as there is in areas where their trains are overloaded, but are much shorter.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Are platforms long enough for 8x23m?
If the platforms aren't long enough, lengthen them. There has been a near continuous programme of lengthening around London and SE now for many years.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Some disappointing reading there for those opposed to HS2, with long distance rail travel to 3.2% year on year (HS2 was justified on year on year growth of 2.5% for rail passengers).

Whilst it's lower than the year in year growth of 3.75% for all travel modes (including new travel and those who switch from road and air) to be not far off that before any HS2 trains are running (when most of the switch would take place) is fairly positive.

It should also be noted that it's likely that this still puts rail growth higher than this overall growth figure since 2009 when you look at travel between London and the region's which benefit from HS2. (We'll be able to see how well this is doing when there's updates on those figures, with the last update February 2019, so potentially fairly soon).
HS2 was justified by valuing business users time at £47/ph (2010 prices). That is where the vast majority of the B in the BCR comes from.

The C represents the stonking cash loss it makes, with revenue not coming close to the construction costs even over an appraisal period of decades.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
If the platforms aren't long enough, lengthen them. There has been a near continuous programme of lengthening around London and SE now for many years.

The cost would be astounding, most of them have only just been lengthened to 4/6 and mostly by reinstating former length. The cost of lengthening platforms at 500 stations, junctions, sidings etc... to 8 car would be several billion pounds.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The cost would be astounding, most of them have only just been lengthened to 4/6 and mostly by reinstating former length. The cost of lengthening platforms at 500 stations, junctions, sidings etc... to 8 car would be several billion pounds.

I'm afraid we really ought to be lengthening platforms for localand regional services across the country as a matter of course.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I'm afraid we really ought to be lengthening platforms for localand regional services across the country as a matter of course.

Or at the very least getting the platforms to a minimum length (say 4 coaches but ideally 4-8 coaches depending on how busy the station is) and ensuring that 12 coach trains with ASDO can be accommodated.

Whilst I agree that many more services need to be longer, there's little point having stations which see less than 100,000 passengers a year with platforms which can take 8 coach trains (as a comparison a nearby station is able to take 8 coach trains and has annual passenger numbers of 800,000 and works fine).
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
HS2 was justified by valuing business users time at £47/ph (2010 prices). That is where the vast majority of the B in the BCR comes from.

The C represents the stonking cash loss it makes, with revenue not coming close to the construction costs even over an appraisal period of decades.

Is the £47/hour the amount that the staff are paid or the amount that they are charged out to clients? They are very different things and before you consider if this is high or low then you need to understand the difference.

Clearly being paid £47/hour would be a very highly paid member of staff (circa £92,000 per year). However even that's over estimating the cost as there's other remuneration package costs (pension, etc.).

As such if you're looking at pay then it's far too high.

However businesses have many other costs associated with staff and so when they charge clients for their time it's done so in a rate which covers these costs. These include office space, training time, other non chargeable tasks, etc.

Now £47/hour is a very low charge out rate for staff (in engineering that's comparable to a graduate's charge rate and they're unlikely to be going on trains to meetings without other staff, however charge rates of £100/hour or more are fairly common, especially amongst those attending meetings). As such it's likely that a figure of around 50% had been used, as although you can get on with some work you are not going to be able to do as much as you could do sat at your desk. Not least that you'll not be able to work on your phone as fast as you can type at your computer, or its going to take you some time to set up your laptop before you can start and you'll need to pack it away before your stop. Even then you're not going to be able to work as fast, and you're not going to be able to have the same connection speeds to your data as you have in the office.

Also if the member of staff is a manager it's harder to manage people when you're not near them.

Therefore £47/hour isn't excessive and is probably about right for the time saving for business travel if it's being based on charge out time.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Or at the very least getting the platforms to a minimum length (say 4 coaches but ideally 4-8 coaches depending on how busy the station is) and ensuring that 12 coach trains with ASDO can be accommodated.

Whilst I agree that many more services need to be longer, there's little point having stations which see less than 100,000 passengers a year with platforms which can take 8 coach trains (as a comparison a nearby station is able to take 8 coach trains and has annual passenger numbers of 800,000 and works fine).
A pragmatic approach is already possible.

Not all stations on National Rail /LUL accommodate the whole train.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
A pragmatic approach is already possible.

Not all stations on National Rail /LUL accommodate the whole train.

Indeed, although you can't always just allow trains to overhang platforms, which is why you'll need to design then to be able to do so.

You'll also still be left with some locations where it's not at all possible, which would cost a lot to fix regardless of what you do.

The point stands that there's a need for a plan, add there are far too many services which are too short because of platform capacity.
 

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,372
For some reason freedom pass trips in London are excluded from the latest q2 data compared to last year which would have sizable impact on numbers. Anyone know why?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Or at the very least getting the platforms to a minimum length (say 4 coaches but ideally 4-8 coaches depending on how busy the station is) and ensuring that 12 coach trains with ASDO can be accommodated.

Whilst I agree that many more services need to be longer, there's little point having stations which see less than 100,000 passengers a year with platforms which can take 8 coach trains (as a comparison a nearby station is able to take 8 coach trains and has annual passenger numbers of 800,000 and works fine).

That's fine, but if the other stations on the route justify eight carriages, we have to either lengthen the plaftorms of all stations, or ensure that all trains have selective door opening, otherwise those stations will become a limiting factor on the length of trains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top