Passenger Numbers, Autumn 2022

[yorksrob]

Bus, coach or park & ride, except where passenger volumes are sufficient to support intercity style services without subsidy.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but these are probably the sort of discussions going on in Government.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if they were. However such views need to be challenged, because there are real quality of life disbenefits, not just for displaced rail users.

More devil's advocacy. 'The market will decideA lot of folk might 'benefit' from seeing such things as railways and subsidies through the eyes of the current government.- undesirable as that might be. If there were no railways, would they be in government plans? Subsidies buck the market. If something is worth having, folk will pay for it. Why are these people travelling, whether from here to there at this or that time,or at all. The railways, sorry to say, have no divine right to exist. 'The market will decide' is a powerful driver, and what a lot of folk have voted for.

Why should the non-rail user be required to pay for me to travel?
Might not 'no travel' be greener and cheaper than roads, rails, runways etc?
Too much traffic; too much pollution? EVs. ULEZs. Congestion charging,Barriers, clamps, fines- all ways of 'encouraging' modal shift short of 'subidies' (almost as unpopular a word as 'benefits' or taxes). .

Reality checks coming ...

These arguments have all been heard before, but if people aren't moving around, they're generally spending less which is bad for the economy.

Why should the non-rail user subsidise my railway journey ? - so I'm not on the road clogging up his traffic flow.

Arguably obsession with markets is one of the reasons that this country is in such a mess right now. All we have to do is look over the water and see how other countries do it, but no, we're too busy playing markets with everything.

Putting the fares down relies on someone taking a risk. But in the cases where the trains were full and there was still a subsidy then it is mathematically impossible to increase volume and reduce revenue without even greater subsidy.

Might be a lot of coaches but is that really a bar ?.

I think coach very much does compete with rail. Maybe only on journeys over 60 minutes. I will suggest any inter urban journey.


That is the way I fear things could be heading. Towards a set of routes that would leave the results of Beeching looking like the fortunate result some would argue it was. Road has not got any less competitive since Dr Beeching looked at the railways.

Thinking of routes like Ashford to Hastings. Surely a more frequent bus service would be attractive. Then something of a longer distance for a coach service - maybe Settle to Carlisle or Salisbury to Exeter. In these cases I imagine the roads are not too good but that then tells us how many people probably travel those routes regardless of mode.

I get your point that lower fares could be problematic with some busy routes, but that comes down to some of the structural issues which make it so difficult/expensive to run longer trains in most of the country. The leasing cost model for rolling stock which dis-incentivises running longer trains, the cost of things such as platform extensions, the increased cost of electrifying routes because someone increased the OLE clearance to fit in with other countries etc. These are the costs that the industry needs to be bearing down on.

As for coaches, they're fine on the motorway (assuming no jams) but what about the slow crawl into the city, through every set of traffic lights. And if you're replicating train services, how will you accommodate them all on the roads ? Where are they all going to park (they won't all fit in Victoria coach station, that's for sure) ? Are we going to have separate route and terminal infrastructure ? By the time we get to this point you might as well keep the railway.

Your final conclusions are strange. The roads on some rural routes are not so good - but then that tells us that not so many people travel that way ? I dread to think how long Salisbury to Exeter would take on a bus/coach.

 

[43066]

As for coaches, they're fine on the motorway (assuming no jams) but what about the slow crawl into the city, through every set of traffic lights.

Coaches and buses are awful in every situation and are only used by those who have no choice. Railway passengers will remain a prime concern in terms of economic growth and voting intentions.

Wasn't one of the main reasons for Brexit the desire by certain individuals to escape scrutiny of their tax affairs by the EU?

(Replying here to the addition to your post since my last response)

No. It absolutely wasn’t*. Which individuals do you mean? Please can you name them?

*I rather doubt it based on the fact the EU doesn’t have any authority to tax individuals or corporations. The above statement sounds rather like a conspiracy theory propagated by a remainers who clearly know very little about the organisation they wanted this country to continue to belong to!

 

[Starmill]

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone should get a car and be done with it ?

I don't think any serious person is actually arguing for this outcome. It's just that the poor quality and high price of the alternatives service means it's the only option on the table for many people.

 

[Dai Corner]

Funds being “out of reach of tax authorities” doesn’t necessarily mean anything untoward has happened. Do you have an ISA? If so you’re just another evil avoider of tax as far as Oxfam are concerned. Something to consider .

Even more so pension funds, especially those who get tax relief on contributions at 40% but only pay tax on their pensions at 20%.

 

[yorksrob]

Coaches and buses are awful in every situation and are only used by those who have no choice. Railway passengers will remain a prime concern in terms of economic growth and voting intentions.

They're generally not my first choice, although buses can be handy for short hops.

 

[43066]

Ironically, they do not now have zero commercial risk: only got to look at the 350/2s and 379s to see that.

Let’s not let a side show, a mere bump in the road, dissuade us from the overall point. They’ve been been shooting fish in a barrel for years.

In many ways, this is part of what the ROSCOs were set up to do: take on the risk of trains not being needed or replaced.

But the fact is they have benefited from the current market arrangements for years and that has cost the tax payer a *lot* of money. Come on, if you can acknowledge that, maybe I’ll start to view your posts as having some credibility…

I'd be willing to bet that a sizeable number of those now throwing up their hands in horror at modern trains not being used are some of the same people who used to complain about the ROSCOs not having any risks.

Who cares what people who like modern plastic trains think .

Even more so pension funds, especially those who get tax relief on contributions at 40% but only pay tax on their pensions at 20%.

I could talk for a long, long time about tax, but I’d bore everyone to death, starting with myself. So best not to go there. Let’s stick to trains!

They're generally not my first choice, although buses can be handy for short hops.

I generally end up thinking “I could have walked that journey quicker”…

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think any serious person is actually arguing for this outcome. It's just that the poor quality and high price of the alternatives service means it's the only option on the table for many people.

I was just running with the argument, but I think the congestion one is something that those who argue against subsidising railways on the basis that they don't use them very much, often forget.

 

[Dai Corner]

I was just running with the argument, but I think the congestion one is something that those who argue against subsidising railways on the basis that they don't use them very much, often forget.

Do railways make much difference to road congestion, other than in large urban areas, or around park & ride stations?

could talk for a long, long time about tax, but I’d bore everyone to death, starting with myself. So best not to go there. Let’s stick to trains!

It's relevant in that a large proportion of the railway's costs are met by the taxpayer.

 

[yorksrob]

Do railways make much difference to road congestion, other than in large urban areas, or around park & ride stations?

Put it this way, the sleepy Exeter - Salisbury line quoted a few posts away often gets six carriage trains. That's twelve coaches/buses off the local roads every hour or however many cars. That seems like a good thing for local residents and motorists to me.

 

[43066]

It's relevant in that a large proportion of the railway's costs are met by the taxpayer.

True. But upthread we were discussing how it’s collected, rather than how it’s spent…

 

[Dai Corner]

Put it this way, the sleepy Exeter - Salisbury line quoted a few posts away often gets six carriage trains. That's twelve coaches/buses off the local roads every hour or however many cars. That seems like a good thing for local residents and motorists to me.

Assuming they're full. Would they notice an extra bus every five minutes? They might even welcome such a frequent service and leave their cars at home.

 

[Bald Rick]

What routes are currently profitable.

That depends on your definition of ‘profitable’. If it is in the classic sense of income being greater than all costs, including the amortised full cost of assets, then basically it’s what is open on Saturday, plus or minus a few lines. (See the map on the Network Rail website)

Coaches and buses are awful in every situation and are only used by those who have no choice.

Whilst I agree that coaches and buses are more ‘awful’ than trains, it’s not true that they are worse in every situation, not that they are only used by those who have no choice. In the latter case, see how many people use the coach from Fort William to Glasgow compared to the train. The coach is quicker, cheaper, and more frequent.

Put it this way, the sleepy Exeter - Salisbury line quoted a few posts away often gets six carriage trains. That's twelve coaches/buses off the local roads every hour or however many cars.

Only if those trains are consistently full.

Where have you shown my earlier assertions to be wrong ?

When you said

But proportion of subsidy compared to revenue was historically low and still is.

and I showed that it wasn’t.

Isn't it the case that in 2019, we were still towards the 2/3 farepayer, 1/3 taxpayer ratio…

and I showed that it wasn’t.

If it's been shifting towards the fare payer since Hatfield, they should let it shift back a couple of years whilst the network recovers.

and I showed that it had already shift back a couple of years before Covid

So for a nationwide service that around half the population will make use of at some stage, the rail budget is by no means a bloater.

and I showed that compared to other nationwide critical services, it absolutely is a ‘bloater’.

 

[Starmill]

Only if those trains are consistently full.

And if the people on them would otherwise drive, rather than using the other route from London to Exeter.

 

[Bald Rick]

And if the people on them would otherwise drive, rather than using the other route from London to Exeter.

or not travel at all (which would be a shame).

 

[43066]

Whilst I agree that coaches and buses are more ‘awful’ than trains, it’s not true that they are worse in every situation, not that they are only used by those who have no choice. In the latter case, see how many people use the coach from Fort William to Glasgow compared to the train. The coach is quicker, cheaper, and more frequent.

That perhaps sounded a little more snobbish than I intended it to. I think my point stands, though. Buses are a pretty awful, slow and tedious method of transport. I live in an area where buses are very regular (every few minutes) and I do all I can to avoid them.

and I showed that compared to other nationwide critical services, it absolutely is a ‘bloater’.

Really? How does it compare to health and social care and defence?

How does the government’s net railway budget (£15bn ish?) compare with the amount that was spent on Covid, furlough, etc.

I’d suggest it’s a (relative) spit in the ocean…

 

[Horizon22]

I don't think any serious person is actually arguing for this outcome. It's just that the poor quality and high price of the alternatives service means it's the only option on the table for many people.

Perhaps if you already have one. But the cost of getting a car and then its general maintenance and fuel is a high initial cost if you didn't have one previously.

Demand bouncing back will definitely be uneven and I'm sure car usage and cost will be part of it; half of Londoners reportedly don't have a car and has an extensive suburban network, and simpler (or at least, easier to use) fares structure so its natural that demand has been more robust.

How does the government’s net railway budget (£15bn ish?) compare with the amount that was spent on Covid, furlough, etc.

I’d suggest it’s a (relative) spit in the ocean…

As much as I would love to see improvements in rail funding and new infrastructure projects, comparing it to universal healthcare and a global health emergency is a bit unrealistic.

The Treasury will look at everything as a whole.

 

[yorksrob]

Only if those trains are consistently full.


When you said



and I showed that it wasn’t.



and I showed that it wasn’t.

Er no, not until you provide a quotation you didn't.

and I showed that it had already shift back a couple of years before Covid

Well, the Hatfield crash was in 2000 while Covid happened in 2020, so that's 18 years to shift I expect that the subsidy profile differed over that time.

and I showed that compared to other nationwide critical services, it absolutely is a ‘bloater’.

You gave an opinion that because the quoted much more expensive services are universal, we should ignore the fact that they cost several orders of magnitude more than the railway. You also implied that because the government believes that the railway budget is bloated, it follows that we all should think so.

That is not showing anything.

Really? How does it compare to health and social care and defence?

How does the government’s net railway budget (£15bn ish?) compare with the amount that was spent on Covid, furlough, etc.

I’d suggest it’s a (relative) spit in the ocean…

I'd go so far as to say that the railway budget is a reasonable amount to spend on the railway. It should be better spent on the railway though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Really? How does it compare to health and social care and defence?

How does the government’s net railway budget (£15bn ish?) compare with the amount that was spent on Covid, furlough, etc.

I’d suggest it’s a (relative) spit in the ocean…

It’s not about absolute costs, but about value. We need to be honest - the railways are used by, very broadly, two groups of people:

1) people travelling to and from work / eduction on a frequent, regular basis (not necessarily every day)
2) people travelling for ‘leisure’ purposes, generally infrequently.

The former group is a low single digit proportion of the population, but generates about half the use of the railway.
The latter group is about half the population.

The point being that about half the population never use the train, and most of the other half use it infrequently. it follows that all taxpayers are paying for something that the vast majority of the population use infrequently or never.

Now you could say the same about various other areas of Government spending, but equally there are various critical elements of our social infrastructure that receive no Government help at all. Telecoms, energy distribution and supermarkets to name but three.

I being deliberately awkward here I know, but it is to show that the railway is expensive - especially when compared to alternatives that in many cases are better for passengers and society - and in the current climate there are going to be some very difficult choices to make.

I’ll be honest - I’m bloody scared about the future of the industry. Seriously, properly, losing sleep every night this week scared.

It should be better spent on the railway though.

Now that we can agree on.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s not about absolute costs, but about value. We need to be honest - the railways are used by, very broadly, two groups of people:

1) people travelling to and from work / eduction on a frequent, regular basis (not necessarily every day)
2) people travelling for ‘leisure’ purposes, generally infrequently.

The former group is a low single digit proportion of the population, but generates about half the use of the railway.
The latter group is about half the population.

The point being that about half the population never use the train, and most of the other half use it infrequently. it follows that all taxpayers are paying for something that the vast majority of the population use infrequently or never.

Now you could say the same about various other areas of Government spending, but equally there are various critical elements of our social infrastructure that receive no Government help at all. Telecoms, energy distribution and supermarkets to name but three.

I being deliberately awkward here I know, but it is to show that the railway is expensive - especially when compared to alternatives that in many cases are better for passengers and society - and in the current climate there are going to be some very difficult choices to make.

I’ll be honest - I’m bloody scared about the future of the industry. Seriously, properly, losing sleep every night this week scared.

But the universal services you quote cost several times more than the railway, so the fact that something that is used by fifty percent of the population costs such a small proportion of those other services, makes it good value.

What are these better alternatives to rail ? I've not seen them.

And if the people on them would otherwise drive, rather than using the other route from London to Exeter.

That assumes there's room on the trains on the other route !

 

[philosopher]

It’s not about absolute costs, but about value. We need to be honest - the railways are used by, very broadly, two groups of people:

1) people travelling to and from work / eduction on a frequent, regular basis (not necessarily every day)
2) people travelling for ‘leisure’ purposes, generally infrequently.

The former group is a low single digit proportion of the population, but generates about half the use of the railway.
The latter group is about half the population.

The point being that about half the population never use the train, and most of the other half use it infrequently. it follows that all taxpayers are paying for something that the vast majority of the population use infrequently or never.

In this case, the railway should be trying to attract the half of the population, which is about 35 million people who do not use the railway to use the railway, even if it is only very occasionally. If that half were to make just four return trips a year by rail, then you would get an extra 280 million trips on the railway, which would bring passenger number close to pre Covid levels. I assume most of that half do not live that far from a railway station.

 

[Dai Corner]

What are these better alternatives to rail ? I've not seen them.

Road transport, except where passenger volumes justify a second transport infrastructure.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if they were. However such views need to be challenged, because there are real quality of life disbenefits, not just for displaced rail users.


These arguments have all been heard before, but if people aren't moving around, they're generally spending less which is bad for the economy.

Why should the non-rail user subsidise my railway journey ? - so I'm not on the road clogging up his traffic flow.

Arguably obsession with markets is one of the reasons that this country is in such a mess right now. All we have to do is look over the water and see how other countries do it, but no, we're too busy playing markets with everything.



I get your point that lower fares could be problematic with some busy routes, but that comes down to some of the structural issues which make it so difficult/expensive to run longer trains in most of the country. The leasing cost model for rolling stock which dis-incentivises running longer trains, the cost of things such as platform extensions, the increased cost of electrifying routes because someone increased the OLE clearance to fit in with other countries etc. These are the costs that the industry needs to be bearing down on.

As for coaches, they're fine on the motorway (assuming no jams) but what about the slow crawl into the city, through every set of traffic lights. And if you're replicating train services, how will you accommodate them all on the roads ? Where are they all going to park (they won't all fit in Victoria coach station, that's for sure) ? Are we going to have separate route and terminal infrastructure ? By the time we get to this point you might as well keep the railway.

Your final conclusions are strange. The roads on some rural routes are not so good - but then that tells us that not so many people travel that way ? I dread to think how long Salisbury to Exeter would take on a bus/coach.

My bold

I don't see how the leasing model affects the length of trains. Although I will say I always thought it dumb to lease something you use so much. I would not lease a car (but then I run old cars).

The coach I use does go all the way to London Victoria. It is not a slow crawl (especially when you are not driving !).

As for where to keep the coaches they are promptly turned round and sent back on their return working to the non-London end where they are fuelled and watered. I know this because, just like trains, my journey can suffer delay departing because it is awaiting the coach on its incoming journey.

My point is that if a route has poor roads then it is probably because there is not DEMAND for journeys on any mode along that corridor. Obvious exception would be the roads paralleling the Channel Tunnel !.

Coaches and buses are awful in every situation and are only used by those who have no choice. Railway passengers will remain a prime concern in terms of economic growth and voting intentions.



(Replying here to the addition to your post since my last response)

No. It absolutely wasn’t*. Which individuals do you mean? Please can you name them?

*I rather doubt it based on the fact the EU doesn’t have any authority to tax individuals or corporations. The above statement sounds rather like a conspiracy theory propagated by a remainers who clearly know very little about the organisation they wanted this country to continue to belong to!

My bold. Afraid this is untrue. I have a choice on how I go to Cardiff. I can drive (and I do if I have a lot of luggage), I can go by train (I would love to) but I choose not to pay so much. The coach is cheapest and not too inferior.

Put it this way, the sleepy Exeter - Salisbury line quoted a few posts away often gets six carriage trains. That's twelve coaches/buses off the local roads every hour or however many cars. That seems like a good thing for local residents and motorists to me.

Would the local residents be prepared to pay for the Exeter - Salisbury line to be kept open ?. Also six road coaches per hour each way is not that much. Then how about running one coach every ten minutes, that would be a very attractive frequency. I am not saying the economics are that simple but there is a real point that costs need to be controlled.

It’s not about absolute costs, but about value. We need to be honest - the railways are used by, very broadly, two groups of people:

1) people travelling to and from work / eduction on a frequent, regular basis (not necessarily every day)
2) people travelling for ‘leisure’ purposes, generally infrequently.

The former group is a low single digit proportion of the population, but generates about half the use of the railway.
The latter group is about half the population.

The point being that about half the population never use the train, and most of the other half use it infrequently. it follows that all taxpayers are paying for something that the vast majority of the population use infrequently or never.

Now you could say the same about various other areas of Government spending, but equally there are various critical elements of our social infrastructure that receive no Government help at all. Telecoms, energy distribution and supermarkets to name but three.

I being deliberately awkward here I know, but it is to show that the railway is expensive - especially when compared to alternatives that in many cases are better for passengers and society - and in the current climate there are going to be some very difficult choices to make.

I’ll be honest - I’m bloody scared about the future of the industry. Seriously, properly, losing sleep every night this week scared.



Now that we can agree on.

My bold. I too am scared for the railways.

 

[43066]

As much as I would love to see improvements in rail funding and new infrastructure projects, comparing it to universal healthcare and a global health emergency is a bit unrealistic.

I couldn’t care less about improvements in funding and infrastructure. I’d like a pay rise, though!

It’s not about absolute costs, but about value. We need to be honest - the railways are used by, very broadly, two groups of people:

1) people travelling to and from work / eduction on a frequent, regular basis (not necessarily every day)
2) people travelling for ‘leisure’ purposes, generally infrequently.

The former group is a low single digit proportion of the population, but generates about half the use of the railway.
The latter group is about half the population.

I think you are in danger once again of allowing a value judgement to cloud your comments.

The point being that about half the population never use the train, and most of the other half use it infrequently. it follows that all taxpayers are paying for something that the vast majority of the population use infrequently or never.

Does that really matter, though? If we’re being truly honest, half the population of this country can barely feed themselves, and probably couldn’t read a few words off a page if it was presented to them... Who cares what they think.

The economically relevant people use trains.

Now you could say the same about various other areas of Government spending, but equally there are various critical elements of our social infrastructure that receive no Government help at all. Telecoms, energy distribution and supermarkets to name but three.

This is where you’re straying into value judgement. Growth, growth, growth, as we’ve been assured!

I being deliberately awkward here I know, but it is to show that the railway is expensive - especially when compared to alternatives that in many cases are better for passengers and society - and in the current climate there are going to be some very difficult choices to make.

As Thatcherites, we remember, there’s no such thing as society…

I’ll be honest - I’m bloody scared about the future of the industry. Seriously, properly, losing sleep every night this week scared.

Really? Sorry to hear that. I’m not scared at all. I’m resigned to it and amused by it…

Enjoy it while it lasts. The secret to surviving in this industry is laughing at it, and laughing at yourself…

 

[yorksrob]

Road transport, except where passenger volumes justify a second transport infrastructure.

I'd disagree with that. Many people can do without the hassle and expense of running a car.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In this case, the railway should be trying to attract the half of the population, which is about 35 million people who do not use the railway to use the railway, even if it is only very occasionally. If that half were to make just four return trips a year by rail, then you would get an extra 280 million trips on the railway, which would bring passenger number close to pre Covid levels. I assume most of that half do not live that far from a railway station.

Thats a lot of potential. But I think we have to factor in how many of those passengers would be travelling together in a car - public transport will struggle to compete there.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'd disagree with that. Many people can do without the hassle and expense of running a car.

Why should the taxpayer subsidise their rail journeys when they could take commercially operated alternatives?

 

[yorksrob]

My bold

I don't see how the leasing model affects the length of trains. Although I will say I always thought it dumb to lease something you use so much. I would not lease a car (but then I run old cars).

The coach I use does go all the way to London Victoria. It is not a slow crawl (especially when you are not driving !).

As for where to keep the coaches they are promptly turned round and sent back on their return working to the non-London end where they are fuelled and watered. I know this because, just like trains, my journey can suffer delay departing because it is awaiting the coach on its incoming journey.

My point is that if a route has poor roads then it is probably because there is not DEMAND for journeys on any mode along that corridor. Obvious exception would be the roads paralleling the Channel Tunnel !.

If you're paying a lease on every carriage, it's a very strong incentive not to send out as many.

There's only one coach station in London as opposed to 10+ railway terminals, so there would need to be a lot of terminal space for coaches to accommodate all the ex-rail passengers.

Your point about demand is not true in this country. There is very heavy demand to St Ives in Cornwall for example, but poor roads. It's a product of being a fairly crowded, quite old country.

Why should the taxpayer subsidise their rail journeys when they could take commercially operated alternatives?

Setting aside the fact that "they" are taxpayers as well, to keep them off the roads and out the way of those driving taxpayers cars of course.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If you're paying a lease on every carriage, it's a very strong incentive not to send out as many.

There's only one coach station in London as opposed to 10+ railway terminals, so there would need to be a lot of terminal space for coaches to accommodate all the ex-rail passengers.

Your point about demand is not true in this country. There is very heavy demand to St Ives in Cornwall for example, but poor roads. It's a product of being a fairly crowded, quite old country.



Setting aside the fact that "they" are taxpayers as well, to keep them off the roads and out the way of those driving taxpayers cars of course.

I am not saying all rail lines would close. But I am saying we cannot expect the state to prop up rail routes that require too much subsidy. So a lot of the services into London are commuter services - I would hope they are not financial basket cases.

 

[yorksrob]

It would be nice to get the other 50% on the train sometimes, however I think that we have to be realistic that some people will have less use for railways, just as some will have less use for libraries and others will have less use for social care.

 

[Dai Corner]

Setting aside the fact that "they" are taxpayers as well, to keep them off the roads and out the way of those driving taxpayers cars of course.

Perhaps the money saved could be used to upgrade any roads that become unacceptably congested?