passenger growth continues

[WatcherZero]

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?

no mention of that in the report or methodology?

 

[squizzler]

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.

Not to mention disruption whilst all this is done. That's why turnkey replacement trunk lines such as HS2 and NPR which include the long platforms (and possibly double deck clearances) are the way forward.

 

[js1000]

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.

I would caveat Northern's figures:

- Naturally, in Q3 last year Northern passengers abandoned the franchise. Many gradually returned once the timetable was stabilised somewhat (it's still not right though) and the increase in figures is simply returning that
- Industrial disputes led to many strikes last year which hit passenger numbers
- Engineering work was disproportionate - Liverpool Lime Street was closed last summer for 10 days IIRC
- From my experience, the new trains have created a minor uplift in passengers on certain routes. On 1 July, the first 195 service, 07:48 from Wilmslow to Manchester Piccadilly was fairly quiet. I have noticed the service getting progressively busier and capacity is being filled. The benefit of the 195 is some services can now effectively compete with Virgin and TfW with new rolling stock.

On a positive now, continued and sustained growth for Northern will generate conversation as whether they should add carriages to some 195s or additional units altogether in the coming few years. I want it to work - the 195/331 and removal of the Pacers was a bold move but one which would pay back in the long term, result in more passengers and a reduction in the subsidy.

 

[Taunton]

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.

I'll amplify this by saying it's nowadays near-impossible to do any meaningful work in the train. I do a lot of long distance business trips, and 21st Century work, for example writing up the meeting etc while travelling home, involves a sensible laptop computer plus having your notes etc to hand. And businesses have pretty much given up first class travel after the hoo-hah about MPs a few years ago. I used to be able to do this in traditional seating bays with tables, now with bus-style seating, which is forever squeezed up with each refurbishment of stock to get ever more seats in, it's impossible. Goodness, I can hardly get the screen open enough to see it, let alone have the keyboard in a position to type. Minimalist stock formations means you generally have someone sat next to you as well, where even getting your ticket out for inspection is a challenge.

So if HS2 costings are based on people productively working in the train, it's a fiction.

 

[squizzler]

So if HS2 costings are based on people productively working in the train, it's a fiction.

I think you will find that "train time is productive time" was actually deployed against HS2 to devalue the benefits of shorter journeys.

 

[WatcherZero]

I would caveat Northern's figures:

- Naturally, in Q3 last year Northern passengers abandoned the franchise. Many gradually returned once the timetable was stabilised somewhat (it's still not right though) and the increase in figures is simply returning that
- Industrial disputes led to many strikes last year which hit passenger numbers
- Engineering work was disproportionate - Liverpool Lime Street was closed last summer for 10 days IIRC
- From my experience, the new trains have created a minor uplift in passengers on certain routes. On 1 July, the first 195 service, 07:48 from Wilmslow to Manchester Piccadilly was fairly quiet. I have noticed the service getting progressively busier and capacity is being filled. The benefit of the 195 is some services can now effectively compete with Virgin and TfW with new rolling stock.

On a positive now, continued and sustained growth for Northern will generate conversation as whether they should add carriages to some 195s or additional units altogether in the coming few years. I want it to work - the 195/331 and removal of the Pacers was a bold move but one which would pay back in the long term, result in more passengers and a reduction in the subsidy.

This is Q2 (July-Sept) not Q3, even if you average the two years its still growth of 6% a year, three times the growth of London and South East and twice that of Long Distance.

 

[ScotGG]

no mention of that in the report or methodology?

Found it.

"There was a 2.1% growth in passenger journeys in the London and South East sector in 2019-20 Q2 compared with the previous year. This is lower than the 3.1% growth rate in 2018-19 Q2. This can be explained by around 6.5 million journeys relating to travel on TfL freedom passes and travel by the police being included in the 2019-20 Q1 estimate, which were included at Q2 in 2018-193. This change contributed to the 2019-20 Q1 growth rate and suppressed the passenger journeys increase in 2019-20 Q2."

In that context 2.1% London growth seems pretty good.

 

[jayah]

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.

If this is true just raise the fares for business travel and HS2 will have a financial case. No BCR required.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ahh I see, they brought forward 6.5m Disabled and Police journeys from Q2 to Q1.
The effect of that would have been to depress the Q2 year on year growth from 3.9% to 2.1% and to boost the Q1 figure from 0.7% to 3.0%.

There isn't any change in the number of passengers, just the quarter that the journeys are allocated too.

 

[The Ham]

I'll amplify this by saying it's nowadays near-impossible to do any meaningful work in the train. I do a lot of long distance business trips, and 21st Century work, for example writing up the meeting etc while travelling home, involves a sensible laptop computer plus having your notes etc to hand. And businesses have pretty much given up first class travel after the hoo-hah about MPs a few years ago. I used to be able to do this in traditional seating bays with tables, now with bus-style seating, which is forever squeezed up with each refurbishment of stock to get ever more seats in, it's impossible. Goodness, I can hardly get the screen open enough to see it, let alone have the keyboard in a position to type. Minimalist stock formations means you generally have someone sat next to you as well, where even getting your ticket out for inspection is a challenge.

So if HS2 costings are based on people productively working in the train, it's a fiction.

I think you may have for the wrong end of what I was saying, whilst it's possible to work on trains and so business travel isn't time lost (with the cost associated with that to the companies whose staff are traveling) it's not ideal and as you've highlighted can be rather difficult if not impossible.

As such the coast to your company is that you need other time to write up those meeting notes, which is time during which you could be doing chargeable work.

Depending on your charge out rate set by your company then this is easily within the £45 to £120 for fairly "normal" staff. As I highlighted a graduate would, at least in the engineering industry is around the £45/hour mark. Whilst someone in charge of a team of 6 people could be around the £100/hour mark.

That's before you look at the directors who will be significantly more than this.

If you can reduce your travel time by using a train which takes 3 hours for the round trip rather than 5 hours then that's potentially 2 more hours in the office.

Even if that's not all extra time in the office (for instance you get to leave home later) there's still going to be a benefit to the company as their member of staff is going to be better rested and so will likely be better at their job (or at least less likely to make mistakes).

 

[The Ham]

If this is true just raise the fares for business travel and HS2 will have a financial case. No BCR required.

All that would do is make people opt to drive or fly.

If we take London to Birmingham is about an hour faster by train for Euston to New Street travel, so if that's what you're doing then it's a no brainer to do so, even at £106 return (which is the same as 118 miles each way at £0.45/mile).

However if it's travel between Croydon and Jewelry Quarter then the journey time is the same and so the ticket price starts to get more sensitive, as does the frequency of services at each change point.

However if the to is between Guildford and Jewelry Quarter then because the train takes longer (about 15 to 30 minutes longer each way) than driving; then the ticket price will need to be quite a bit cheaper than the £122 to encourage rail travel over going by car.

Given that you can't give people their own ticket price, so that longer and slower journeys are cheaper than shorter quicker journeys (especially if the longer route uses the shorter route), then how do you set prices so that you get the most income?

Chances are you set them cheap if you book in advance and then increase the cost the less notice there is for travel and the busier the service is.

Now whilst some business will get some good deals there's going to be a lot which need to book last minute or even just buy a ticket having just been told to go.

Overall it broadly balances out. However if the tickets are too high few will use the service.