April to June 2023 Passenger numbers released

[Adrian1980uk]

The entire DfT and Treasury strategy appears to be to make rail as off putting as possible.

Compare with Transport for London; revenue there and ridership seems far above many of the TOC in inner London. That's with strikes and also away from the Elizabeth line. London Overground for example is going great guns.

Cutting, cutting cutting often costs more than it saves in certain areas with high fixed costs like rail. DfT and Treasury seem too short termist/stupid to realise.

With London TOCs like SWR, Southern and SE having seen services axed in inner London, TfL have maintained service levels generally and reaped higher ridership and revenue now back above 2019 levels. Yes after inflation its not as strong as it would have been but that crucially still seems to be growing too.

It's the issue with all public industry, to short termist. If you had a target of electrification by 2050 and set the budget over that time and left the industry to get on with it, you'd get there but even if you set that target now, it will change, budgets will be cut with promises of jam tomorrow.

Your point with TfL is exactly right, run the service you stand a chance of passengers using it and revenue from it, don't run the service you know the revenue will be 0.

 

[al78]

Well it wouldn't have been industrial action causing those. Strikes and overtime bans cause cancellations, not delays.

Checking my log file you are right, my delays were caused by things other than strike action. The 80% figure I posted however does includes days where my workplace team decided we should work from home because trying to get into the office was deemed impractical due to industrial action.

The majority of my delays last year were caused by staff shortages and signalling problems, the former which I may have incorrectly attributed to industrial action. I still think the ongoing industrial action may be discouraging some people to use trains, particularly people who might book a ticket in advance when you can never tell if industrial action might hit the services you have booked.

 

[josh-j]

I'd be happy to debate this all more, but this is wandering rather far off topic!

I think you make some good points honestly, and I'm not against encouraging electric cars at all. I just think we can't stop there - and can't stop trying, whether shorter or longer term, to sort out the pervasive problems - because ultimately cars being the default is itself not good environmentally even if it's better when they're electric.

But yes, getting a bit off topic perhaps.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I think you make some good points honestly, and I'm not against encouraging electric cars at all. I just think we can't stop there - and can't stop trying, whether shorter or longer term, to sort out the pervasive problems - because ultimately cars being the default is itself not good environmentally even if it's better when they're electric.

But yes, getting a bit off topic perhaps.

Problem is that if you manage to get a substantial numbers of people to transfer to train from their car, how do you cost effectively improve capacity to cope?

 

[Snow1964]

Problem is that if you manage to get a substantial numbers of people to transfer to train from their car, how do you cost effectively improve capacity to cope?

To a big extent if a car is electric or petrol or hybrid does't make a lot of difference to train travel

But if you compare the seat comfort, the climate control, view from window etc between car and train then some operators are rather discouraging travel with them.

Ever been on a train with rock hard seats, wonky air conditioning, drafty open windows and a pillar rather than a window aligned with the seat ?

 

[Adrian1980uk]

To a big extent if a car is electric or petrol or hybrid does't make a lot of difference to train travel

But if you compare the seat comfort, the climate control, view from window etc between car and train then some operators are rather discouraging travel with them.

Ever been on a train with rock hard seats, wonky air conditioning, drafty open windows and a pillar rather than a window aligned with the seat ?

Very true, we're lucky in east Anglia as the stadler have good Aircon/ heating and seats are ok, the cabins though are ok but not as nice as other intercity stock, with the central doors giving the commuter stock impression.
That's part of the problem though, cars have got more luxurious over time, trains less luxurious.

My real point is that most routes can't run substantially more trains if there was a shift to rail

 

[josh-j]

It would help somewhat if we built HS2. But that's the point really - new rail lines get tied up in politics and cancelled, but new roads are just a given and happen all the time. It's no wonder most travel is done by car, but it's not because cars are great it's because lots of money and effort is poured into roads and passive "car provision" like roadside parking and so on, and it all basically isn't talked about. Meanwhile try and get funding for a tiny capacity enhancement and get laughed away by the treasury, leaving no alternative for a lot of people but to keep driving. Same goes for active travel schemes to an extent, just look at all the conspiracy theories around now about 15 minute cities as soon as it looks like some councils might not want to totally prioritise cars in all circumstances any more.

 

[Diedinium]

It would help somewhat if we built HS2. But that's the point really - new rail lines get tied up in politics and cancelled, but new roads are just a given and happen all the time. It's no wonder most travel is done by car, but it's not because cars are great it's because lots of money and effort is poured into roads and passive "car provision" like roadside parking and so on, and it all basically isn't talked about. Meanwhile try and get funding for a tiny capacity enhancement and get laughed away by the treasury, leaving no alternative for a lot of people but to keep driving. Same goes for active travel schemes to an extent, just look at all the conspiracy theories around now about 15 minute cities as soon as it looks like some councils might not want to totally prioritise cars in all circumstances any more.

I fully agree with you, it's hilarious how car-brained we are as a country (and how car-brained a lot of people in this thread are, on a damn rail forum!). It's not an official term, but I call it "motornormality", where people are dismissive of the negative effects of cars and assume they have always been everywhere rather than being a (historically speaking) very recent thing.

I'd love to see a full 180 degree flip, and for new road building funding to be funnelled into rail schemes, active travel etc instead. For the billions we spend on new roads each year to ultimately end up in the same place (traffic jams) you could reopen numerous abandoned railways, perform capacity upgrades, roll out more electrification and more.

Because really, the only way to fix traffic is to not generate it in the first place, which means providing alternatives.

 

[Krokodil]

I fully agree with you, it's hilarious how car-brained we are as a country (and how car-brained a lot of people in this thread are, on a damn rail forum!). It's not an official term, but I call it "motornormality", where people are dismissive of the negative effects of cars and assume they have always been everywhere rather than being a (historically speaking) very recent thing.

If you think it's bad here, you should see some attitudes in the US - it's second only to guns, if you suggest anything other than "more roads" they consider it a breach of their god-given rights.

I've seen a few people online claim "cities were built for cars". No they weren't, they were built for people and bulldozed for cars.

 

[al78]

If you think it's bad here, you should see some attitudes in the US - it's second only to guns, if you suggest anything other than "more roads" they consider it a breach of their god-given rights.

I've seen a few people online claim "cities were built for cars". No they weren't, they were built for people and bulldozed for cars.

The UK is virtually a clone of the U.S. these days in terms of attitudes if nothing else. Look at the hostility towards ULEZ and congestion charging despite the fact that high air pollution and heavy traffic congestion are significant externalised costs of mass car use, people in general just don't care. They will continue to not care as long as externalities are conveniently ignored from the balance sheet.

The thing is private cars are more convenient and usually cheaper than the alternatives for the majority, even taking into account delays due to traffic congestion. If you get punished in the wallet for taking the train which may end up taking longer once transport to/from stations is taken into account and is less comfortable thanks partly to the thoughtless section of the population, it is hardly surprising train travel is a very small subset of journeys.

 

[deltic08]

I fully agree with you, it's hilarious how car-brained we are as a country (and how car-brained a lot of people in this thread are, on a damn rail forum!). It's not an official term, but I call it "motornormality", where people are dismissive of the negative effects of cars and assume they have always been everywhere rather than being a (historically speaking) very recent thing.

I'd love to see a full 180 degree flip, and for new road building funding to be funnelled into rail schemes, active travel etc instead. For the billions we spend on new roads each year to ultimately end up in the same place (traffic jams) you could reopen numerous abandoned railways, perform capacity upgrades, roll out more electrification and more.

Because really, the only way to fix traffic is to not generate it in the first place, which means providing alternatives.

I totally agree with you and risk the wrath of the naysayers on this forum----again.
Did you know that the first £47M from the saved £36billion from cancelling HS2 has already gone towards improving two road junctions and less than a mile of road widening costing £87M. That was a mighty quick allocation when railway funding takes years. Exactly as you say, we are car brained in this country.
As I have said elsewhere on this forum, £47M would pay for the proposal to reinstate a short spur and additional railhead and car park near Leeds as a suitable site for a turnback for a shuttle but it has been ploughed into more road " improvement" instead.

 

[Horizon22]

It's the issue with all public industry, to short termist. If you had a target of electrification by 2050 and set the budget over that time and left the industry to get on with it, you'd get there but even if you set that target now, it will change, budgets will be cut with promises of jam tomorrow.

Your point with TfL is exactly right, run the service you stand a chance of passengers using it and revenue from it, don't run the service you know the revenue will be 0.

Also TfL demand is more inelastic - you wouldn't realistically commute by car into much of London and many Londoners don't have cars, so public transport is the natural option and the city is built for it. So it would always hold up better, although overall yes they have responded well.

 

[slowroad]

I fully agree with you, it's hilarious how car-brained we are as a country (and how car-brained a lot of people in this thread are, on a damn rail forum!). It's not an official term, but I call it "motornormality", where people are dismissive of the negative effects of cars and assume they have always been everywhere rather than being a (historically speaking) very recent thing.

I'd love to see a full 180 degree flip, and for new road building funding to be funnelled into rail schemes, active travel etc instead. For the billions we spend on new roads each year to ultimately end up in the same place (traffic jams) you could reopen numerous abandoned railways, perform capacity upgrades, roll out more electrification and more.

Because really, the only way to fix traffic is to not generate it in the

And yet the UK has the least dense motorway network in Europe.

The densest motorway networks across EU regions

This year’s spring as well as summer holidays might be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, due to travel restrictions as well as other precautionary measures that have been implemented in response to the pandemic. To still be able to discover the world, eager travellers might be looking for...

ec.europa.eu

 

[yorksrob]

And yet the UK has the least dense motorway network in Europe.

The densest motorway networks across EU regions

This year’s spring as well as summer holidays might be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, due to travel restrictions as well as other precautionary measures that have been implemented in response to the pandemic. To still be able to discover the world, eager travellers might be looking for...

ec.europa.eu

England looks to be more around the average to me, from that map.

 

[Krokodil]

And yet the UK has the least dense motorway network in Europe.

The densest motorway networks across EU regions

This year’s spring as well as summer holidays might be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, due to travel restrictions as well as other precautionary measures that have been implemented in response to the pandemic. To still be able to discover the world, eager travellers might be looking for...

ec.europa.eu

Undoubtedly a product of having our capital city tucked away in a corner, meaning that the network south and east of London is less dense than it otherwise would be. Most of the rest of the country is handily arranged in a few straight lines

 

[slowroad]

England looks to be more around the average to me, from that map.

But compare with other similarly dense countries / regions.

Undoubtedly a product of having our capital city tucked away in a corner, meaning that the network south and east of London is less dense than it otherwise would be. Most of the rest of the country is handily arranged in a few straight lines

Not sure this is crucial. Paris or Amsterdam are not that central. If it is a factor it may also explain low level of rail electrification in UK - lots of peripheral dead ends?

But compare with other similarly dense countries / regions.


Not sure this is crucial. Paris or Amsterdam are not that central. If it is a factor it may also explain low level of rail electrification in UK - lots of peripheral dead ends?

First bit of my reply not clear - I meant compare motorway density in UK with other countries/regions with similar POPULATION density- like Netherlands and rest of N Europe.

 

[Krokodil]

Not sure this is crucial. Paris or Amsterdam are not that central. If it is a factor it may also explain low level of rail electrification in UK - lots of peripheral dead ends?

Paris is further from the coast than London, and that's only in one direction, because it has a land border to the north (with a densely populated country). If you look at a motorway map you'll see France has many radial routes out of Paris, plus long cross-country routes from the Bay of Biscay to Geneva. England only really has two cross-country motorways (the M62 not being very long because the UK isn't particularly wide at that point) and Scotland has a handful around the central belt.

The Netherlands has twice the population density of the UK so isn't really comparable.

Germany's economy is distributed widely (unlike the UK where a massive proportion is concentrated in London) so they have many cross-country motorways

 

[al78]

And yet the UK has the least dense motorway network in Europe.

The densest motorway networks across EU regions

This year’s spring as well as summer holidays might be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, due to travel restrictions as well as other precautionary measures that have been implemented in response to the pandemic. To still be able to discover the world, eager travellers might be looking for...

ec.europa.eu

Does "motorway" here exclude dual carriageway A roads of which many are a motorway in all but name? Solme of these A roads do a fair job in filling in gaps between the motorways, for example the A50 is a good link between the M1 and M6 and is a feasible alternative to the toll road for people travelling from SE to NW England.

The UK stands out on that page as having a lower density of motorways than many European countries but I think some of that is influenced by Scotland which north of Glasgow has one of the lowest population densities in Europe combined with challenging geography hence no motorways north of Perth.

 

[slowroad]

Does "motorway" here exclude dual carriageway A roads of which many are a motorway in all but name? Solme of these A roads do a fair job in filling in gaps between the motorways, for example the A50 is a good link between the M1 and M6 and is a feasible alternative to the toll road for people travelling from SE to NW England.

The UK stands out on that page as having a lower density of motorways than many European countries but I think some of that is influenced by Scotland which north of Glasgow has one of the lowest population densities in Europe combined with challenging geography hence no motorways north of Perth.

The map does not include non-motorway dual carriageways, but other countries have these too. The map breaks the UK down into regions, and motorway density is low within these regions so it is not just a Scotland effect. I agree the map does not support definitive conclusions, but it does not sit easily with the view that transport policy in the UK has been unusually road-friendly. My own view is that UK has underinvested in all transport modes.

 

[yorksrob]

Very true, we're lucky in east Anglia as the stadler have good Aircon/ heating and seats are ok, the cabins though are ok but not as nice as other intercity stock, with the central doors giving the commuter stock impression.
That's part of the problem though, cars have got more luxurious over time, trains less luxurious.

My real point is that most routes can't run substantially more trains if there was a shift to rail

Outside of the South East a lot of routes were built for longer trains than run now. Running longer trains would involve some platform extensions and layout changes but along with a route modernisation should be doable in some cases.

But compare with other similarly dense countries / regions.


Not sure this is crucial. Paris or Amsterdam are not that central. If it is a factor it may also explain low level of rail electrification in UK - lots of peripheral dead ends?


First bit of my reply not clear - I meant compare motorway density in UK with other countries/regions with similar POPULATION density- like Netherlands and rest of N Europe.

Apart from Benelux, we seem to be a similar shade of green to Italy and Germany etc

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The entire DfT and Treasury strategy appears to be to make rail as off putting as possible.

Compare with Transport for London; revenue there and ridership seems far above many of the TOC in inner London. That's with strikes and also away from the Elizabeth line. London Overground for example is going great guns.

Greater Anglia had one of the highest increases in passengers this quarter and they've cut plenty of services but they have been clever enough to target the right service groups with service increases where proven demand exists.

 

[al78]

The map does not include non-motorway dual carriageways, but other countries have these too. The map breaks the UK down into regions, and motorway density is low within these regions so it is not just a Scotland effect. I agree the map does not support definitive conclusions, but it does not sit easily with the view that transport policy in the UK has been unusually road-friendly. My own view is that UK has underinvested in all transport modes.

It would be interesting to have a discussion on this but I feel this is the wrong place.

 

[Mag_seven]

A reminder that this thread is for the discussion of April to June 2023 Passenger numbers

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then they are welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Greater Anglia had one of the highest increases in passengers this quarter and they've cut plenty of services but they have been clever enough to target the right service groups with service increases where proven demand exists.

They've cut a few services but I didn't think it was many but the fundamental thing is that they run pretty much a full timetable every day, what they say they'll run actually does run.

Also they have got away with not restoring a all the GEML peaks as the new trains have more seats so can cope at the moment, for how long remains to be seen.

 

[Wivenswold]

Greater Anglia's general service has been excellent since the last lockdown, well it certainly has in Essex even prior to the withdrawal of the 321s. Maybe less is more.

 

[modernrail]

1. We are not going to close the railways and so a revenue growth plan is required.

2. That can’t be the DfT trying to run a revenue growth plan. They have absolutely no clue how to do it.

3. The industry is now the DfT. That is where revenue growth risk sits. No other party has the power to make decisions that might boost revenue growth - except in Scotland, Wales and TfL.

4. There is obviously some bad blood remaining between potential passengers and the service providers and the RMT and ASLEF after a couple of years of the worst possibly timed nonsense in terms of helping to secure post-pandemic growth. First and the RMT in particular might look back and regret how bad they have been behaving.

5. If we didn’t have railways at all then some city centres, which remain important drivers of growth, would cease to be workable with permanent grid-lock. That is part of the justification for the cost of the railway. It appears a lot of the leisure market also doesn’t want to get in its car, which is kind of interesting.

6. My personal view is that the railway needs to be bold to focus on filling existing capacity and growing it where sensible. This probably means reducing peak London commuter fares a bit, changing the pattern of services to reflect that there is a lot less long distance commuter services into London but introducing congestion busters on outer parts of those lines, reducing long distance peak fares or at least massively increasing cheaper advance availability. Tactically adding to leisure capacity.

7. What the ‘industry’ could do is have a think about how every single thing it does means we have the most ridiculous costs in Europe. Rather than crying like babies when the taps are turned off. You reap what you sow.

8. A massively positive, whole industry push is required to figure out how to best use current infrastructure with targeted modernisation to achieve the best bang for the buck. To me that doesn’t necessarily mean reducing that 20% gap, but if not reduced - it certainly needs to be doing a lot of things a lot better than it is today to justify a long term massive increase is an already historically high subsidy regime. As it is - the railway is generally just adding to the sense of an unfriendly, fractious, incompetent, self-defeating, self-absorbed bunch of self interest groups with no idea how to generate a reasonable future for the young that has become the hallmark of the UK and those than run it in modern times.

 

[ScotGG]

Greater Anglia had one of the highest increases in passengers this quarter and they've cut plenty of services but they have been clever enough to target the right service groups with service increases where proven demand exists.

Can't say I've noticed many cuts since 2022 compared to 2019 on GA. Intercity back up to pre covid levels. Branch lines in GA the same.

Within London they seem around the same eg Meridian Water to Stratford. Services to Ipswich/Southend seem good. Stansted Express now back up to 15 mins a lot of the day.

However they do have a lot fewer services solely or mainly within London eg Metro style compared to SWR, SE and Southern which have all had service cuts and are lagging TfL growth within the capital and those services running just beyond eg to Dartford.

 

[43066]

The government is already running a very large deficit and cannot raise taxes on the productive economy to plug holes in the rail budget without making the economy even worse.

Irrespective of the deficit (which was largely down to the government’s own poor choices over the Covid response) the government is currently in receipt of more tax revenue than expected. That could be used to improve public services, including the railway, but instead it is being used to fund tax cuts and increases in spending targeted only at its voter base - the triple lock for example.

Raising rail fares only adds to inflation and because it is not a captive market, this would not actually do very much for the overall shortfall.

This doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as experience over many years has shown that demand for rail fares is price inelastic, especially in London and the south east which account for by far the majority of the revenue. It would have been easy to justify a fare rise in the usual way, and that would have been a quick-and-dirty way to improve the cash position of the industry. It is inconsistent for the government to choose to actively suppress fares in real terms while also complaining that the industry costs too much - they can’t have it both ways.

DB Cargo, which is run more like a real business even if it is just owned by another state, realised this means cutting your cloth.

I quite agree. A real business would be free to set prices and make spending decisions free from government micromanagement, would have resolved the industrial dispute, would have made some sensible reforms to fares, and would now be squarely focussed on growing the rail leisure market. Eurostar and open access show the way in this respect.

Meanwhile, as the numbers show, in the case of the DfT TOCs trains are overcrowded, service cuts are having to be reversed to deal with this, yet we have chronic staff shortages and rolling stock shortages and there is no slack in the system. That is most certainly suppressing revenue growth.

DB cargo might be in a different position because of the downturn in the intermodal freight market.

 

[dk1]

Can't say I've noticed many cuts since 2022 compared to 2019 on GA. Intercity back up to pre covid levels. Branch lines in GA the same.

Within London they seem around the same eg Meridian Water to Stratford. Services to Ipswich/Southend seem good. Stansted Express now back up to 15 mins a lot of the day.

However they do have a lot fewer services solely or mainly within London eg Metro style compared to SWR, SE and Southern which have all had service cuts and are lagging TfL growth within the capital and those services running just beyond eg to Dartford.

Weekdays the 06:48 Norwich-Liverpool St & 18:10 return are still missing as are the two Ni90 services each way at 08:00+09:00 up/17:00+19:00 down. The 17:00 currently has extra stops inserted & the 18:00 connection at Ipswich to follow it to Norwich isn’t running.

On locals the 08:09 & 18:04 Norwich to Great Yarmouth & 08:47/17:47 return are also still suspended SX.

Stansted Express goes back to a full all day 7 days a week 15min frequency from December. DfT sees this as a win win with the airport up & over 2019 levels along with extremely busy trains for much of the day. There has also been complaints from Manchester Airport Group that it has not kept pace with Gatwick & Heathrow for connectivity.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Weekdays the 06:48 Norwich-Liverpool St & 18:10 return are still missing as are the two Ni90 services each way at 08:00+09:00 up/17:00+19:00 down.

Are they slated to return in four weeks' time?