Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
From the volume of people using rail services at the end of 2019 and early 2020, it wasn't surprising tickets were not being checked. The carriages were packed like sardines and guards or RPOs could not have done their job anyway unless they started physically walking across people.
I always think of the scene at the end of Crocodile Dundee when Paul Hogan is reunited with Linda Kozlowski and he has to walk across everyone's shoulders to get across the New York subway platform. Many central UK stations were like this this time last year, such as Leeds and Manchester Oxford Road.
Its not such a bad thing that numbers have dropped - rail travel is less stressful and more enjoyable. Companies like Northern must have been hemorrhaging in ticketless travel prior to Covid so hopefully they have now had the chance to pull their socks up.
If there were significant amounts of ticketless travel than that could mean that as things return towards normal that the level of rail use in (say) 2022 could be not that much lower than 2019.
For instance if 10% was ticketless then a 30% fall would only show up as a 26.1% fall if more ticket checks (due to less busy trains) ment that ticketless travel fell to 5%.
From the volume of people using rail services at the end of 2019 and early 2020, it wasn't surprising tickets were not being checked. The carriages were packed like sardines and guards or RPOs could not have done their job anyway unless they started physically walking across people.
I always think of the scene at the end of Crocodile Dundee when Paul Hogan is reunited with Linda Kozlowski and he has to walk across everyone's shoulders to get across the New York subway platform. Many central UK stations were like this this time last year, such as Leeds and Manchester Oxford Road.
Its not such a bad thing that numbers have dropped - rail travel is less stressful and more enjoyable. Companies like Northern must have been hemorrhaging in ticketless travel prior to Covid so hopefully they have now had the chance to pull their socks up.
My post was more in reference to Covid. Penalty Fares only came in for TPE at the start of 2020, so had 6 weeks tops before the key worker TT was introduced and revenue checks ceased. Since penalty fare were reintroduced, those getting caught have gone through the roof despite the low numbers travelling.
However, it shows how much potential revenue the railway was losing previously, as you say due to overcrowding.
My post was more in reference to Covid. Penalty Fares only came in for TPE at the start of 2020, so had 6 weeks tops before the key worker TT was introduced and revenue checks ceased. Since penalty fare were reintroduced, those getting caught have gone through the roof despite the low numbers travelling.
However, it shows how much potential revenue the railway was losing previously, as you say due to overcrowding.
Indeed. It was documented on "The Railway 24/7" on Channel Five over the summer and was only introduced in February, so I'd say not even six weeks. Possibly a month, given passenger numbers were falling from the first week in March.
That's a really interesting graph - it does stubbornly seem to have plateaued around the 35-40% mark since mid-August. I guess the dip near the end is attributable to the Scottish lockdown?
It does suggest that if current habits are ingrained for much longer, it is going to be a long long time before rail use is even 70% of former levels as people get more and more used to either working remotely (commuters) or using private cars (leisure travellers). Bad news, all in all.
That's a really interesting graph - it does stubbornly seem to have plateaued around the 35-40% mark since mid-August. I guess the dip near the end is attributable to the Scottish lockdown?
It does suggest that if current habits are ingrained for much longer, it is going to be a long long time before rail use is even 70% of former levels as people get more and more used to either working remotely (commuters) or using private cars (leisure travellers). Bad news, all in all.
That's a really interesting graph - it does stubbornly seem to have plateaued around the 35-40% mark since mid-August. I guess the dip near the end is attributable to the Scottish lockdown?
It does suggest that if current habits are ingrained for much longer, it is going to be a long long time before rail use is even 70% of former levels as people get more and more used to either working remotely (commuters) or using private cars (leisure travellers). Bad news, all in all.
It's easier looking at the data on the DfT website issued each Wednesday. Rail is hovering around low to mid thirties, though last week's is about 31 some days, but the most recent data is provisional and subject to revision.
Unfortunately it's down form it's peaks of around 40% at start of September.
More tier 3 restrictions and reducing leisure travel isn't going to help the figures going forward.
It's the same data, although it doesn't include any regional breakdown. Most rail trips start or end in London so the Scottish lockdown wouldn't have a massive impact on national figures.
It does suggest that if current habits are ingrained for much longer, it is going to be a long long time before rail use is even 70% of former levels as people get more and more used to either working remotely (commuters) or using private cars (leisure travellers). Bad news, all in all.
It's the same data, although it doesn't include any regional breakdown. Most rail trips start or end in London so the Scottish lockdown wouldn't have a massive impact on national figures.
I realise that it's the same data, and as a snapshot the graph is good, but personally find the daily data easier in the table.
With rising cases nationally, weather changing there's more inclination to stay at or near home.
With the liverpooll/Lancs-manch-yorks conurbations in or entering tier 3 and general reluctance to travel , I'd be surprised if the next few weeks don't see some high 20% stats.
Absolutely it does, but my point is that the longer the 'work from home' directive goes on, the more people will be ingrained into their new habits, therefore less likely to go back to old habits.
That's a really interesting graph - it does stubbornly seem to have plateaued around the 35-40% mark since mid-August. I guess the dip near the end is attributable to the Scottish lockdown?
It does suggest that if current habits are ingrained for much longer, it is going to be a long long time before rail use is even 70% of former levels as people get more and more used to either working remotely (commuters) or using private cars (leisure travellers). Bad news, all in all.
On the other hand, it does suggest that so long as train companies aren't forced into putting out self-defeating messaging again, that 35% should hopefully be a solid base on which to build again.
Absolutely it does, but my point is that the longer the 'work from home' directive goes on, the more people will be ingrained into their new habits, therefore less likely to go back to old habits.
And whereas before if I wanted to go somethere I would think of public transport first, now I tend to think about walking or driving first, with public transport down the list
Absolutely it does, but my point is that the longer the 'work from home' directive goes on, the more people will be ingrained into their new habits, therefore less likely to go back to old habits.
On the other hand, it going on for longer might lead a lot of people to decide that working from home isn't all they thought it would be, and companies to decide that in some cases staff aren't as productive.
I do think that this situation will lead to more home working longer-term, but equally I suspect it's not going to be the radical shift that many have been predicting.
On the other hand, it going on for longer might lead a lot of people to decide that working from home isn't all they thought it would be, and companies to decide that in some cases staff aren't as productive.
I do think that this situation will lead to more home working longer-term, but equally I suspect it's not going to be the radical shift that many have been predicting.
I think it is hard to see how working from home will play out for the railways as I think there are quite a few variables here that will impact on commuter behaviour. Here are two scenarios that would have different results for the railways:
1) Those with long commutes by train are more likely to prefer working from home as they have more to gain from it in terms in saving time and money. Therefore these individuals drastically cut down their commuting. Those with short commutes on foot or bike who have little to gain continue to work in the office most of the time. In this case the reduction in the number of train commuters will be greater than for other modes.
2) Some may decide to commute less often in exchange for living further out. If someone commutes 10 miles each way 5 times a week and swaps it for a 50 mile commute twice a week, the railways would actually end up receiving more income from that individual.
I think it is hard to see how working from home will play out for the railways as I think there are quite a few variables here that will impact on commuter behaviour. Here are two scenarios that would have different results for the railways:
1) Those with long commutes by train are more likely to prefer working from home as they have more to gain from it in terms in saving time and money. Therefore these individuals drastically cut down their commuting. Those with short commutes on foot or bike who have little to gain continue to work in the office most of the time. In this case the reduction in the number of train commuters will be greater than for other modes.
2) Some may decide to commute less often in exchange for living further out. If someone commutes 10 miles each way 5 times a week and swaps it for a 50 mile commute twice a week, the railways would actually end up receiving more income from that individual.
Other variables also come into play, such as WFH impacting on miles traveled by car, as an example of you do 10,000 miles a year of which 8,500 is commuting (19 miles each way) then if you are mostly at home would you bother with a car for a total of 3,000 miles a year of travel is other options are available? (passengers usings for commuting 19 miles each way is 39 round trips, so only slightly less than 1/week (48 working weeks are fairly standard).
Likewise WFH could well impact on the number of 2+ car households, which would likely result in a few trips a year where rail is used where otherwise people would have just driven both cars (quite probably to different locations).
Finally it's worth noting that 1 car journey removed from the road network may result in 2+ passengers using the rail network.
I think most households with a car would keep at least one. Living without a car means a massive change to your lifestyle. You can no longer just "pop to the supermarket" or "pop to the DIY store" or "pop to ikea". Journeys to anywhere except the local town center or regional city center take over twice as long by public transport and your purchases are limited to what you can easily carry. Online shopping usually means waiting until at least the next day which is really annoying when you are in the middle of a task and suddenly discover you need something.
I can see a lot of families dropping from 2 cars to one though and/or keeping their car for longer before renewing it.
In my office of 6 we're all in, in another office there's more of a mix of WFH/being in the office.
Conversely there's other companies where about 75% of people haven't been in the office since lockdown and will be able to continue to WFH into at least the end of this year.
Whilst cost and time savings would have a big impact of if you'd like to WFH, where neither at that big a deal (no time or cost saving for me) means that it's not so attractive.
Traffic in Cardiff has calmed down a bit. That said, the buses still have healthy loads though still a long way off the previous full and standing loads. It will be interesting to see what the lockdown brings.
One outcome I think may need to come of this is a significant increase in peak fares. If people in future work from home 2 days a week on average, which feels like a realistic assumption, then fares would need to go up by 66% to be revenue-neutral. That hit could be offset for 5-day commuters by keeping season tickets (or capping, in London) at current levels.
I suspect this may be a likely outcome since the people who would be paying have salaries which accounted for these costs, though probably in practice balanced by service reductions, more subsidy, and hopefully schemes for helping those on low incomes access work.
One outcome I think may need to come of this is a significant increase in peak fares. If people in future work from home 2 days a week on average, which feels like a realistic assumption, then fares would need to go up by 66% to be revenue-neutral. That hit could be offset for 5-day commuters by keeping season tickets (or capping, in London) at current levels.
I suspect this may be a likely outcome since the people who would be paying have salaries which accounted for these costs, though probably in practice balanced by service reductions, more subsidy, and hopefully schemes for helping those on low incomes access work.
Peak travel is slightly more nuanced than that, in that passengers only get the cheapest tickets if they get an annual season ticket, so some of those losses would be offset by people having to buy another type of ticket (even a 12 journeys for the price of 10 route ticket isn't likely to give you same level of discount, unless you're using it to go to the office 4/5 days).
There's other factors too, such as if peak demand falls then you can have a uniform level of service all day, so need less units which would bring some savings.
Also if you are only going to work 3 days a week that is likely to reduce the miles traveled by at least 1/3, depending on what other travel you do that reduces the value of owning a car. Whilst cars are useful for other purposes, many of the reasons for them being used aren't essential and as the cost per mile increases (as fuel costs are a small amount of the annual cost) then more people are likely to look to rail for more of their travel.
Yes that's not going to be suitable for everyone, nor is it likely to mean lots more households without any car, but the numbers don't need to be big to impact the use of rail by very much.
That's because 80% of miles traveled is by car whilst 10% is by train, therefore you'd only need 2.5% of people to shift from road to rail to offset a 20% fall in rail travel. Even if rail travel falls by 30% as some suggest (which is 80% of workers WFH 60% of the time, as 65% of rail travelis commuting) the net result could be only a 10% fall with that 2.5% shift.
That level of shift is the equivalent of everyone traveling less than an extra 200 miles a year by train. For some that's just one trip to visit friends/family, for others that's only getting then one way, so they'll easily use up 2 people's allowance.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think most households with a car would keep at least one. Living without a car means a massive change to your lifestyle. You can no longer just "pop to the supermarket" or "pop to the DIY store" or "pop to ikea". Journeys to anywhere except the local town center or regional city center take over twice as long by public transport and your purchases are limited to what you can easily carry. Online shopping usually means waiting until at least the next day which is really annoying when you are in the middle of a task and suddenly discover you need something.
I can see a lot of families dropping from 2 cars to one though and/or keeping their car for longer before renewing it.
Pop to the supermarket trips tend to be only for a fairly few items, so for many walking/cycling is an option. For an extra few points of milk, even if you've drive a fairly short distance, chances are the extra cost in fuel would be more than buying more expensive milk from a corner shop or a garage (which would shorten your journey).
With regards to popping to a DIY shop, the rise of the likes of Screwfix means that there's also a lot more local options, as chances are you'll need something that can be easily carried (screws, nails, drill bit, paint, etc) rather than something big like a sheet of plasterboard. However, even then many places now have van by the hour hire, which is often better if you're needing to shift large items.
I don't know about others, but I don't often pop to places like IKEA, that is something that is planned.
In the last 8 months I've only gone to town once, that was mostly to pay in cheques and visit the library. Although we did buy a few other things they were easy enough to carry. Even before this year I don't ever recall buying so much that we couldn't have carried it if we were using public transport (and that includes allowing for the mile between the train station and our home).
Yes, if we had the ability to have no car (the main limiting factor is my wife's work) there would be things that we would have to change, but the above wouldn't rate very highly and we live in a large village/small town of 9,000 with limited other shops other than a supermarket (which is too small for the level of population as it offers virtually no home/clothing items).
The biggest "problem" would be visiting family about 250 miles away where they're not that close (10+ miles) to a station. However chances are we'd hire a car for those sorts of trips, as that would still be fairly cheap compared to car ownership.
As an example, 6 weekend trips (£120) and 2 lots of week long trips (£250) would be about 1/2 the annual cost of owning a car, but would be about 4,000 miles of travel, so it's worth doing as it's about 1/2 of our annual travel distance.
Most of the rest of my personal travel is walking/cycling taking the children to school or going to work.
One outcome I think may need to come of this is a significant increase in peak fares. If people in future work from home 2 days a week on average, which feels like a realistic assumption, then fares would need to go up by 66% to be revenue-neutral. That hit could be offset for 5-day commuters by keeping season tickets (or capping, in London) at current levels.
I suspect this may be a likely outcome since the people who would be paying have salaries which accounted for these costs, though probably in practice balanced by service reductions, more subsidy, and hopefully schemes for helping those on low incomes access work.
So basically you would effectively ban people without a season ticket from commuting at peak times?
To use my station, the current peak return fare from Basingstoke to London, a 45 min journey each way, is £43. Under your proposal that would go up to £71. Nobody in their right mind would pay that; that's more than the days salary after tax for an average paid worker. But the age of the widespread use of the annual season ticket is over too, so basically people will use cars or just make a home office. The railway will lose.
The only sensible option I can see is to bring in flexible season tickets pro rated on annual ticket rates (so if you pay 3/5 of the annual ticket price, you get 3x return journeys a week (not able to carry over), which should be easy to set up on smartcard systems). Or 2/5 or 4/5, whatever the passenger desires. Something has to change to be more passenger orientated, as the railway can no longer survive on 5-day a week commuters.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
