Post Covid Passenger Rebound

[permarquis]

We should the end the thread now. Exactly what I mean as well, I just can't articulate as well as you can. Brilliant post.

Feels rude not to acknowledge this, so: thanks. Your contribution is just as valuable, though!

Someone who never uses the train might take ill tomorrow and get prescribed a course of medication preventing them from driving. Then they might actually be glad there is a train. Even if they don't take ill they might be glad the railways help reduce congestion on the roads, especially if their evening commute goes near a major football ground.

Well exactly. The presence of a high quality railway service benefits everyone in the area it serves, in all sorts of ways, whether or not they use it regularly. Some of these benefits are harder to quantify in financial terms, but no less real. The spreadsheet myopia never leads to anything but managed decline, which would also hurt the people advocating for it, in the long run.

 

[mmh]

Well exactly. The presence of a high quality railway service benefits everyone in the area it serves, in all sorts of ways, whether or not they use it regularly. Some of these benefits are harder to quantify in financial terms, but no less real. The spreadsheet myopia never leads to anything but managed decline, which would also

Quite. "He knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

 

[A0wen]

Quite. "He knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

I would remind you that running many, heavily loss making lines was what led to the Beeching reforms.

Interestingly the railways now carry more passengers and freight than they did pre Beeching on a much smaller network, which proves the good Doctor had a point when he pointed out the inefficiences of what was there.

Continually sustaining bigger and bigger losses eventually leads to financial collapse - as many private enterprises can demonstrate so taking on more loss making activities is counterproductive.

 

[permarquis]

I would remind you that running many, heavily loss making lines was what led to the Beeching reforms. Interestingly the railways now carry more passengers and freight than they did pre Beeching on a much smaller network, which proves the good Doctor had a point when he pointed out the inefficiences of what was there.

So we're now advocating for those famously popular and well received "reforms", are we? What an incredible forum.

Your argument appears to be that by making the railway smaller, you somehow attract more passengers. We might as well do a reverse pacer and convert it all to bus operation. Local and regional government has spent much of the last 20-30 years trying to reverse the worst excesses of those cuts, to huge expense, but don't let that get in the way.

Continually sustaining bigger and bigger losses eventually leads to financial collapse - as many private enterprises can demonstrate so taking on more loss making activities is counterproductive.

Well that's lucky then, as nobody is arguing for the railway to sustain "bigger and bigger losses" leading to "financial collapse". That would be quite an odd strategy!

 

[A0wen]

So we're now advocating for those famously popular and well received "reforms", are we? What an incredible forum.

Your argument appears to be that by making the railway smaller, you somehow attract more passengers. We might as well do a reverse pacer and convert it all to bus operation. Local and regional government has spent much of the last 20-30 years trying to reverse the worst excesses of those cuts, to huge expense, but don't let that get in the way.

The Beeching reforms led to a viable and sustainable network - whether you like it or not. The fact is that only a tiny proportion of Beeching closures have ever been reversed, particularly where line reopenings are concerned and not all of those have been resounding successes.

Well that's lucky then, as nobody is arguing for the railway to sustain "bigger and bigger losses" leading to "financial collapse". That would be quite an odd strategy!

Except increasing subsidies does just tgat, it's underpinning a loss making service. A loss is a loss however you choose tondress it up, therefore increasing subsidies just expands loss making operations. It's not difficult to understand.

 

[permarquis]

The Beeching reforms led to a viable and sustainable network - whether you like it or not.

It's your use of these "reforms" to justify cuts now that I particularly disagree with. The situation today is completely different, as is usage of the railway, and the "good doctor" (as you put it) didn't precipitate this.

The fact is that only a tiny proportion of Beeching closures have ever been reversed, particularly where line reopenings are concerned and not all of those have been resounding successes.

This isn't a particularly useful datapoint because it is much, much cheaper to close a railway than to open a new one, so of course the number of re-openings are tiny. It would be strange if that wasn't the case. The cost of rebuilding the infrastructure is so large that it's impossible to embark on more than a few big infrastructure projects each decade. There are many potential re-openings with good business cases that will not be built for a very long time, for this very reason.

Except increasing subsidies does just tgat, it's underpinning a loss making service. A loss is a loss however you choose tondress it up, therefore increasing subsidies just expands loss making operations. It's not difficult to understand.

As I and several others keep saying, this is an incredibly short-sighted view for all the reasons we've set out. A loss making service or branch line has many, many societal (and yes, economic) benefits that cannot always be expressed on a spreadsheet, but are no less important. Those kinds of services also play a role in feeding services that do make a profit, and greatly enhance the overall attractiveness of the railway.

There are also many bus services that are loss making. Should those be cut too? If so, how will the people who rely on them travel anywhere, and how do you imagine this might affect local economies?

 

[ar10642]

The Beeching reforms led to a viable and sustainable network - whether you like it or not. The fact is that only a tiny proportion of Beeching closures have ever been reversed, particularly where line reopenings are concerned and not all of those have been resounding successes.



Except increasing subsidies does just tgat, it's underpinning a loss making service. A loss is a loss however you choose tondress it up, therefore increasing subsidies just expands loss making operations. It's not

That assumes the number of passengers is fixed and won't increase as a result of the lower fares.

 

[Annetts key]

Except increasing subsidies does just tgat, it's underpinning a loss making service. A loss is a loss however you choose tondress it up, therefore increasing subsidies just expands loss making operations. It's not difficult to understand.

Actually it depends on how you define it. The devil is in the detail. Lots of government and state services consume money and would never be commercially viable. Some commercial companies have parts of their operations that will never make a profit. And of course money itself (along with capitalism) is a human made artificial construct. Show me a direct equivalent in nature.

At the moment, no one has found anything better than capitalism that has survived, but that does not mean that there is no other system. And I tend to agree with the opinion that money alone does not bring happiness.

Whereas enjoying a day out / trip can bring happiness.

 

[Bald Rick]

Part of the problem here is that absolutely no one knows what the medium or long term post COVID19
environment will look like. There have of course been plenty of people lining up to talk about their predictions. Including those that want the amount of taxes poured into the railways to be reduced (as well as others wanting more than was the case before COVID19 came along).

The railways never saw the increasing demand that occurred some years prior to COVID19 coming. How many predicted that gas, oil and electricity prices would skyrocket? Or that we would have a war in Europe?
All this shows the limitations of our ability to predict the future. There was always a likelihood that demand may slow, stop or even decline.

I personally think that at least six months should pass from the date of the legal restrictions being lifted (in each country/region as appropriate) before then looking at the current passenger numbers and current fare income.

whilst I agree with the principle of what you say, there has been a lot of research about post Covid rail travel intentions, and so far the research has proved to be remarkably accurate. So I think it’s fair to say that whilst nobody can know *for certain* what the medium to long term post Covid environment will look like, the industry does have a pretty good idea.

 

[trebor79]

I've found LNER to be as busy as pre-covid. GA regional a bit quieter but getting busier. GA intercity still much quieter. GWR also seems quieter.
Weirdly it's almost impossible to get an advance fare on the GEML now, whereas before covid they were quite easy to obtain even just a few days before travel.havr the quotas been cut?
And the bar stewards have got rid of the off-peak "to Cuffley not via London" ticket (it's now "via Cambridge") so there isn't even that workaround. Quite horrific having to buy an anytime ticket, glad the company's paying!

 

[Fyldeboy]

We seem to have about 3 different threads running concurrently:

• Are passenger numbers recovering faster than anybody thought
• Has the spread of passengers through the day changed
• Should we change (reduce) fares to encourage ridership

I'll admit the following may sort of repeat other posts because I haven't read every post (ironic - reason being too much repetition)

It seems more people are travelling in traditionally 'off-peak' periods, but if that is when the majority travel, that is by definition the new 'peak'.

Rail pricing has a major part to play in leveling out passenger demand, to reduce overcrowding &/or underused services. Therefore, if a commuter is sticking to the traditional 9-5 commute on trains that are no longer popular, they should not be penalised, we would surely want people to travel on these trains.

So, I would propose:

• Mid-day travel (9-5?) as the new peak at a rate lower than current peak but no advances or similar
• New-off-peak at a similar rate to current off peak and with advances available

Seasons available on both with a range of fixed %ages off the peak / n.o.p fare - eg 10% for short seasons, 20% mid and 33% long durations

The peak might have to vary depending on regions, which would add unwanted complications and there would have to be flexibility for longer journeys where only a small proportion of the journey was in peak - fine tuning is a wonderful thing.

 

[pemma]

It seems more people are travelling in traditionally 'off-peak' periods, but if that is when the majority travel, that is by definition the new 'peak'.

Rail pricing has a major part to play in leveling out passenger demand, to reduce overcrowding &/or underused services. Therefore, if a commuter is sticking to the traditional 9-5 commute on trains that are no longer popular, they should not be penalised, we would surely want people to travel on these trains.

So, I would propose:

• Mid-day travel (9-5?) as the new peak at a rate lower than current peak but no advances or similar
• New-off-peak at a similar rate to current off peak and with advances available

Seasons available on both with a range of fixed %ages off the peak / n.o.p fare - eg 10% for short seasons, 20% mid and 33% long durations

The peak might have to vary depending on regions, which would add unwanted complications and there would have to be flexibility for longer journeys where only a small proportion of the journey was in peak - fine tuning is a wonderful thing.

On Northern I've not seen any evidence that weekday off-peak services are busier than pre-COVID except where the pre-COVID frequency hasn't been reinstated. The peak time trains I've been on are busy but that's due to Northern not reinstating peak time extras, opposed to passenger levels returning to pre-COVID levels.

Saturday usage, on the other hand, now seems to be higher than pre-COVID. Possibly more people working from home has made going somewhere different at the weekend more attractive? I think the solution is:
1. 'Peak time extras' to be introduced on Saturdays. I don't mean at the same time as they run on weekdays but to run extras at the busiest times on Saturdays. So this could mean morning extras between 10:30am and 12:30pm, instead of between 6:30 and 9:30 like on weekdays.
2. Sunday services to be enhanced to Saturday levels. This will make Sunday travel more attractive and reduce the number of people who are travelling on Saturdays just because the Sunday service is rubbish.

In ticketing terms maybe Saturdays need a cheap early bird return ticket to incentivise people to travel early and avoid the busy trains which come later in the morning.

 

[6Gman]

Ask anyone why they don't travel by train - number 1 reason will be it's too expensive.

Is it really the No. 1 reason though?

Isn't convenience at least as important?

 

[gc4946]

My 195s I travelled on today on the Nottinghams between Leeds-Sheffield both ways were full with some standing.
I prefer to travel on a Saturday if there's an event happening on a weekend because Sunday service levels are worse, agree that there should be identical service levels on both days.

 

[ar10642]

Is it really the No. 1 reason though?

Isn't convenience at least as important?

Well it definitely shouldn't cost as much as it does then. People will do something less convenient if it saves them money, but not if it costs more.

 

[RPI]

Is it really the No. 1 reason though?

Isn't convenience at least as important?

Its not so much that its expensive, its perceived as being expensive. I had to go to Digby & Sowton after the Rugby today and I sold a fair chunk of tickets to people going back, nearly everyone was surprised at just how cheap the fares were (admittedly a lot were groupsaves)

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it really the No. 1 reason though?

Isn't convenience at least as important?

the number one reason don’t travel by train is because the train either doesn’t go where they want it to. And that applies to a very significant majority of journeys in this country.

Well it definitely shouldn't cost as much as it does then. People will do something less convenient if it saves them money, but not if it costs more.

but the train can be cheaper than alternatives. If I chose, tomorrow me, Mrs BR could have a day trip from London to Scarborough, with 7 hours by the sea, for £92 with a two together railcard. Even with our reasonably efficient car, it would cost us more than that in diesel and parking. In the car it would be 9hours driving, which, let’s be honest, is not conducive to a relaxing day out.

 

[Llandudno]

the number one reason don’t travel by train is because the train either doesn’t go where they want it to. And that applies to a very significant majority of journeys in this country.




but the train can be cheaper than alternatives. If I chose, tomorrow me, Mrs BR and the two BR kids could have a day trip from London to Scarborough, with 7 hours by the sea, for £92 with a two together railcard. Even with our reasonably efficient car, it would cost us more than that in diesel and parking. In the car it would be 9hours driving, which, let’s be honest, is not conducive to a relaxing day out.

Might not risk travelling to Scarborough via York tomorrow though, hardly any trains running owing to TransPennine industrial action…

 

[Bald Rick]

Might not risk travelling to Scarborough via York tomorrow though, hardly any trains running owing to TransPennine industrial action…

albeit there are trains running York to Scarborough, and they have excellent connections with London at York.

 

[Robertj21a]

The trouble is that everyone can be right if you change locations, dates, time of day, how many travelling etc etc !

My personal views are that:-
- the trains don't usually go where I want to go
- they don't run when I want to travel
- they are often too expensive for one, let alone a family
- nowadays, the trains can be too unreliable

 

[skyhigh]

Northern seem to have a lot of ticket machines at stations with smart card readers, while it's rare to see someone actually using the smart card reader. That must have required a high level of investment.

It cost nothing essentially as it was a standard option on the TVM.

Ticket inspectors also need to be equipped with suitable devices for scanning these. When smart card season tickets were new some conductors didn't bother scanning them claiming it overheated their phones, so possibly thousands of new phones had to be acquired to scan these properly?

Not a single new phone to scan smartcards. Conductors did the best they could with existing smart devices until the replacement ticket machine handsets were ready (and before you claim that's a cost of smartcards, the old handsets were life expired and due for replacement anyway). So pretty much no cost there either.

that may be true (I don’t know),

Doubt it's true based on the last figures I saw.

 

[mmh]

albeit there are trains running York to Scarborough, and they have excellent connections with London at York.

Well, as long as the connections to London are excellent, the railway, or it seems many who work for it seem to be concerned, everything is fine.

 

[geoffk]

No, an empty seat on a train does not cost nothing. Every extra bit of money (assuming it offsets the extra bit of fuel used) either helps reduce the cost of subsidising the service or increases the profit (for a commercial service), even if only by a small fraction.

However, unlike most scheduled flights (*), you can buy a ticket and walk on a train at any station on its route including after it has started it’s journey. And as it is likely that some of the passengers will do this, or some of the passengers are not booking seat reservations, then you can’t sell seat reservations and hence tickets for every seat.

And of course, unless a passenger is buying a ticket for a specific train, most tickets can be used on a number of different trains for the same route(s). So the railway does not know on which train each passenger will actually use…

So it all gets rather complicated rather fast.

(* no doubt someone will have an example where a flight serves multiple airports and hence this is possible)

And of course on the LNER service quoted a seat can be occupied by one London - Edinburgh passenger or by several passengers who board and alight en route. Which option produces more revenue?

 

[yorksrob]

I would remind you that running many, heavily loss making lines was what led to the Beeching reforms.

Interestingly the railways now carry more passengers and freight than they did pre Beeching on a much smaller network, which proves the good Doctor had a point when he pointed out the inefficiences of what was there.

Continually sustaining bigger and bigger losses eventually leads to financial collapse - as many private enterprises can demonstrate so taking on more loss making activities is counterproductive.

No, the fact that so many of today's thriving lines were on the "good Doctor's" list, shows that he was wrong in principle.

The other thing that needs to be realised it's that the National economy is increasingly at risk from foreign shocks (the virus and Russia) being just two.

To guard against this, the domestic economy needs to be more focused on undertaking activities in Britain, rather than buying foreign tat. Part of enabling that is having an effective, well priced transport system that enables citizens to find entertainment in the UK.

 

[Taunton]

Having done a couple of Kings Cross to Leeds business trips in the last couple of weeks, the trains are fundamentally pretty empty. The locals in the North seemed well patronised but the long distance ones far less so.

Our own situation is my office is open Tuesday to Friday, but we currently encourage "one day a fortnight", and when I go there it's a ghost town. We traditionally had a significant number of commercial visitors, who have completely dried up and moved on to Teams video. Notably some who commuted by train on season tickets are now bringing their car - as our car park always has space now, day fares are high, and they need to carry their IT equipment to and fro. Plus no need for a mask. Mrs T's office is doing Mondays and Tuesdays only

 

[plugwash]

The point is a "peak" fare is a "peak" fare for a reason - it's that you are looking to travel at the busiest time on the busiest trains. Funnily enough BR used to charge "peak" fares as well. So it's not some modern construct of the nasty privatised railway. So let's put the tinfoil hats away shall we ?

While true, peak restrictions at least round where I live have got significantly more onerous in the post privitisation era. This was effectively a massive fare rise by stealth on top of the years of above-inflation rises in the nominal fares.

For longer journeys, my reccolection is that saver returns used to only have restrictions on journeys involving london. There are still a few former-saver returns with no time restrictions mostly those set by TFW and Northern but those set by crosscountry and TPE have peak restrictions now.

For local journeys, journeys within GM now have evening peak restrictions. That essentially means a day in manchester on an off peak ticket ends up either really short or really long.

 

[Annetts key]

Which brings up another question. With modern offices / ways of working now including part time, flexible working days, flexible working hours and home working, and occasionally late evening or even night / 24 hours working, how do you now define peak journey times?

If it’s defined as a time period, could that be classed as a form of discrimination?

If it’s defined as when a train is likely to be oversubscribed, it’s not working too well from what I can see.

Or is it really just leverage, a way for the railways to charge more because they can get away with it, as in the past, enough people (or more likely, their company) were willing to pay?

With the reduced number of passengers, should the railways even be trying to price people off the trains (this is after all the purpose of charging more for tickets on peak rate trains)?

Or should we be trying to encourage as many people to travel by train as possible. Especially as the fixed costs (by this I mean the cost that is the same whether one train a day runs or trains run every three minutes) of the railways becomes less, as a proportion per person as more people travel.

As an aid to this, if there was a totally flat rate per mile, with no discounts or peak rates, what would the price be per mile? Does the railway even know?

Similarly, with first class seats where most are empty, again, is it just about the railways taking advantage of people (or more likely, their company) being willing to pay more? I don’t think many standard rate passengers care if they can get a seat in standard class, but when standard class is crowded, and first class is nearly empty, it does make the railways look silly.

I’m not a regular bus or coach user, and the only time I use the tube in London is as part of another journey (via a through ticket). Do bus, coach, tube, metro or tram systems have a peak rate? Do any of them have a separate first class service?

I’m not necessarily saying that the railways should scrap peak tickets or first class, but the railways do need to carefully consider how they do business, and how they charge for their services. One of the major complaints from passengers and potential passengers is how confusing they find the ticket pricing.

The railways are both a public service, a transport system and a kind of business (although I would argue that you can in fact define ANYTHING that involves trading or money as a business which means every single person that gets paid money is a individual business).

 

[Ken H]

Which brings up another question. With modern offices / ways of working now including part time, flexible working days, flexible working hours and home working, and occasionally late evening or even night / 24 hours working, how do you now define peak journey times?

If it’s defined as a time period, could that be classed as a form of discrimination?

If it’s defined as when a train is likely to be oversubscribed, it’s not working too well from what I can see.

Or is it really just leverage, a way for the railways to charge more because they can get away with it, as in the past, enough people (or more likely, their company) were willing to pay?

With the reduced number of passengers, should the railways even be trying to price people off the trains (this is after all the purpose of charging more for tickets on peak rate trains)?

Or should we be trying to encourage as many people to travel by train as possible. Especially as the fixed costs (by this I mean the cost that is the same whether one train a day runs or trains run every three minutes) of the railways becomes less, as a proportion per person as more people travel.

As an aid to this, if there was a totally flat rate per mile, with no discounts or peak rates, what would the price be per mile? Does the railway even know?

Similarly, with first class seats where most are empty, again, is it just about the railways taking advantage of people (or more likely, their company) being willing to pay more? I don’t think many standard rate passengers care if they can get a seat in standard class, but when standard class is crowded, and first class is nearly empty, it does make the railways look silly.

I’m not a regular bus or coach user, and the only time I use the tube in London is as part of another journey (via a through ticket). Do bus, coach, tube, metro or tram systems have a peak rate? Do any of them have a separate first class service?

I’m not necessarily saying that the railways should scrap peak tickets or first class, but the railways do need to carefully consider how they do business, and how they charge for their services. One of the major complaints from passengers and potential passengers is how confusing they find the ticket pricing.

The railways are both a public service, a transport system and a kind of business (although I would argue that you can in fact define ANYTHING that involves trading or money as a business which means every single person that gets paid money is a individual business).

First class is horrendously expensive. I think it was mainly used by people in expenses. Now the business travel market has dried up maybe time to rethink first class. People happily pay a bit extra for a wider seat/more legroom on a plane. Why not a train? But not silly amounts.

 

[JonathanH]

Do bus, coach, tube, metro or tram systems have a peak rate?

London Underground, Metrolink and Midland Metro have peak and off peak fares.

The closest buses tend to come to having them is not allowing returns at peak time but I'm not sure whether any company still does that.

Coaches (eg National Express, Megabus, Flixbus) effectively have all advance pricing now which manages the peak in a different way. Reading Buses Greenline charges different fares for journeys into London either side of midday.

 

[Phil56]

Well, as long as the connections to London are excellent, the railway, or it seems many who work for it seem to be concerned, everything is fine.

Well said. I've just googled the Lancaster (where I live) to Scarborough journey. £142 return with two together card and best I can do is just 2.5 hours in Scarborough using first train there and last train back which is in fact a RR bus! By car it's 3 hours each way, 157 miles, which would use about 2/3 of a tank of fuel for my car which would cost maybe £60 or so plus maybe £5/£10 for parking and I could have 6/7 hours there. No brainer really. Compared to the London journey, it takes longer, costs more and you have less time there but much shorter distance. The railways need to be less London Centric and have a much better "leisure" timetable for Sundays if they're serious about reducing road traffic and increasing rail usage.