What could public transport do to encourage leisure journeys?

[A0wen]

I agree. If you are going to advertise in papers at all then make it Metro which people will grab for free. Needs much more on social media to target the younger generation though. They are not really into printed media or TV.

Even Metro isn't worth it - who are the people who pick up a copy of Metro ? Mostly those getting on a train, ditto the Evening Standard in London nowadays.

So all you're doing is preaching to the choir, not attracting any new business.

 

[Starmill]

You can bleat this line all you like, but you will not convince people.

Indeed. If the railway tried to use this argument for their fares being value for money then a good laugh would be all that resulted.

 

[A0wen]

Uhm that's literally what everyone does. If your car is roadworthy (appropriately insured, with current VED and so on), the chances are you'll use it.

You might, I don't - if you're trying to understand whether or not something is or isn't more cost effective you compare all the costs, not just those which suit your argument.

 

[Wolfie]

Even Metro isn't worth it - who are the people who pick up a copy of Metro ? Mostly those getting on a train, ditto the Evening Standard in London nowadays.

So all you're doing is preaching to the choir, not attracting any new business.

I tend to agree which is why l'd said if you were going to use papers at all. Not sure about all parts of the country, but certainly in Shropshire you can get Metro on the buses. I appreciate that is still pitching to extant public transport users though.

 

[Starmill]

You might, I don't - if you're trying to understand whether or not something is or isn't more cost effective you compare all the costs, not just those which suit your argument.

I have never owned a motor vehicle in my life.

The typical motorist accounts for the cost of their motoring in the economically sensible way to their personal circumstances - marginal miles are at the cost of fuel and parking. Marginal maintenance costs are negligible. Your model is simply wrong for an individual. It may be more accurate at population level but that's not how people make decisions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might, I don't - if you're trying to understand whether or not something is or isn't more cost effective you compare all the costs, not just those which suit your argument.

No, that's simply not how it works. And putting fixed costs such as monthly loan payment into a per-mile model is no more valid than accounting for them as a "membership fee" to the "club" of owning a car. You may account them that way, but you can be sure that almost no other driver does.

Actually, in some ways, doing that encourages you to drive more - if you do account it that way, the more miles you do, the cheaper it gets per mile.

A flawed model.

That is true - but they may have access to a car either 1 car shared among a family, be a member of a car club or just choose to hire a car for the occasions they need one as they can't justify the expense of owning one. The fact remains they are competent to drive and can do so - so why should a further subsidy be put in place for them to travel by train at their leisure ?

Because society benefits from people not driving. Fewer people die on the roads, fewer people have respiratory issues, and our towns and cities become places for people rather than vehicles. If everywhere was laid out like Milton Keynes you could argue driving was fine, but it's not and it never will or can be.

Rail use (pre Covid) was at levels last seen in the 1950s. Rail cannot compete on the vast majority of journeys "normal" people make. Rail can compete on a few select corridors - into the major cities, between major cities. Suggesting that rail could suddenly take a chunk of car traffic on a journey between Northampton and Milton Keynes or Stevenage and Hitchin is for the birds quite frankly.

However, there are a lot of people driving from e.g. Manchester to London or vice versa because £350 Anytime Return is, however you look at it, absolutely outrageous. Even more on XC's direct routes because XC is just utterly dire in every way - they are acting like a glorified commuter operation because long distance travel on them is such a grim and expensive distress purchase. It doesn't have to be that way.

There are also lots of people driving into Manchester because its suburban railways (other than Metrolink) are just so rubbish. An hourly 2-car service in an urban area is a joke. Coverage is excellent but the service is dire.

Rail should be able to capture, either directly or via park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride, pretty much all of that traffic if it plays its cards right.

 

[richa2002]

Bit in bold - it won't regardless.

Rail use (pre Covid) was at levels last seen in the 1950s. Rail cannot compete on the vast majority of journeys "normal" people make. Rail can compete on a few select corridors - into the major cities, between major cities. Suggesting that rail could suddenly take a chunk of car traffic on a journey between Northampton and Milton Keynes or Stevenage and Hitchin is for the birds quite frankly.

I often hear this part in bold like it was some kind of achievement for the railway. The way I understand the figure is that it's referring to actual numbers? Surely the more relevant figure is what percentage of the population are using rail, otherwise it's just a simple result of the population explosion since New Labour.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I am in pretty much the same boat. The only railcard I am eligible for is a Network Railcard.

I'm eligible for four, I guess: Network Railcard, Cotswold Line Railcard, Family & Friends Railcard, Two Together Railcard. (I only actually have the first two.)

Depending on what journeys I make with who, each one will save me a differing amount of money. It's nuts. Just do a national railcard or, better still, put the fares down.

 

[paul1609]

I'm eligible for three, I currently have one that I can get with Tesco vouchers. Even railcard discounted fares are uncompetitive. If I want to go to Scotland Easyjet makes more sense or an overnight coach service. Any where on the East Coast its usually National Express.

 

[A0wen]

Because society benefits from people not driving. Fewer people die on the roads, fewer people have respiratory issues, and our towns and cities become places for people rather than vehicles. If everywhere was laid out like Milton Keynes you could argue driving was fine, but it's not and it never will or can be.

Here we go again - the selective "green" argument. Of course the greenest option is *not to travel* so in fact we shouldn't be promoting leisure travel at all and certainly not subsidising people to travel, which is what such a railcard would encourage. Encouraging more people to travel is environmentally the wrong thing to do - now to be honest, I have little or no interest in environmental matters, but it always amuses me that the "environmentally friendly" argument gets peddled without actually arguing for a reduction in travel overall which would have far more of an impact.

However, there are a lot of people driving from e.g. Manchester to London or vice versa because £350 Anytime Return is, however you look at it, absolutely outrageous. Even more on XC's direct routes because XC is just utterly dire in every way - they are acting like a glorified commuter operation because long distance travel on them is such a grim and expensive distress purchase. It doesn't have to be that way.

There are also lots of people driving into Manchester because its suburban railways (other than Metrolink) are just so rubbish. An hourly 2-car service in an urban area is a joke. Coverage is excellent but the service is dire.

Rail should be able to capture, either directly or via park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride, pretty much all of that traffic if it plays its cards right.

Well done you for helping me complete my "RF Bingo Card" for the day, by quoting the inevitable "full price London to Manchester return" ticket example.

Let's start with that one - it's the "peak" fare, so very few people will actually be aiming for that, those that are will generally be making that journey on business. The off peak fare is £ 98.30 - fare more reasonable and attractive to leisure users. For those who *have* to travel at peak times its cheaper to buy two singles - in fact the combination of an anytime single out and off peak single return is £ 250 - so almost 1/3rd less than the £ 350 return. And before you whine that "oh it's so complicated" - it really isn't, the National Rail website makes it pretty clear what the cheapest way to travel is and what the options are.

Given the journey time difference - Google Maps is quoting 3h 50m right now to make the journey from Euston to Piccadilly by road - you can safely add an hour to that at peak times the train is much quicker and more viable for getting into Manchester early in the day. So maybe we should be looking at what the train's real competition is for a peak hour London to Manchester journey - and that is the plane for those who need to travel between London and Manchester at peak periods. Looking at BA for Friday - as that seems to be busiest and the "deals" have sold out, you're looking at £ 325 one way from Heathrow to Manchester at 8am and £ 125 for the return leg. Now if you're travelling at those times you'll know your travel itinerary and chances are book an advance (which of course you have to do with the plane as you usually can't walk up and buy).

I'm eligible for three, I currently have one that I can get with Tesco vouchers. Even railcard discounted fares are uncompetitive. If I want to go to Scotland Easyjet makes more sense or an overnight coach service. Any where on the East Coast its usually National Express.

If you're travelling from the South East to Scotland, Easyjet wins most times on time alone. If you live in easy reach of Gatwick, then you're looking at an hour to get to Euston or Kings Cross, that's before you've even got on your Scotland bound train. If you live in most of Herts, Essex, Bucks or Beds, Luton or Stansted are going to be just as quick and easy to get to as a journey into Euston or Kings Cross for the faster Anglo Scottish services. Yes, some stop at places like Watford or Stevenage, but you're still looking at a long journey of 4+ hours for those, which Luton to Glasgow or Edinburgh will be an shade over an hour for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here we go again - the selective "green" argument. Of course the greenest option is *not to travel* so in fact we shouldn't be promoting leisure travel at all and certainly not subsidising people to travel, which is what such a railcard would encourage. Encouraging more people to travel is environmentally the wrong thing to do - now to be honest, I have little or no interest in environmental matters, but it always amuses me that the "environmentally friendly" argument gets peddled without actually arguing for a reduction in travel overall which would have far more of an impact.

I did come up with a "reduce, reuse, recycle - in that order" thing for travel - "teleconference, train, Tesla", i.e. if you can avoid travel do, if you can't go by train (or bus), only if that doesn't work drive your EV.

However, some travel is going to happen, and the push should be for it to be on public transport unless it's impossible. There's so much car travel that even if you halved it there are still rich pickings there.

Well done you for helping me complete my "RF Bingo Card" for the day, by quoting the inevitable "full price London to Manchester return" ticket example.

Let's start with that one - it's the "peak" fare, so very few people will actually be aiming for that, those that are will generally be making that journey on business.

Actually, that's not quite true. What that fare does is basically removes the option of a day-trip with the kids to London during the school holidays, which is quite a big leisure market. Virgin knew this well and applied a "Railcard easement", removing all time restrictions from Off Peaks bought using a Railcard (in this case Family), so people could do those trips and the business travellers still be charged full whack. It was a messy approach but it did avoid pushing certain leisure markets onto road.

Given the journey time difference - Google Maps is quoting 3h 50m right now to make the journey from Euston to Piccadilly by road - you can safely add an hour to that at peak times the train is much quicker and more viable for getting into Manchester early in the day. So maybe we should be looking at what the train's real competition is for a peak hour London to Manchester journey - and that is the plane for those who need to travel between London and Manchester at peak periods.

It's really not. Air is mostly used for those connecting at Heathrow. The market is very, very small.

The big market is road, and so that's the one rail should be aiming at. It offers flexible travel at a good value marginal price.

If you're travelling from the South East to Scotland, Easyjet wins most times on time alone. If you live in easy reach of Gatwick, then you're looking at an hour to get to Euston or Kings Cross, that's before you've even got on your Scotland bound train. If you live in most of Herts, Essex, Bucks or Beds, Luton or Stansted are going to be just as quick and easy to get to as a journey into Euston or Kings Cross for the faster Anglo Scottish services. Yes, some stop at places like Watford or Stevenage, but you're still looking at a long journey of 4+ hours for those, which Luton to Glasgow or Edinburgh will be an shade over an hour for.

Rail will never win those on speed, but it could win them on price, and on comfort and the ability to "do stuff" during the journey, particularly for business travellers who can quite viably do half a day's work on the train, and before you say they can't I have actually done it myself a few times, you can keep usable 4G for pretty much the whole West Coast route with EE other than a short section over Shap. That's part of my premise - cramming airline seats in is not the solution. The alternative is to make First Class good value, or even to consider an intermediate "all tables, window aligned, premium legroom, leather seats" class a bit like the Voyager "Coach D".

Moving onto family travel (which isn't a massive environmental priority as a full car is a pretty efficient thing, particularly an EV) kids love trains and hate long car journeys, so again there's rich pickings there if you make things good for them. For instance long IC trains like Pendolinos should have a family coach - all tables, family friendly decoration, noise allowed (including playing stuff out loud), pushchair parking spots, lots of luggage and compulsory reservation for one, potentially with an easy way to buy a whole bay so "randomers" don't sit with you. That's the sort of thing I'm referring to.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Let's start with that one - it's the "peak" fare, so very few people will actually be aiming for that, those that are will generally be making that journey on business.

Because it's well known that anything purchased "on business" is free money and not price-sensitive in the slightest.

I'm just doing my Company Tax Return for the year. I'll make sure to leave the peak-time train tickets off the return because they don't count, they're not real money.

 

[A0wen]

I did come up with a "reduce, reuse, recycle - in that order" thing for travel - "teleconference, train, Tesla", i.e. if you can avoid travel do, if you can't go by train (or bus), only if that doesn't work drive your EV.

However, some travel is going to happen, and the push should be for it to be on public transport unless it's impossible. There's so much car travel that even if you halved it there are still rich pickings there.

Rail has at a push 15% of the journeys made in the UK - the rail network couldn't physically cope with taking "half" the car travel. And that's not unique to the UK - it's similar across Europe.

Actually, that's not quite true. What that fare does is basically removes the option of a day-trip with the kids to London during the school holidays, which is quite a big leisure market. Virgin knew this well and applied a "Railcard easement", removing all time restrictions from Off Peaks bought using a Railcard (in this case Family), so people could do those trips and the business travellers still be charged full whack. It was a messy approach but it did avoid pushing certain leisure markets onto road.

Very few people will do a "day trip with the family" from London to Manchester or vice-versa. If it was as high as 1% of the journeys on that route I'd be amazed. Quite simply it's too far for a day trip for most families and time is the deciding factor, not cost. I grew up 30 minutes from London - we regularly had family trips into London, never to Birmingham or Manchester. Conversely my wife who grew up in the North West routinely had family trips to Manchester or Liverpool, but not London.

It's really not. Air is mostly used for those connecting at Heathrow. The market is very, very small.

The big market is road, and so that's the one rail should be aiming at. It offers flexible travel at a good value marginal price.

Nonsense - the demand for travel between London and Manchester (and vice versa) at peak isn't that big. It's almost all business lead and because of that time will be a consideration. People will drive it *if* the train isn't convenient, so if you're starting your journey from somewhere like Luton and are heading to Trafford or Bury, then the car is more attractive, simply because you're otherwise facing a +30 minute trip to get to Euston, plus +30 mins from Piccadilly to your final destination. Which will largely off-set the train's city centre to city centre advantage.

And some business travellers, particularly those at more senior positions within a company will consider air travel for Manchester to London, simply because of its time advantage. The fact that those flights also carry connecting passengers is incidental in the same way the Manchester - London train also carries people between Stockport and Stoke or Stoke and Milton Keynes.

Moving onto family travel (which isn't a massive environmental priority as a full car is a pretty efficient thing, particularly an EV) kids love trains and hate long car journeys, so again there's rich pickings there if you make things good for them. For instance long IC trains like Pendolinos should have a family coach - all tables, family friendly decoration, noise allowed (including playing stuff out loud), pushchair parking spots, lots of luggage and compulsory reservation for one, potentially with an easy way to buy a whole bay so "randomers" don't sit with you. That's the sort of thing I'm referring to.

Kids generally don't mind how they travel providing there is entertainment for them. And that's the big difference from 20 years ago. You can easily hand a kid a tablet with a bunch of movies or games installed and keep them quiet in a car for 2 hours. My children are now getting older, but providing the car has sufficient leg room, they're happy enough whiling away a 2 hour car journey listening to podcasts or playing games.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rail has at a push 15% of the journeys made in the UK - the rail network couldn't physically cope with taking "half" the car travel. And that's not unique to the UK - it's similar across Europe.

Which means there's an effectively infinite market for rail to grab if it puts its mind to it.

Very few people will do a "day trip with the family" from London to Manchester or vice-versa. If it was as high as 1% of the journeys on that route I'd be amazed. Quite simply it's too far for a day trip for most families and time is the deciding factor, not cost. I grew up 30 minutes from London - we regularly had family trips into London, never to Birmingham or Manchester. Conversely my wife who grew up in the North West routinely had family trips to Manchester or Liverpool, but not London.

I'm sorry but that isn't true. Family day tripping from Liverpool/Manchester to London is very common. When I was a kid we often did it, even with the slower journey times of the 1980s and early 1990s, so your obsession with minutes isn't true (and indeed some people are doing it with LNR and road coaches now, and indeed by car!)

What that market is is very price-sensitive. It'll typically use Advances and Family Railcards, but those offered on the morning peak trains are just too expensive to even consider.

There's far less of a reason to have family day trips from London to Manchester because London has everything you might want. The other way round has the lure of the exciting capital that the Northern cities don't offer, good though they are in their own right.

Nonsense - the demand for travel between London and Manchester (and vice versa) at peak isn't that big. It's almost all business lead and because of that time will be a consideration. People will drive it *if* the train isn't convenient, so if you're starting your journey from somewhere like Luton and are heading to Trafford or Bury, then the car is more attractive, simply because you're otherwise facing a +30 minute trip to get to Euston, plus +30 mins from Piccadilly to your final destination. Which will largely off-set the train's city centre to city centre advantage.

Again you're considering the direction you'd usually do, which is a weaker market. The other way (North to London) the market is huge.

And some business travellers, particularly those at more senior positions within a company will consider air travel for Manchester to London, simply because of its time advantage. The fact that those flights also carry connecting passengers is incidental in the same way the Manchester - London train also carries people between Stockport and Stoke or Stoke and Milton Keynes.

It's very much not. Those flights primarily exist as connections. Rail has substantially reduced their draw, though obviously they will suit some people better than rail e.g. if they live in south Manchester and are going somewhere near Heathrow e.g. the huge office complexes of Stockley Park and Uxbridge plus Slough and Reading.

If you're going to central London (i.e. the City or thereabouts) and live within reach of Piccadilly or Stockport (the latter is a massive P&R railhead for south Manchester, hence the Manchester Airport equivalent being an essential for HS2) air can't now compete on time. You have to arrive at the airport maybe an hour before the flight, have the faff of security, slowness of getting through Heathrow then the Heathrow Express to get to central London. And it's all broken up time - on the train you can sit and read your emails before you arrive, say.

Kids generally don't mind how they travel providing there is entertainment for them. And that's the big difference from 20 years ago. You can easily hand a kid a tablet with a bunch of movies or games installed and keep them quiet in a car for 2 hours. My children are now getting older, but providing the car has sufficient leg room, they're happy enough whiling away a 2 hour car journey listening to podcasts or playing games.

Maybe true but kids still love trains. And many get car-sick using tablets/phones in cars.

 

[A0wen]

Which means there's an effectively infinite market for rail to grab if it puts its mind to it.

Arrant nonsense - there is *some* spare capacity on the rail network, but much of that is in areas or at times where there is less demand to travel to begin with. You want to travel from London to Birmingham after 7pm - you'll get a seat no problem - but that's a limited market. At other times - when people actually want to travel - the capacity is much more constrained. You seem to be ignoring the fact demand is not consistent and evenly spread.

That's before you get to the points about convenience where the train fails and can't compete because it can only offer fixed 'point to point' services.

I'm sorry but that isn't true. Family day tripping from Liverpool/Manchester to London is very common. When I was a kid we often did it, even with the slower journey times of the 1980s and early 1990s, so your obsession with minutes isn't true (and indeed some people are doing it with LNR and road coaches now, and indeed by car!)

Might I venture to suggest you weren't typical ? The number of people who I know who grew up in the North West don't reflect your experience.

What that market is is very price-sensitive. It'll typically use Advances and Family Railcards, but those offered on the morning peak trains are just too expensive to even consider.

There's far less of a reason to have family day trips from London to Manchester because London has everything you might want. The other way round has the lure of the exciting capital that the Northern cities don't offer, good though they are in their own right.

The market may be price sensitive, but it's worth pointing out that the family railcard - designed for family days out - does have limitations on the times it can be used. So the rail industry is trying to attract families on the quieter times, not the peak times. And it's a long day - when you're talking a day trip from Manchester or Liverpool to London you're looking at over 4 hours travelling - most people won't want to do that for a leisure day trip. And those that do want to visit London from the NW are just as likely to look at a stop overnight so as to take in a show or similar rather than spend at least half their time travelling.

It's very much not. Those flights primarily exist as connections. Rail has substantially reduced their draw, though obviously they will suit some people better than rail e.g. if they live in south Manchester and are going somewhere near Heathrow e.g. the huge office complexes of Stockley Park and Uxbridge plus Slough and Reading.

If you're going to central London (i.e. the City or thereabouts) and live within reach of Piccadilly or Stockport (the latter is a massive P&R railhead for south Manchester, hence the Manchester Airport equivalent being an essential for HS2) air can't now compete on time. You have to arrive at the airport maybe an hour before the flight, have the faff of security, slowness of getting through Heathrow then the Heathrow Express to get to central London. And it's all broken up time - on the train you can sit and read your emails before you arrive, say.

You're ignoring London City Airport which also has direct flights to / from Manchester and puts you 20 minutes by DLR to Bank. And that uses smaller aircraft which are typically quicker to load / unload and being a smaller airport you can be out and on the DLR within 20 minutes from wheels down.

Maybe true but kids still love trains. And many get car-sick using tablets/phones in cars.

Bit in bold Some do, some don't. In my experience younger children (i.e pre-teens) nearly always get bored on a journey of more than an hour regardless of the mode of travel. The difference with a car is you can pull over, stretch your legs, get some fresh air, or stop somewhere just to take in the view for 10 minutes. You can't do that on train. And once kids get bored they "just want to get there" - which with the car is usually the ultimate destination, whereas with the train often then means another train, or tube, or walk.

I'd debate your assertion of "many" get car sick - even the RAC (who have done a survey on it) reckons at most it's 20% and yet half of those have never sought medical treatment for it - in fact only 10% have.

A fifth of motorists suffer nausea or sickness as a driver or passenger

Car sickness and nausea don’t just affect children, new RAC research has found, with the equivalent of 7.3m people not growing out of it and continuing to...

media.rac.co.uk

So once again you're making claims about "many" yet it's less than 1/4 of those who were surveyed. Perhaps time to be a bit more objective in the adjectives you use ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Arrant nonsense - there is *some* spare capacity on the rail network, but much of that is in areas or at times where there is less demand to travel to begin with. You want to travel from London to Birmingham after 7pm - you'll get a seat no problem - but that's a limited market. At other times - when people actually want to travel - the capacity is much more constrained. You seem to be ignoring the fact demand is not consistent and evenly spread.

Which brings us back to peak time Manchester-Euston (and other WCML) which are very quiet.

How do I know? I've used them when they later pick up huge numbers of commuters at MKC. Seats for everyone, particularly now they're 11-car.

That's before you get to the points about convenience where the train fails and can't compete because it can only offer fixed 'point to point' services.

Trains can be used in combination with other things e.g. cars.

Might I venture to suggest you weren't typical ? The number of people who I know who grew up in the North West don't reflect your experience.

Or maybe the people you know were atypical?

The market may be price sensitive, but it's worth pointing out that the family railcard - designed for family days out - does have limitations on the times it can be used. So the rail industry is trying to attract families on the quieter times, not the peak times.

"Peak times" these days aren't busy times, they're times when you can price things higher. The busiest time on the WCML is Friday evening. The second busiest time is Sunday afternoon. Both are "off peak".

And it's a long day - when you're talking a day trip from Manchester or Liverpool to London you're looking at over 4 hours travelling - most people won't want to do that for a leisure day trip. And those that do want to visit London from the NW are just as likely to look at a stop overnight so as to take in a show or similar rather than spend at least half their time travelling.

Some will, but those with kids are less likely true. It's true that the availability of quality budget hotels (i.e. Premier Inn, Motel One) make it more likely people will stay over than the old doss-house B&Bs or other poor quality independent hotels typical of London.

You're ignoring London City Airport which also has direct flights to / from Manchester and puts you 20 minutes by DLR to Bank. And that uses smaller aircraft which are typically quicker to load / unload and being a smaller airport you can be out and on the DLR within 20 minutes from wheels down.

I bet the daily capacity on those flights is less than one single 11-car Pendolino.

Bit in bold Some do, some don't. In my experience younger children (i.e pre-teens) nearly always get bored on a journey of more than an hour regardless of the mode of travel. The difference with a car is you can pull over, stretch your legs, get some fresh air, or stop somewhere just to take in the view for 10 minutes. You can't do that on train. And once kids get bored they "just want to get there" - which with the car is usually the ultimate destination, whereas with the train often then means another train, or tube, or walk.

I'd debate your assertion of "many" get car sick - even the RAC (who have done a survey on it) reckons at most it's 20% and yet half of those have never sought medical treatment for it - in fact only 10% have

10% of the huge number of kids travelling in cars is "many". Many simply means a lot. I didn't say "most" which would imply >50%.

 

[A0wen]

I bet the daily capacity on those flights is less than one single 11-car Pendolino.

Given that an 11 car Pendo has a seating capacity of ~600 you'd struggle to find any commercial aircraft with that kind of seating capacity.

The only large jets with seating of more than 400 are some of the variants of the Boeing 777, the 747 (though most have been retired now) the Airbus A380 and some variants of the A330.

All the stuff used on domestic flights e.g. 737s, Airbus 318/19/20/21s are all sub 300.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that an 11 car Pendo has a seating capacity of ~600 you'd struggle to find any commercial aircraft with that kind of seating capacity.

The only large jets with seating of more than 400 are some of the variants of the Boeing 777, the 747 (though most have been retired now) the Airbus A380 and some variants of the A330.

All the stuff used on domestic flights e.g. 737s, Airbus 318/19/20/21s are all sub 300.

I think you missed what I said.

I said that the entire daily capacity from Manchester-LCY is one Pendolino's worth. Thus, that it's a tiny, tiny flow not of any particular significance. If demand was higher there'd be more flights and BA would use something bigger (to LHR, I'm aware of the constraints on LCY).

The cars on the M6 and M1 are what the railway needs to look towards.

Edit: actually there appear to be none on that route at the moment, and just five from MAN to LHR. These all use A320s, which appear to have 171 seats, for a total of 855 seats each way per day (using the higher capacity BA 320 layout). Or slightly less than two 9-car Pendolinos for the entire daily Manchester-London flight capacity. That's tiny and really not worth the railway bothering itself about. By contrast the flow by car is likely to be in the high thousands or even low tens of thousands.

 

[A0wen]

I think you missed what I said.

I said that the entire daily capacity from Manchester-LCY is one Pendolino's worth. Thus, that it's a tiny, tiny flow not of any particular significance. If demand was higher there'd be more flights and BA would use something bigger (to LHR, I'm aware of the constraints on LCY).

The cars on the M6 and M1 are what the railway needs to look towards.

Edit: actually there appear to be none on that route at the moment, and just five from MAN to LHR. These all use A320s, which appear to have 171 seats, for a total of 855 seats each way per day (using the higher capacity BA 320 layout). Or slightly less than two 9-car Pendolinos for the entire daily Manchester-London flight capacity. That's tiny and really not worth the railway bothering itself about. By contrast the flow by car is likely to be in the high thousands or even low tens of thousands.

And with a 4 hour drive each way between London and Manchester, the number of people making that journey for a day trip is also going to be minimal - regardless of cost. Probably no more than a couple of Pendolinos at best. And given how spread out over the day and start/end points of their journeys the effect of that will be negligible.

I'd point out that to use your example of people heading south - they will have a bigger problem of parking in the London area - so are even less likely to drive. The only viable place to park if you're unfamiliar with the area is Luton Airport Parkway station - you're still looking at almost 200 miles each way and a journey of over 3 hours.

 

[yorksrob]

Not true - some such as Disabled Persons or Armed Forces railcards were put in place for social reasons, not to encourage more travelling but instead to mitigate the costs on those who needed to travel but generally struggled with the costs.



I think a very small number of people would buy it, which probably wouldn't offset the cost of set up and administration. So it wouldn't actually improve the financial position of the railways.



According to the ONS about 80% of adults i.e. over 21, have driving licences. The 18-21 figure is lower because that tends to be when people are learning to drive.

So it's about 1 in 5 who can't. Of those, a number will be unable to hold a driving licence due to medical reasons so will be eligible for a disabled person's railcard, such as a friend of mine who has epilepsy. There will be another group who cannot afford to buy and run a car, which means that they usually won't be undertaking regular train journeys for leisure because they will have other financial pressures and therefore a railcard would make a negligble difference. Then you've got a number of people - many of whom seem to frequent this forum - who are in paid employment, want to gallivant around the country by train and want their pastime to be subsidised even more than it currently is by the taxpayer - well my view is those people an pay the going rate for their travel - and that group includes me.

So essentially what you're saying is that people who are struggling to pay for train travel due to the costs of disability or coming out of the armed services, can be incentivised to use the train with a Railcard, but those struggling because they have a low paid job can't ?

I think you've got so tied up trying to justify your position that you're contradicting yourself.

And where do you get this hunch that few people will buy the railcard ? Certainly not from comparable countries where such cards have traditionally proved popular.

Your last point seems to be what it boils down to. The establishment are happy providing public transport to get the oiks into their factories and offices, but heaven forfend that they should want to use transport for leisure ! The spirit of the feudal landlord/Cromwellian puritan/Victorian mill owner lives on !

 

[Bletchleyite]

And with a 4 hour drive each way between London and Manchester, the number of people making that journey for a day trip is also going to be minimal - regardless of cost. Probably no more than a couple of Pendolinos at best. And given how spread out over the day and start/end points of their journeys the effect of that will be negligible.

I'd point out that to use your example of people heading south - they will have a bigger problem of parking in the London area - so are even less likely to drive. The only viable place to park if you're unfamiliar with the area is Luton Airport Parkway station - you're still looking at almost 200 miles each way and a journey of over 3 hours.

Actually, plenty of people know of Tube stations with parking and use those rather than Luton Airport Parkway, much as it's intended (partly) for that purpose.

I think you underestimate the number of people who will do this. But of course people not day tripping are also part of the target market.

 

[A0wen]

So essentially what you're saying is that people who are struggling to pay for train travel due to the costs of disability or coming out of the armed services, can be incentivised to use the train with a Railcard, but those struggling because they have a low paid job can't ?

Disabled people who can't drive are often earning less than others because of their mobility challenges - this is about enabling them to access jobs they may not be otherwise able to.

In the cases of the armed forces their stationing can be changed at little or no notice - this allows them to visit home. Few other jobs can just relocate you without any notice or recompense.

Your last point seems to be what it boils down to. The establishment are happy providing public transport to get the oiks into their factories and offices, but heaven forfend that they should want to use transport for leisure ! The spirit of the feudal landlord/Cromwellian puritan/Victorian mill owner lives on !

If you want to go and watch rugby or football of a weekend, you pay the market rate for the ticket. If you want to go sailing you pay the market rate to hire the boat. If you want to go basket weaving you pay the market rate for the materials and somebody to teach you. So why if you want to go gallivanting around the country by train should you not pay the market rate for your travel ?

Actually, plenty of people know of Tube stations with parking and use those rather than Luton Airport Parkway, much as it's intended (partly) for that purpose.

I think you underestimate the number of people who will do this. But of course people not day tripping are also part of the target market.

Quite alot don't - whereas Luton Airport Parkway is signed from the M1 and has secure parking, which the "obvious" tube stations (Stanmore, Edgware, Cockfosters) don't.

Additionally it is quicker to travel from Luton Airport parkway into London than drive the extra ~20 miles to Stanmore and use the tube.

And TFL seem intent on reducing the level of parking at such stations as well.

 

[Trainbike46]

And TFL seem intent on reducing the level of parking at such stations as well.

That is a misleading statement to say the least. At many stations with parking TfL is looking at providing space for housing instead. With the enormous housing shortage in London, providing more housing at locations that are easily reached with public transport is a good thing. In many cases they are providing more new housing units than parking spaces disappear. It is not about reducing parking, it is about increasing housing and reducing car dependency

But, to the bigger picture, the overal trend of your replies seems to be "The railway can't or shouldn't try to attract more leisure passengers" (please correct me if that's not what you're trying to say). But if you care about the financial viability of the railway, more passengers is essential. doubling train length doesn't even come close to doubling cost, but can massively increase income if you can fill those extra seats, and typical leisure journeys take place at different times from typical business or commuting journeys, so can contribute to spreading demand more equally. Why are you opposed to this?

 

[yorksrob]

Disabled people who can't drive are often earning less than others because of their mobility challenges - this is about enabling them to access jobs they may not be otherwise able to.

In the cases of the armed forces their stationing can be changed at little or no notice - this allows them to visit home. Few other jobs can just relocate you without any notice or recompense.



If you want to go and watch rugby or football of a weekend, you pay the market rate for the ticket. If you want to go sailing you pay the market rate to hire the boat. If you want to go basket weaving you pay the market rate for the materials and somebody to teach you. So why if you want to go gallivanting around the country by train should you not pay the market rate for your travel ?



Quite alot don't - whereas Luton Airport Parkway is signed from the M1 and has secure parking, which the "obvious" tube stations (Stanmore, Edgware, Cockfosters) don't.

Additionally it is quicker to travel from Luton Airport parkway into London than drive the extra ~20 miles to Stanmore and use the tube.

And TFL seem intent on reducing the level of parking at such stations as well.

So you're saying that disabled and armed forces Railcard users only use their railcards for work ?

 

[A0wen]

That is a misleading statement to say the least. At many stations with parking TfL is looking at providing space for housing instead. With the enormous housing shortage in London, providing more housing at locations that are easily reached with public transport is a good thing. In many cases they are providing more new housing units than parking spaces disappear. It is not about reducing parking, it is about increasing housing and reducing car dependency

But, to the bigger picture, the overal trend of your replies seems to be "The railway can't or shouldn't try to attract more leisure passengers" (please correct me if that's not what you're trying to say). But if you care about the financial viability of the railway, more passengers is essential. doubling train length doesn't even come close to doubling cost, but can massively increase income if you can fill those extra seats, and typical leisure journeys take place at different times from typical business or commuting journeys, so can contribute to spreading demand more equally. Why are you opposed to this?

No I think you're being disingenuous - the scheme at Cockfosters would have retained 35 spaces out of 336 there are currently.

Stations like Cockfosters and Stanmore are used by people driving to the top of the tube network to continue their journey into Central London - sometimes for speed and convenience, other times for cost.

Basically it was Sadiq Khan / TFL sticking two fingers up at anyone who lives outside London who dares to travel by car to catch the tube. This is the ongoing problem with TFL, it is utterly parochial and as a result those who live just outside its area are made to suffer because of their policies.

So you're saying that disabled and armed forces Railcard users only use their railcards for work ?

No - not what I said. But many disabled *do* use theirs for travel to / from work because the Disabled Persons railcard is one of the few which has no limitations on the times it can be used.

I notice you haven't answered my point about why if somebody wants to go and watch football or rugby they should pay the market rate for a ticket but your gallivanting by train at your leisure should be subsidised by taxpayers and subsidised even more by introducing another railcard.

 

[Trainbike46]

No I think you're being disingenuous - the scheme at Cockfosters would have retained 35 spaces out of 336 there are currently.

Thank you for illustrating my point: they are removing about 300 parking spaces, and adding 350 housing units.

Stations like Cockfosters and Stanmore are used by people driving to the top of the tube network to continue their journey into Central London - sometimes for speed and convenience, other times for cost.

Basically it was Sadiq Khan / TFL sticking two fingers up at anyone who lives outside London who dares to travel by car to catch the tube. This is the ongoing problem with TFL, it is utterly parochial and as a result those who live just outside its area are made to suffer because of their policies.

TfL is for a large part funded from local taxes in london, it is only right that it tries to serve the needs of people in london, who pay for it. Also, TfL services are incredibly useful for people from outside london, whether for cross-london transfers, getting to places within london, etc. It is absurd though to suggest that TfL should prioritise parking for people from outside london over housing (which is MUCH more important) for people in london
I also note you are refusing to engage with my comment about the big point you are pushing

 

[A0wen]

But, to the bigger picture, the overal trend of your replies seems to be "The railway can't or shouldn't try to attract more leisure passengers" (please correct me if that's not what you're trying to say).

Putting bigger and bigger subsidies (which is what railcards effectively are) won't achieve that.

Look at it this way - a Family railcard costs £ 30 and gets 1/3 off an adult ticket and 60% off a child.

For a normal working family there are a limited number of times they can use it - weekends and some school holidays, bearing in mind most parents are working through some of those), so let's say an average family takes 6 trips a year and their ticket price is £ 50 (£ 20/ adult and £ 5/child) - with a railcard that drops to £ 26.40 for the two adults and £ 4 for the two children - so £ 30.40 instead of £ 50.

If that family didn't have the railcard the rail network would get £ 300.

With the railcard the rail network only gets £ 152 of farebox revenue plus the £ 30 of the railcard sale - so £ 182.

Are that family likely to make their journey an additional 4 times a year - at which point the rail network is back to the revenue level it would have been if they didn't have a railcard ? It seems unlikely.

That's why I'm sceptical about adding more railcards - because there will be a *small* amount of new traffic who weren't going to travel but now might. And rather more people who will just do their current journeys but with a significant saving or maybe one or two additional journeys but the rail network still ends up down on the revenue as a whole.

 

[SynthD]

otherwise it's just a simple result of the population explosion since New Labour.

U.K. Population 1950-2023

Chart and table of U.K. population from 1950 to 2023. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

www.macrotrends.net

It’s not an explosion.

 

[RailWonderer]

The ironing boards on GWR and LNER have done a lot to put off leisure travellers, and the lack of bay seats. Also people want to avoid germs especially if they are not used to commmuting on trains regularly and since Covid there are still many people coughing, sneezing and spluttering on every single train I have taken this year and I am also off sick as I write this. The car will always be preferred.
The ultimate answer though is price. This year the hike has been far too high for those without railcards.

 

[Trainbike46]

Putting bigger and bigger subsidies (which is what railcards effectively are) won't achieve that.

Then how would the railway achieve that? You have not brought up any suggestions yourself

Look at it this way - a Family railcard costs £ 30 and gets 1/3 off an adult ticket and 60% off a child.

For a normal working family there are a limited number of times they can use it - weekends and some school holidays, bearing in mind most parents are working through some of those), so let's say an average family takes 6 trips a year and their ticket price is £ 50 (£ 20/ adult and £ 5/child) - with a railcard that drops to £ 26.40 for the two adults and £ 4 for the two children - so £ 30.40 instead of £ 50.

If that family didn't have the railcard the rail network would get £ 300.

With the railcard the rail network only gets £ 152 of farebox revenue plus the £ 30 of the railcard sale - so £ 182.

Are that family likely to make their journey an additional 4 times a year - at which point the rail network is back to the revenue level it would have been if they didn't have a railcard ? It seems unlikely.

I don't think you're right: lots of people wouldn't use the train at all if it wasn't for that railcard, specifically families (because travelling in a car doesn't get more expensive if you go from 1 to 4 people, but rail very much does get more expensive), so if it wasn't for that railcard the railway would get nothing.

That's why I'm sceptical about adding more railcards - because there will be a *small* amount of new traffic who weren't going to travel but now might. And rather more people who will just do their current journeys but with a significant saving or maybe one or two additional journeys but the rail network still ends up down on the revenue as a whole.

As I understand it most suggestions for a national railcard want something like the DB bahncard 25 or 50, which would be significantly more expensive than the current railcards, because:
- It reduces the marginal cost of rail travel to something closer to the marginal cost of car travel, reducing the problem where rail appears more expensive in comparison (even if it actually isn't). People's perceptions matter.
- Because of the sunk cost fallacy people will feel like they get a better deal the more they travel on trains, encouraging more train travel, bringing in more money to the railway.

Of course there should be real thought going into how this railcard should be priced to be optimal, but a railcard doesn't necessarily mean extra subsidy