UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[43066]

I suppose on those questions, how much lower can some regional services get? Lower than 1tph on moderate regional routes it’s not much use at all - and probably just inconvenient entirely - and also at this point has a social benefit to connect communities.

Of course there may well be an agenda to make the service unusable to further reduce passenger numbers in order to justify yet more cuts. Certain posters on here would likely favour that approach!

 

[Bald Rick]

Where are the reduced passengers on LNER, where there are constant threats to withdraw fleets without replacement ? Clearly there is no justification for reductions in services/capacity here.

Well they are currently below Pre covid, even with significantly more capacity than Pre Covid. However the only fleet threatened for withdrawal wasn’t planned to be in service now anyway. Personally I can’t see any reduced frequency on the main LNER routes, as they make plenty of money.

And what about regional services, where the social justification is stronger than ever - and where pre-covid they were under-resourced with too few, too short to begin with anyway.

But that doesn’t answer the question. The question is, if regional services are running at two thirds of passenger numbers, should there be reductions there too? Given that is what has happened on many routes in the south east, where the social justification is presumably the same. (and not just on peak commuter services, far from it).


Im not advocating this by the way, I’m asking the question simply to generate debate. As it’s a flipping hard question to deal with, as the Secretary of State is finding out, no doubt!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Of course there may well be an agenda to make the service unusable to further reduce passenger numbers in order to justify yet more cuts. Certain posters on here would likely favour that approach!

Each operator is being tasked AIUI to offer up solutions to reduce operating costs but this isn't materially reducing the overall costs of running the industry. For CP7 NR need to be challenged to take up the burden from the operators and ORR need to be given a clear steer by DfT what they want from each route so NR's remit isn't set for the pre covid railway. Currently we are in danger of entering a spiral of decline on some routes with cuts resulting in reductions in passengers and thus risking further lowering of percentage of operating costs being covered causing the need for more cuts.

 

[Trainbike46]

That actually is an important point:

I don't think services with frequencies of half-hourly or worse should be reduced, even if passenger numbers are down.

Taking out peak extras that stretch infrastructure capabilities to the maximum, on the other extreme, is probably a sensible idea.

I also think there is a need to look at why passenger numbers are down for specific routes and stations. Is it WFH, a school closing, people having got cars because of perceived or actual unreliability of the railway, etc.

Similarly, where are opportunities to increase passenger numbers on specific routes/areas/lines?

I'm sure there is people whose job is answering these exact questions. But for it to be useful, that also requires TOCs being allowed to act on what they find.

 

[Bald Rick]

Each operator is being tasked AIUI to offer up solutions to reduce operating costs but this isn't materially reducing the overall costs of running the industry.

It is material.

For CP7 NR need to be challenged to take up the burden from the operators

You’ve said this before and I’ll answer the same - it has. Management (outside the front line) reduced by 20%. Maintenance modernisation being implemented. Total headcount down significantly.

After that it’s in to renewal and enhancement budgets, and you better than anyone know what that means.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well they are currently below Pre covid, even with significantly more capacity than Pre Covid. However the only fleet threatened for withdrawal wasn’t planned to be in service now anyway. Personally I can’t see any reduced frequency on the main LNER routes, as they make plenty of money.

below pre-covid on passenger numbers, passenger kms or revenue?

But that doesn’t answer the question. The question is, if regional services are running at two thirds of passenger numbers, should there be reductions there too? Given that is what has happened on many routes in the south east, where the social justification is presumably the same. (and not just on peak commuter services, far from it).


Im not advocating this by the way, I’m asking the question simply to generate debate. As it’s a flipping hard question to deal with, as the Secretary of State is finding out, no doubt!

Well, to me that would depend on the frequency of the routes in question, regardless of where they are

If halfhourly or worse, don't reduce the frequency.
If possile, deliver savings by reducing train lengths rather than removing services

I do think the government should accept that subsidies are larger, because there should be a period without significant disruption to tempt passengers back, and the various issues over the last year (avanti, TPE, strikes, etc.) have prevented the last year being that period

 

[yorksrob]

Well they are currently below Pre covid, even with significantly more capacity than Pre Covid. However the only fleet threatened for withdrawal wasn’t planned to be in service now anyway. Personally I can’t see any reduced frequency on the main LNER routes, as they make plenty of money.



But that doesn’t answer the question. The question is, if regional services are running at two thirds of passenger numbers, should there be reductions there too? Given that is what has happened on many routes in the south east, where the social justification is presumably the same. (and not just on peak commuter services, far from it).


Im not advocating this by the way, I’m asking the question simply to generate debate. As it’s a flipping hard question to deal with, as the Secretary of State is finding out, no doubt!

Every article I've seen on LNER says that they're busier than pre-covid.

I never asked your question regarding regional services, however as regional services were under-resourced pre-covid anyway, No, they should not be cut.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Well, the problem is that Government are not accepting increases in subsidy and equally the DfT haven’t yet worked out just what passengers they are pitching for and at what general fare level.

So, the DfT (TOC) railway is currently making a thumping loss on it’s budget and being forced to cut its cloth accordingly. If higher value passengers come back strongly, we may escape some of what is proposed for later this year/next year.

The Treasury seems to have lost patience with the DfT. Just where are all those extra high value punters who were going to flock in to pay for those very expensive IEP sets? Nowhere to be seen. No wonder they are switching off the investment taps and wanting to cancel existing schemes.

Poor decisions have crippled this industry at just the wrong time.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, the problem is that Government are not accepting increases in subsidy and equally the DfT haven’t yet worked out just what passengers they are pitching for and at what general fare level.

So, the DfT (TOC) railway is currently making a thumping loss on it’s budget and being forced to cut its cloth accordingly. If higher value passengers come back strongly, we may escape some of what is proposed for later this year/next year.

The Treasury seems to have lost patience with the DfT. Just where are all those extra high value punters who were going to flock in to pay for those very expensive IEP sets? Nowhere to be seen. No wonder they are switching off the investment taps and wanting to cancel existing schemes.

Poor decisions have crippled this industry at just the wrong time.

Well, I don't recall the Treasury piping up against lockdown. If they're unhappy with the situation, it's as much their fault as the rest of them.

 

[Meerkat]

Knowing the motorists that I know, if they could have done it by car, they usually would have done it by car. If they've done one trip by train, they probably had a good reason to do it that way.

“Usually”
Apart from going to London I will use the train because I don’t fancy the drive, want to drink, or just fancy a train ride and can get a cheap price. None of these make the train essential, rather than a choice, and certainly don’t make it essential for taxpayers to subsidise my journey.

No more so than what you said yourself. You’ve said you don’t care if John Lewis closes, I’ve said I don’t care if schools close and buses are withdrawn. It was the absurdity of your own argument I was highlighting by using those examples.

non comparable. Almost everyone has to use schools, and there is little alternative. Buses are a distress purchase. If people very rarely use trains then they are unlikely to be essential to them so claiming those people as political leverage for railways is a big stretch

On average every pound spent on the railway results in a positive benefit. We have established that you don’t accept this. You also don’t apply the same critical approach to other areas of government spending that you do towards the railway.

On average, not every pound, and it doesn’t follow that every extra pound spent will have positive benefit (assuming that stat is true, which I don’t)
Which other public spending are you referring to?

Well, I don't recall the Treasury piping up against lockdown. If they're unhappy with the situation, it's as much their fault as the rest of them.

It was all over the papers that the Treasury were concerned about the cost.
Remember that a lot of people think the lockdown was too late and should have come earlier.

 

[yorksrob]

“Usually”
Apart from going to London I will use the train because I don’t fancy the drive, want to drink, or just fancy a train ride and can get a cheap price. None of these make the train essential, rather than a choice, and certainly don’t make it essential for taxpayers to subsidise my journey.


non comparable. Almost everyone has to use schools, and there is little alternative. Buses are a distress purchase. If people very rarely use trains then they are unlikely to be essential to them so claiming those people as political leverage for railways is a big stretch

On average, not every pound, and it doesn’t follow that every extra pound spent will have positive benefit (assuming that stat is true, which I don’t)
Which other public spending are you referring to?

Well, you've just given several reasons why motorists could decide to use the train, so you've just illustrated why the railway system is essential to the public as a whole.

And also for a non-driver the element of choice will be less, so there is a social justification for ensuring that non-drivers can go about their business.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It is material.

In the context that savings of even several hundred million (have they achieved that) against the 10B+ budget the DfT had allocated to Passenger operators and NR in 22/23 isn't materially driving down the overall cost of the industry despite the wider social impact its having in some areas.

You’ve said this before and I’ll answer the same - it has. Management (outside the front line) reduced by 20%. Maintenance modernisation being implemented. Total headcount down significantly.

After that it’s in to renewal and enhancement budgets, and you better than anyone know what that means.

Yes i have but thing is without passengers we wont need the infrastructure (yes im being extreme). Anyhow all im advocating is NR need to be tasked to right size there operations to fit the needs of todays railway so maximum funds can be made available to the operators to minimise any further reductions. The the low hanging fruit of duplicated routes and excess stock certainly need to be completed though.

In the short term this govt aren't going to change tack so its upto the collective industry to do what it can to ensure survival. Id also be surprised whether a labour govt will be much different and best just stabilise things as they are as they will have to many other calls on spending.

 

[yorksrob]

“Usually”
Apart from going to London I will use the train because I don’t fancy the drive, want to drink, or just fancy a train ride and can get a cheap price. None of these make the train essential, rather than a choice, and certainly don’t make it essential for taxpayers to subsidise my journey.


non comparable. Almost everyone has to use schools, and there is little alternative. Buses are a distress purchase. If people very rarely use trains then they are unlikely to be essential to them so claiming those people as political leverage for railways is a big stretch

On average, not every pound, and it doesn’t follow that every extra pound spent will have positive benefit (assuming that stat is true, which I don’t)
Which other public spending are you referring to?


It was all over the papers that the Treasury were concerned about the cost.
Remember that a lot of people think the lockdown was too late and should have come earlier.

Tough. They were part of the Government and they didn't stop lockdown, therefore they are as much to blame for the railway downturn as the the rest of them. It's called "collective responsibility".

They should stop bleating about lower passenger revenue and get the service running properly, or failing that take early retirement.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.

What was done in previous years doesn’t matter. That’s history, it’s gone.

It’s your budget for this year and next that matters. If that means we have to turn passengers away because we can’t carry them or we have to price them off, that’s the way it will have to be. Hopefully, it won’t come to this, in too many cases at least.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.

What was done in previous years doesn’t matter. That’s history, it’s gone.

It’s your budget for this year and next that matters. If that means we have to turn passengers away because we can’t carry them or we have to price them off, that’s the way it will have to be. Hopefully, it won’t come to this, in too many cases at least.

Which is why a change of Government eventually becomes necessary, to precipitate some transfers/early retirements where necessary.

 

[Meerkat]

Well, you've just given several reasons why motorists could decide to use the train, so you've just illustrated why the railway system is essential to the public as a whole.

And also for a non-driver the element of choice will be less, so there is a social justification for ensuring that non-drivers can go about their business.

Errr…..which of those reasons made train travel essential rather than a discretionary choice?
For non-drivers the subsidy would be better spent on buses, dial-a-ride, and coaches.

 

[yorksrob]

Errr…..which of those reasons made train travel essential rather than a discretionary choice?
For non-drivers the subsidy would be better spent on buses, dial-a-ride, and coaches.

You obviously find them essential otherwise you wouldn't do them. Those things that you are doing, it would be unlikely that you would decide that they're unessential so you would never do them again:

-"going to London is non-essential, so I'm not going to do that again"
-"going somewhere and having a drink is non-essential so I'm never going to do it again".

People will always find needs to travel places so trying to pick out what is essential and non-essential is a pointless red herring from the start.

As for the point that those who don't drive, various other things would be better, well clearly not, otherwise we would all be using dial-a-bus, coaches etc.

 

[43066]

non comparable. Almost everyone has to use schools, and there is little alternative. Buses are a distress purchase. If people very rarely use trains then they are unlikely to be essential to them so claiming those people as political leverage for railways is a big stretch

As I’ve already pointed out I was responding to your (rather silly) comparison with John Lewis. The railway is an essential service for many, in the part of the UK that counts economically.

On average, not every pound, and it doesn’t follow that every extra pound spent will have positive benefit (assuming that stat is true, which I don’t)

As I’ve asked you before, why do you think we subsidise the railways at all? Is it because you think the government enjoys watching trains? Even this government clearly accept that there are economic benefits to doing so.

The objection many of us have is to the current entirely unnecessary cost cutting drive, saving insignificant amounts, yet making the railway less usable, by a government which is ideologically opposed to public services. We already spend less than most comparable countries on the railway so reducing spend even further to fund tax cuts to the Tory voter base is economic vandalism.

Which other public spending are you referring to?

Subsidy to roads for one. I don’t think I’ve once seen you make a nuanced comment which accepts that the railways play an important role in the economy and there is a compelling case for subsidising them. All you ever seem to do is play the railway off against other areas of public spending (which of course is the government’s line, as they prepare to cut taxes in the run up to the next election).

For non-drivers the subsidy would be better spent on buses, dial-a-ride, and coaches.

So the concept of intercity rail travel doesn’t mean anything to you, and you think we’d be better off investing in coaches that take many hours longer than trains? Likewise, the millions of people who travel in and out of London from the Home Counties should be forced onto buses? You’ve already acknowledged that buses are a distress purchase, and the reality is that most of these journeys are also completely impractical by car.

I suspect you’re trying to get a reaction, rather than debating seriously.

 

[Bald Rick]

below pre-covid on passenger numbers, passenger kms or revenue?

Certainly revenue. Possibly not on the other two but ti will be close.

Every article I've seen on LNER says that they're busier than pre-covid.

there’s a saying about statistics….

I don’t think it’s a secret that LNER are the busiest (compared to 2019) of all the TOCs. But they are still not (quite) back at 2019 levels. On some days they will be, some days not.

Anyhow all im advocating is NR need to be tasked to right size there operations to fit the needs of todays railway

But how? Given 20% of management has gone (mostly older and therefore higher paid managers, which following two years of pay freezes means that, at a complete guess, the management payroll is about 30% lower in real terms), maintenance modernisation is well underway, and many capacity enhancement projects have been ‘paused’.

Short of widespread cessation of renewals or enhancement projects already in delivery, I don’t know where you’d go next.

 

[MCSHF007]

My (albeit unrealistic/unachievable) aspiration would be to increase the fares into weekend "leisure hotpots" (Yorks, Leeds, Manchester etc) so as to at least make the drunken a**swipes that tend to infest these journeys pay their way.

 

[slowroad]

The survey itself is flawed because it mentions:



As most of the rail travel in this country are on metro systems such as Elizabeth line, this survey misleads people to think that rail is little used while in fact rail is a key part of urban travel.

The full data set includes travel on London Underground, Overground and light rail. The overall contributions of these at the national level are small so they are not included in the headline fact sheets previously linked. (Note light rail is included in “other public transport”.)

The full data will also include the Elizabeth line, but this is obviously not relevant to the pre-Covid year of 2019.

Modal comparisons (TSGB01)

Data about passengers, travelling to work, casualty rates and employment occupations, produced by Department for Transport.

www.gov.uk

 

[Iskra]

My (albeit unrealistic/unachievable) aspiration would be to increase the fares into weekend "leisure hotpots" (Yorks, Leeds, Manchester etc) so as to at least make the drunken a**swipes that tend to infest these journeys pay their way.

Pricing people off the two busiest two days of the week is just going to lose revenue as people stay local instead. It’s better to get £30 than aim for £50 and get £0. This travel is afterall discretionary, and the number of people with £100 for a day on the lash in one of these places is probably in sharp decline anyway.

The railway needs to focus on providing a decent and usable service at weekends as a priority, before any further price rises-and focus on growing softer midweek revenue instead.

 

[samulih]

those drunken people bring much needed work for people who serve them, everything is connected these days and cheap train service can mean more people and more tax revenue for the payer of that service.

 

[yorksrob]

My (albeit unrealistic/unachievable) aspiration would be to increase the fares into weekend "leisure hotpots" (Yorks, Leeds, Manchester etc) so as to at least make the drunken a**swipes that tend to infest these journeys pay their way.

I think you'll find that TPE have already taken this approach

 

[mrmartin]

But very little additional road traffic on strike days, and even in countries that have invested very heavily in rail, rail usage is not very different from UK. Japan may be a partial exception - but context v different.

Because people aren't doing the journey when there is no strike. You can see that in footfall figures on strike days in London; it drops massively, which means a lot of economic activity isn't happening.

However, if the WCML or similar was to permanently shut (not just for a few days where people can reschedule around it), you would see massive traffic increases as people would have to do them eventually. Some (most?) would just not do them whatsoever, especially into London.

Really the figure that we should be looking at is economic activity generated by each rail trip. That would dictate if lines are worth 'subsidising'. I have no doubt that many small branch lines don't pay their way, but I imagine the saving from shutting them is quite small in the grand scheme of things and they have social benefits. The major rail routes in the country though I imagine deliver a huge huge return to the country.

 

[baz962]

Except that the trend has actually been downwards in recent weeks. Over Easter particularly so. AIUI passenger numbers on Good Friday / Easter Saturday and Easter Monday were roughly the same as a typical Sunday, whilst numbers on Easter Sunday were the same as a strike day. Clearly there was some reduced traffic due to engineering works, but a very significant majority of the network was not affected.



Well the WCML was shut this weekend, as was the main line from Paddington to Oxford. Traffic volumes didn’t seem to double.


Theres no doubt that the industry needs to attract more passengers, but it is clear that passenger numbers across the whole network are not back at Pre Covid levels and show no sign of getting there. It’s a varied picture, but AIUI some operators are still below 60% and none are above pre Covid levels (Except the Elizabeth Line for obvious reasons).

I thought LNER were above pre covid numbers.

 

[dk1]

Greater Anglia are back into paying a premium to the government according to internal communications to staff.

 

[43066]

My (albeit unrealistic/unachievable) aspiration would be to increase the fares into weekend "leisure hotpots" (Yorks, Leeds, Manchester etc) so as to at least make the drunken a**swipes that tend to infest these journeys pay their way.

This is a bit harsh. There’s no excuse for the bad, alcohol fuelled behaviour we see on the railway, but the vast majority of people who go out for a few drinks are perfectly fine and are not “drunken a**swipes”.

The leisure and hospitality sector is a key part of the economy and (outside London) the whole reason for taking public transport rather than driving will often be to enable people to have a few drinks!

 

[slowroad]

Because people aren't doing the journey when there is no strike. You can see that in footfall figures on strike days in London; it drops massively, which means a lot of economic activity isn't happening.

However, if the WCML or similar was to permanently shut (not just for a few days where people can reschedule around it), you would see massive traffic increases as people would have to do them eventually. Some (most?) would just not do them whatsoever, especially into London.

Really the figure that we should be looking at is economic activity generated by each rail trip. That would dictate if lines are worth 'subsidising'. I have no doubt that many small branch lines don't pay their way, but I imagine the saving from shutting them is quite small in the grand scheme of things and they have social benefits. The major rail routes in the country though I imagine deliver a huge huge return to the country.

If you used economic activity directly generated you’d end up subsidising road traffic massively more than rail.

At average car occupancy of 1.5, rail equates to under 10 per cent of road traffic. Say half transferred - that would equate only to around 3 years of trend road traffic growth. Barely noticeable over most of the road network at most times of day - though I accept there would be some exceptions.

In general, if you had more working outside big cities people would spend their rail fares on something else, so no overall loss of economic activity once you account for this.

 

[mrmartin]

If you used economic activity directly generated you’d end up subsidising road traffic massively more than rail.

At average car occupancy of 1.5, rail equates to under 10 per cent of road traffic. Say half transferred - that would equate only to around 3 years of trend road traffic growth. Barely noticeable over most of the road network at most times of day - though I accept there would be some exceptions.

In general, if you had more working outside big cities people would spend their rail fares on something else, so no overall loss of economic activity once you account for this.

This isn't right though. Of course if you take the 10% modal share of passenger km and spread it over the entire UK road network, it isn't noticeable. But rail use is heavily clustered around where there is the least road capacity (urban areas/city centres). You'd need probably 10+ new 8 lane motorways into London to absorb the traffic from the railways shutting, which is clearly a non starter as the parking requirements would be ridiculous as well.

You are right on road traffic economic investment though. A similar investment of the size into HS2 into interurban motorway build/upgrades would have a huge impact on the economy, far more so than HS2. But I think the chance of anything like that happening is close to 0 with the political situation (look how much protesting there has been about the relatively small impact of HS2, the land take for a motorway scheme like that would absolutely dwarf it).