New DfT rail usage figures, big increase

[The exile]

I would also like some examples. My understanding is that in pretty much all our commuter hubs (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, etc.) the thing that limits the frequency of the commuter trains is capacity at the terminals, not the fact that stock is unavailable because it's running an extra 10 miles out into the country and therefore can't do a 2nd commuter run (a problem that, to the extent that it exists, could in any case easily be solved by buying more stock). Lack of stock does in some cases mean trains are shorter than they really ought to be, but I don't think it's seriously impacting the numbers of commuter trains running.

I’ve been thinking about possible examples - the only ones I can come up with are the Chathill and Ribblehead terminators- both of which are only marginal cases involving 1 unit each.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Almost an example would be the increased use of depots rather than sidings to stable trains. Hence trains need to run out from, say, Selhurst depot in the morning rather than being stabled nearer their morning starting point. The East Grinstead and Uckfield branches are particularly noticeable.

Perfectly good reasons - safety vs graffiti and emptying CET tanks being two, but there is plenty of start and end ECS.

And some reduction in inner London sidings because the land is more valuable as real estate than railway sidings.

 

[Haywain]

Hence trains need to run out from, say, Selhurst depot in the morning rather than being stabled nearer their morning starting point.

Even if they are stabled nearer to their starting points you still have to get drivers (and guards in some cases) to where the trains are.

 

[Kite159]

As an example there are some commuter services where the trains continue almost empty on return for extra 10-20 miles, because a reversing crossover at station on edge of conurbation no longer exists, whereas if the could get reverse earlier could do a second commuter run.

Can you give some recent examples of this where crossovers have been removed forcing trains to run 10-20 miles further before they can come back.

 

[Annetts key]

Changing the subject slightly, using different stock (which is now serviced in different depots) has caused some services to have slightly longer ECS moves. For example, GWR HSTs being replaced with 800 series.

With the issue with “half empty” trains vs. “sardine cans” due to uneven traffic flows, that’s just the nature of society. Same with summer holiday flows. There is very little the railways an do about this.

If you want to get silly about it, also argue about the number of empty freight trains that run...

 

[Snow1964]

Not challenging the - just interested to know some examples….

Can you give some recent examples of this where crossovers have been removed forcing trains to run 10-20 miles further before they can come back.

I was thinking of trains like Bristol commuter services which doesn't reverse at Yate or Cam and Dursley, but then goes miles through open fields in Gloucestershire, rather than making extra trip through densely populated South Gloucestershire to Bristol.

Or another example cross Bournemouth conurbation, trains can no longer reverse at New Milton, so continue through the negligible populated New Forest instead of providing better service along heavily populated section back towards Hamworthy.

A London example is Fleet, its end of conurbation, but trains continue miles to Basingstoke (and they reverse on the flat there too, across the fast tracks)

My thinking was because the crossovers were taken out decades ago, before (lots of) houses were built in the area, now get trains serving miles of rural areas rather than making extra commuter trips. So get quiet areas with excess trains, and areas that could do with more services not getting them because money is wasted on continuing to run many miles past fields as trains now not able to reverse where conurbation ends.

 

[Annetts key]

I was thinking of trains like Bristol commuter services which doesn't reverse at Yate or Cam and Dursley, but then goes miles through open fields in Gloucestershire, rather than making extra trip through densely populated South Gloucestershire to Bristol.

Both Yate and Cam and Dursley are "new" stations that opened/reopened long after the original stations closed. And neither was provided with any specific "turn back" facilities or any extra points or crossovers specificity for passenger trains. So in both of these cases, no points or crossovers have been taken out, because they did not exist since the current stations opened/reopened.

Yes, there may have been crossovers when the earlier stations existed, but whether they were in the correct place and whether suitable signals existed to enable a train to terminate and change direction is another matter.

For Cam and Dursley, before the current station was built, there were no points at the site, it's just plain line.

For Yate, since the current station was built, the only points that have been removed are the points for Yate North Ground Frame (G.F.). Indeed, before this was removed, the layout at Yate had not changed since the early 1970s. But this G.F. was just access for a disused siding via a trailing connection on the down line. Of no use to passenger trains due to needing a G.F. operator and the (very limited) signalling that was provided for this, only being a "calling on" shunt signal and a limit of shunt signal.

The crossover at Yate South is still present and in use. But it's on the Bristol side of the station and is a facing crossover. So of no use for an up train that terminates at the up platform.

However, an up train that calls at Yate can be routed onto the Tytherington branch. The driver can change ends. The train can then return to the up platform. Then run "wrong road" in the down direction on the up line back to Westerleigh Junction where it can crossover onto the down line, so it can return to Bristol Parkway or beyond. Note that a train doing this move cannot call at the down platform.

However, the signal for the move along the up line and onto the Tytherington branch is only a "calling on" shunt signal. And the signal to control the movement from the Tytherington branch back towards Westerleigh junction is an elevated position light shunt signal.

Some years ago, there was talk of providing a "turn back" facility. This did not happen, but I don't know if this idea has made any progress since 2024.

The only other crossovers north of Yate were at Charfield (near the site of the former station). Here, there use to be another G.F. which controlled two crossovers. One facing and one trailing. However, no signals of any type were provided. So, again, of no use to passenger trains.

 

[TEW]

A London example is Fleet, its end of conurbation, but trains continue miles to Basingstoke (and they reverse on the flat there too, across the fast tracks)

If you terminated trains at Fleet to return back to London, how would the service then be provided for Winchfield and Hook? Or for the Farnborough/ Fleet- Basingstoke flow?
Basingstoke is very much the logical end point for the stopping services along there, providing connections onwards, stabling for the trains and a train crew depot. Having to reverse across all the lines isn't ideal but wouldn't be avoided by terminating at Fleet either, unless you plan on building a flyover as well as installing crossovers.

 

[30907]

Or another example cross Bournemouth conurbation, trains can no longer reverse at New Milton, so continue through the negligible populated New Forest instead of providing better service along heavily populated section back towards Hamworthy.

They never have (except perhaps for engineering work), though like most stations there was a trailing crossover. Christchurch was the limit for the rail motors in LSWR days.

 

[Annetts key]

Attached are two plans. One shows the track layout at Yate station (including the points I discussed in my earlier post) and the other shows the track layout for the former Charfield G.F.

 

[cle]

If you terminated trains at Fleet to return back to London, how would the service then be provided for Winchfield and Hook? Or for the Farnborough/ Fleet- Basingstoke flow?
Basingstoke is very much the logical end point for the stopping services along there, providing connections onwards, stabling for the trains and a train crew depot. Having to reverse across all the lines isn't ideal but wouldn't be avoided by terminating at Fleet either, unless you plan on building a flyover as well as installing crossovers.

If anything, the NSE extensions (Ipswich, Peterborough) made more sense. Basingstoke is more of that.

Bedwyn is another outlier like Fleet would be (or Huntingdon was) - a random terminus, where Westbury would make more sense for the same reason (platforms, onward connections, more of a market / railhead itself)

 

[The exile]

I was thinking of trains like Bristol commuter services which doesn't reverse at Yate or Cam and Dursley, but then goes miles through open fields in Gloucestershire, rather than making extra trip through densely populated South Gloucestershire to Bristol.

Or another example cross Bournemouth conurbation, trains can no longer reverse at New Milton, so continue through the negligible populated New Forest instead of providing better service along heavily populated section back towards Hamworthy.

A London example is Fleet, its end of conurbation, but trains continue miles to Basingstoke (and they reverse on the flat there too, across the fast tracks)

My thinking was because the crossovers were taken out decades ago, before (lots of) houses were built in the area, now get trains serving miles of rural areas rather than making extra commuter trips. So get quiet areas with excess trains, and areas that could do with more services not getting them because money is wasted on continuing to run many miles past fields as trains now not able to reverse where conurbation ends.

Gloucester is a much more logical northbound terminus than (say) Cam and Dursley - offering additional connectivity (without the Gloucester terminators it would only have 1tph to Bristol). There are also aspirations (however faint) for Stonehouse to regain its second station. It should also be added that reversing a terminating service at a 2 platform station on a fairly busy main line is a recipe for racking up the delay minutes.

 

[Snow1964]

DfT has updated its busyness versus pre Covid transport use spreadsheet

For rail 3 most recent dates are 109%, 109%, 108%
(excluding Elizabeth line) 97%, 98%, 97%

Obviously these are averages so if usage is still down in one area probably over 100% elsewhere.

There are some services that were 4 per hour that are still running on reduced frequency. Some Operators have increased seating capacity, other operators have cut it, but the overall fleet is smaller in some areas which raises the question about local fleet capacity constraints in the busier areas

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain

www.gov.uk

 

[Horizon22]

At some point they'll need to scrap the "excluding Elizabeth line" figures, because it will just become harder to distinguish that from genuine increases.

 

[devon_belle]

Despite strong numbers we are still yet to see a new impetus to restore services and lengthen (un-shorten) trains, at least in my neck of the woods. I wonder whether a ceiling on growth will be hit at some point soon if things are not improved. After all, it takes several years to get new rolling stock ordered, built, and operating...

 

[Adrian1980uk]

DfT has updated its busyness versus pre Covid transport use spreadsheet

For rail 3 most recent dates are 109%, 109%, 108%
(excluding Elizabeth line) 97%, 98%, 97%

Obviously these are averages so if usage is still down in one area probably over 100% elsewhere.

There are some services that were 4 per hour that are still running on reduced frequency. Some Operators have increased seating capacity, other operators have cut it, but the overall fleet is smaller in some areas which raises the question about local fleet capacity constraints in the busier areas

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain

www.gov.uk

The next year or 2 will be interesting now as near as makes no difference we are at pre COVID levels and now growth will imply needing longer trains

 

[Class 317]

The next year or 2 will be interesting now as near as makes no difference we are at pre COVID levels and now growth will imply needing longer trains

Don't forget that passenger numbers don't necessarily mean they are travelling at the same time. Peak demand is still down more and off peak demand higher..This means a different fleet level is needed to the same total passenger numbers as pre covid

 

[Qwerty133]

At some point they'll need to scrap the "excluding Elizabeth line" figures, because it will just become harder to distinguish that from genuine increases.

As long as they compare to 2019 "excluding Elizabeth line" will be needed. Ideally it can reach 100% before too long meaning they can use 2025 (as example) as the base year.

 

[Horizon22]

As long as they compare to 2019 "excluding Elizabeth line" will be needed. Ideally it can reach 100% before too long meaning they can use 2025 (as example) as the base year.

Why? At some point new infrastructure (and a good chunk of Elizabeth line passengers are not "new") just becomes integrated and part of business as usual.

 

[DDB]

Why? At some point new infrastructure (and a good chunk of Elizabeth line passengers are not "new") just becomes integrated and part of business as usual.

But that's the point, we can start using 2025 (including Lizzie) as the new baseline.

Don't forget that passenger numbers don't necessarily mean they are travelling at the same time. Peak demand is still down more and off peak demand higher..This means a different fleet level is needed to the same total passenger numbers as pre covid

That should be better for the railway. It is much easier to have the "right" number of carriages etc if the demand is much less peaky.

 

[Qwerty133]

Why? At some point new infrastructure (and a good chunk of Elizabeth line passengers are not "new") just becomes integrated and part of business as usual.

Yes but until the baseline changes it is not included in the baseline and therefore should not be included in the comparison. I would totally agree that comparisons with 2019 are increasingly meaningless and the inability to include the Elizabeth Line is one (of many) reasons for this being the case but it would be even worse to simply pretend the opening of such a major line will have had no impact on passenger numbers (which is a necessary prequisite in including it in comparisons to 2019).

 

[Krokodil]

It would be nice to see the comparison broken down. If not by operator then by "Intercity", "London & South East" and "Regional".

 

[Class 317]

But that's the point, we can start using 2025 (including Lizzie) as the new baseline.


That should be better for the railway. It is much easier to have the "right" number of carriages etc if the demand is much less peaky.

Yes it should and at a lower cost. I was trying to make the point that we don't necessarily need 2019 stock levels to deal with 2019 passenger numbers if demand is different.

 

[Snow1964]

That should be better for the railway. It is much easier to have the "right" number of carriages etc if the demand is much less peaky.

Is that true nationally?

Whilst it might be the case on some London commuter routes, personal observation of some commuter trains in Bristol area (especially Tuesday-Thursday) suggests some provincial cities are now very peaky. Not that GWR are able to respond, as some 2car trains are still operating at peak times and getting crush loaded.

 

[Kite159]

And even if they compare raw numbers from 2025 to 2019, they will need to come up with a way to counteract the large rise in split tickets.

Especially on LNER routes due to their fare increases with the removal of the super offpeak fares

 

[Snow1964]

And even if they compare raw numbers from 2025 to 2019, they will need to come up with a way to counteract the large rise in split tickets.

Especially on LNER routes due to their fare increases with the removal of the super offpeak fares

Whilst buying splits as separate transactions is never going to be identifiable, it is relatively easy to use an adjustment based on the ticket transaction ref. (If x sales have 2 parts itinerary, and y sales have 3 part itinerary etc. under same transaction then have approx adjustment number).

Of course if they ever sort the same seat number on split tickets that would also give an approx split ticket quantity that could be used as adjustment too.

 

[John R]

And even if they compare raw numbers from 2025 to 2019, they will need to come up with a way to counteract the large rise in split tickets.

Especially on LNER routes due to their fare increases with the removal of the super offpeak fares

The DfT publishes data using Kms travelled, as well as journeys. Which obviously is not impacted by split ticketing sales.

 

[Snow1964]

The DfT publishes data using Kms travelled, as well as journeys. Which obviously is not impacted by split ticketing sales.

The next quarterly data (covering Jan-March) is due to be published by ORR (not DfT) in 4 weeks (on 12 June)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why? At some point new infrastructure (and a good chunk of Elizabeth line passengers are not "new") just becomes integrated and part of business as usual.

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.

 

[Haywain]

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;

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

Edit: actually 33%.