• 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!

Post Covid Passenger Rebound

Status
Not open for further replies.

43066

Veteran Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
12,089
Location
London
Are they at the moment? That is the bit I am interested to know, and how that breaks down between metro and non metro and importantly, how that compares with before as before is how capacity was set.

Yes - the busiest times are still the traditional peaks. Hence why engineering work still makes sense overnight and at weekends, especially Sundays, which are the least worst option. Closing the railway during weekdays (outside of Christmas and Easter blockades) would be very damaging to this traffic.

Personally I think the railway should be aiming to grab market share whilst fuel prices are high but let’s see if it has it in it. There is plenty of traffic out there so there is a potential passenger for every single seat on the railways.

I quite agree there certainly should be scope for that, and there’s a fair bit of advertising around at the moment aimed at enticing people back. My understanding is that TOCs are somewhat hamstrung by the inflexibility of ticketing arrangements they can offer. In particular properly flexible season tickets still haven’t materialised.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
I was actually referring to leeds to lkx. Not commuting trains. I accept that commuting journeys into London are more expensive, but up north NR don't have to pat for 12 coach trains and platforms and the rest of the complex infrastructure. Similarly, the service frequency is often dire with short stick up north. Londoners don't generally have to wait long periods between trains.

Again, not really true.

The service frequency from Harrogate is 4 tph, the Macclesfield example 3 tph.

Although its increased in recently, for many years Hatfield had 4 tph to London - 2 Kings X and 2 Moorgate, the Chiltern lines had a very patchy service for many years - worse than many places an similar distance from Manchester or Leeds. And as you say, those London services have much higher use.

Hatfield is a town of 40,000, pre Covid its station use was 2.3m / year.

Macclesfield at 50,000 is bigger yet pre Covid its station use was 1.6m / year.

Harrogate at 75,000 is bigger again yet its pre Covid station use was about 1.6m / year..
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
I don't think that anyone disagrees with the point that rail travel can sometimes deliver quick journeys at middling prices at late notice though do they? The trouble is that people do not trust that to be the case the majority of the time.

What people want is either a quality product that's highly reliable, dependable, and which you can actually relax and enjoy using, or alternatively, a bargain. Both camps are obviously not pleased by the current offer.
Good summary, spot on.

Nowadays, many want more reliability and confidence in order to use the trains - or at least all the various problems, delays, cancellations etc are more bearable if you know you have a cheap bargain.
What nobody wants is expensive fares and poor service.
There's a long way to go.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,329
Location
Yorks
What people want is either a quality product that's highly reliable, dependable, and which you can actually relax and enjoy using, or alternatively, a bargain. Both camps are obviously not pleased by the current offer.

Indeed. The reliability aspect needs to extend to price as well. It's no use relying on a range of AP prices to provide value for money then withdrawing them all for operational convenience.
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,718
Location
N Yorks
Commuters have indeed paid more, but their sheer volume into and out of London has caused vast sums to be spent on rail lines and stock in that area. For example, the question might be asked 'would we build crossrail and even contemplate crossrail2' given the current situation?
Huge amounts of railway spend has gone on london commuters over the last century. Fancy signalling, flyovers, power supply, station facilities, trains. All could be underused now. Not just in UK but acros Europe. To a lesser extent the bus industry.
 

modernrail

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,440
Yes - the busiest times are still the traditional peaks. Hence why engineering work still makes sense overnight and at weekends, especially Sundays, which are the least worst option. Closing the railway during weekdays (outside of Christmas and Easter blockades) would be very damaging to this traffic.



I quite agree there certainly should be scope for that, and there’s a fair bit of advertising around at the moment aimed at enticing people back. My understanding is that TOCs are somewhat hamstrung by the inflexibility of ticketing arrangements they can offer. In particular properly flexible season tickets still haven’t materialised.
How are the numbers breaking down between metro and long distance? My guess from recent use would be peak metro still busiest metro but medium and peak long distance might no longer be busier than off peak medium/long distance.
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,806
Good summary, spot on.

Nowadays, many want more reliability and confidence in order to use the trains - or at least all the various problems, delays, cancellations etc are more bearable if you know you have a cheap bargain.
What nobody wants is expensive fares and poor service.
There's a long way to go.
Totally agree. My own TOC ( Northern ) is poor just now. However, there isn't an easy off the peg solution to remedy that. The state of industrial relations is a significant factor.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,178
Ask anyone why they don't travel by train - number 1 reason will be it's too expensive.
100% agree. This is the view of every non enthusiast person I know. Most of them never go by train. They drive everywhere.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,329
Location
Yorks
100% agree. This is the view of every non enthusiast person I know. Most of them never go by train. They drive everywhere.

So true. The industry people stick their fingers in their ears at this and go "la la la...".
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,831
Location
Nowhere Heath
Fares are still off-putting, in the modern day of higher living costs, in some places and for some people. The fares to Cardiff, for example, from Hereford are not super expensive for the distance, not compared to similar distances in other parts of the country. However, assuming you've decided to fork out for it, and a non-railcard fare is not cheap these days so it's not something you just wake up and go to do now, you've then got the frustration of dealing with overcrowding on TfW. A really busy 2 car 175 is not a pleasant experience, and dealing with all the idiocy such a service usually carries (an entirely different topic!) is off-putting.

This is of course the off-peak experience, during the peak when I last did this journey it was much more pleasurable. The trains were busy, but not overcrowded, so the atmosphere was relaxing. Which is of course very different to how it used to be.

Worse is going the other way to Birmingham. Services are still too unreliable, although nothing like it was a few months ago, for a leisure journey to be worthy of consideration. The fare, while not extreme, is still not considered good value for the service offered, and the risk of a 1 hour or more wait for a train due to a cancellation, to then end up potentially being on a very busy train and standing for most of the journey, well it's not a fun thought.

Most of my friends and family avoid the railway like the plague, but occasionally have to endure it because the majority of said group do not drive. I can't say I blame them most of the time, the quality of service and fares don't encourage me to go on a rail journey either. Which goes against logic, considering my line of interest you'd think I'd be promoting the use of the railway wouldn't you? I'd surely be wanting to use it myself, but quite frankly it isn't what it needs to be to encourage me to use it.

Case in point, it cost me less (or near enough, I have to confess I forget the exact rail fare) to go to the cinema to watch the new Sonic The Hedgehog film (£12.50, including a 95p online booking fee) yesterday than it does to go to Worcester. That's not including the money I'd spent while over there of course, the fare for a 56-57 mile round trip is not considered good value for money. I didn't spend extra on popcorn or drinks either, my water bottle was all I needed.

I have a feeling there's plenty more of us out there who have the same problem with the railway, and there's no quick or easy solution to that. I want a good day out on the rails, it's been a long time since I had a proper good day of finding required trains, but when the better option is to go to the cinema or to do almost anything else in times of making money stretch, then it's not likely to happen.

As for passenger counts, yes the trains are very busy again although I have no numbers to support how much it compares to 2019 or whatever. A lot of places, no doubt numbers are not that high, but come the school holidays that will inevitably change as it always does! Quite frankly, in weather like it is outside currently, the idea of a day out in cold and strengthening wind or a day indoors where there's warmth and comfort, well it's fairly obvious really that all the areas which see outdoor activity are going to be quiet still. If it was actually like spring outside, then those quieter places would inevitably be much busier.

When that happens, we will still probably be enduring short-formed trains, missing train crew, outlandish fares (not everywhere, and this is a little subjective to be fair) and industry action, not to mention random cancellations. Until all that starts getting improved, then I suspect passenger numbers will still be a bit suppressed!
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
10,994
Location
London
100% agree. This is the view of every non enthusiast person I know. Most of them never go by train. They drive everywhere.

Yes but a fair amount is perception vs reality and not helped by people comparing a road trip (and not accounting for all car costs like parking, maintenance etc.) to an anytime fare as opposed to an advance (something unfortunately the media regularly does too). Advances and super/off-peak services can be very reasonable in comparison but admittedly requires more planning. But in some places the railway isn't viable geographically - if you're a substantial car ride from a station anyway, why would you bother? Lots of new town expansions are built around the car and not public transport. There should definitely be some development into making stations better "railheads". Maybe even things like car hire (a la Zipcar) from train stations for people arriving by train, maybe even integrated into a ticket. There's options, but the railway can never compete on the "everywhere to everywhere" front.

That being said, in many cases, the railway capacity couldn't handle a huge modal shift - If we went to only 100% of demand pre-Covid, there were trains regularly full and standing in the peak and some weekends. A bit of rationalisation in the peak and removal of certain peak extras might improve operations and reliability disproportionately.

A fundamental issue is that off-peak (not shoulder peak) is less people travel regardless; even by car you won't get as many travelling 1100-1600 (excepting the school run).

As for fares, unless the DfT/the government recognises the railway as more of a public service and skews the cost of running it back to the taxpayer, fares are only going in one direction. Every party for the last 25 years has however decided to move the cost of the operational railway onto the passenger, so I can't see it changing any time soon either way.
 

Dr Day

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2018
Messages
758
Location
Bristol
Price doesn't even come into the equation when the door to door trip including rail simply isn't viable - ie the train doesn't go where people want to go and/or there is no reasonable means of getting both to and from the station either end.

ie. the process is subconsciously something like

Do I really need to do the thing I was planning on doing? (ie do I need to work/buy a new shirt/watch the match etc),
Do I really need to make the trip at all? (ie can I work from home instead/shop on line/watch the match on the telly)
What transport modes are available for my door to door trip? (walk to station plus train plus bus, drive all the way, drive to station then get tube at the other end etc)
Of those that are available, can any be ruled out on practical grounds- ie I can't carry my weekly shopping
Of those left, what are the respective estimated journey times including connections for interchange and frequency, both 'known' and 'unknown' including likelihood of traffic congestion, fear of cancellations/delays. That will rule out a few more options
Of those left, how much will it cost for the party I am travelling with?
Other factors, such as perceived crowding, safety risks, personal preferences including being in control - some people like it, others are happy for someone else to do the driving

Public transport (including rail) more often then not often fails at step 3 compared with driving
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,178
Yes but a fair amount is perception vs reality and not helped by people comparing a road trip (and not accounting for all car costs like parking, maintenance etc.) to an anytime fare as opposed to an advance (something unfortunately the media regularly does too).
So the question is how to change the perception? The same applies to cycling. Lots of people think I'm mad because I ride along busy roads but I'm still here after 20 years.

As regards the cost of driving, once someone owns a car, the cost of any one trip is marginal, apart from the fuel.
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
8,911
RMT have apparently declared a dispute with Network Rail and nearly all the TOCs over a lack of guarantee of no compulsory redundancy, pay talks and guarantee of retention of T&Cs, ballot papers for industrial action to be sent out shortly. I shall be intrigued to see how it develops.
 

ar10642

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2015
Messages
576
The, as yet, unanswered question though is whether that's a "blip" caused by people reacting to 2 years of lockdown restrictions and getting out and about or whether it's a long term trend. It could easily be either and as "normal" life returns the leisure market drops back, particularly given the cost of living challenge which will put a squeeze on discretionary spending.
People will look to cut costs
So the question is how to change the perception? The same applies to cycling. Lots of people think I'm mad because I ride along busy roads but I'm still here after 20 years.

As regards the cost of driving, once someone owns a car, the cost of any one trip is marginal, apart from the fuel.
That's it. The choice is do I take the car I already own and pay for or take the train today. Not shall I take the train and get rid of the car forever, so fixed motoring costs don't really factor in and marginal maintenance costs are never going to cost as much as the difference between fare and fuel.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
As provided by bus services everywhere in the country apart from London, you mean?!

Quite. £9.50 for a 2 mile trip for a family of 4 is laughable if it wasn't reality. No wonder the bus was otherwise empty.

A really busy 2 car 175 is not a pleasant experience, and dealing with all the idiocy such a service usually carries (an entirely different topic!) is off-putting.

So we have

* fares that are too high
* trains that are too crowded
* subsidies that are far higher per passenger-km than road funding before accounting for VED and fuel tax

This doesn't seem to add up. If fares are too high trains wouldn't be crowded. If anything it seems that fares are too low and the taxpayer is thus subsidising too much, or that rail simply isn't an efficient method of transportation, but 85% of people drive rather than take a train (train: 67b pax-km. Road: 410b car-km, or about 500b pax-km with a load average of just 1.25) despite rail and road expenditure being about the same each year.

Why does it cost so much more to operate a train per passenger-km than say a coach? Is it simply because the rail network is obsolete Victorian engineering of little use to the vast majority of people?

More importantly, how can the railway become useful to the majority, reduce costs to be economic, and increase capacity to make an impact on reducing private transport miles.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,269
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Rail works well with high volumes because you can operate a train of any length with 2 traincrew (or 3 with catering). An overcrowded 2-car DMU has far worse economics than a non-overcrowded 8-car formation. With this in mind, one of the best ways to make things more economic is to operate fewer, longer trains.
 

Fokx

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2019
Messages
1,611
Location
Liverpool
One of the best ways to make things more economic is to operate fewer, longer trains.

That doesn’t attract passengers at all. Even myself who hold a priv pass will not opt for the train if it’s an hourly weekend service. I’ll either drive or take the longer but more frequent bus

You still require capacity but with a good frequency. There’s no point trying to attract commuters back with a service that’s say 8 carriages if they’re having to add 50 minutes each way to their journey time because the frequency is so poor, it would add two hours almost onto their daily commute.

Frequency is one of the most complained about topics to TOCs on social media since Covid with passengers begging for service reinstation
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,260
Location
Bolton
Why does it cost so much more to operate a train per passenger-km than say a coach?
The main reason is that a coach driver earns about half what a train driver does, and the train usually has a conductor while the bus doesn't. But also buses are typically limited to 50 or 60 miles / hour, so can afford slightly lower safety standards.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
Hereford-Cardiff return is £25 and takes just over an hour, Hereford-Newport £20 and 50 minutes, so £10 an hour.

Shrewsbury-Newport for 2 hours is £65 return, or £16 per hour.

Crewe-Cardiff 3 hours each way for £82 return, or £13 per hour.

A 2 car train can fit 136 people sitting. so a full train (not standing) will be taking over £1000 an hour.

2 members of staff at £40k/year, or £20 an hour, double it for overheads and that's £80 an hour. Doesn't really impact on the revenue.

Crewe-Cardiff is 330 mile round trip. For a single person that's 25p/mile, for a family you're looking at 75p/mile, plus the cost of getting to and from the station at each end. Good luck persuading someone that's cheaper than putting 35 litres of fuel in their car for £60.

It seems that the cost of a train is ridiculous, £2-3m for 100 people, that's 5 times the price of a coach
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,774
2 members of staff at £40k/year, or £20 an hour, double it for overheads and that's £80 an hour. Doesn't really impact on the revenue.

im afraid your costings are out by a rather significant magnitude.

a typical traincrew of driver plus ’guard’ will cost the train company around £200k pa. And you need at least two sets of crew for each daily diagram To cover for leave, sickness, training, other absence, weekends, etc etc.
then there’s the cost of the train, fuel or electricity, the maintenance, the depot staff, the cleaners, the station staff, the planners, all the standard things a medium to large company needs to function, etc.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,691
The main reason is that a coach driver earns about half what a train driver does, and the train usually has a conductor while the bus doesn't. But also buses are typically limited to 50 or 60 miles / hour, so can afford slightly lower safety standards.
Interesting suggestion about 'slightly lower safety standards'. Have you got it the wrong way round - a train driver has no flexibility as to where he drives, he has a signaller to determine his direction, he doesn't have to watch out for other traffic, pedestrians, children, bikes etc etc.....
 

Techniquest

Veteran Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
21,831
Location
Nowhere Heath
The same applies to cycling. Lots of people think I'm mad because I ride along busy roads

Without wanting to go too off-topic (I've already done that lately on a different thread!) people think I'm nuts too for my cycling. You've got to be a bit nuts to go cycling down busy roads, you just get used to the manic-ness don't you? Zone out, focus on the ride and keep the wits and nerves going, job's a good 'un.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,260
Location
Bolton
Rail works well with high volumes because you can operate a train of any length with 2 traincrew (or 3 with catering). An overcrowded 2-car DMU has far worse economics than a non-overcrowded 8-car formation. With this in mind, one of the best ways to make things more economic is to operate fewer, longer trains.
Exactly. Anywhere which only has enough demand for a two coach train doesn't have enough demand for a heavy rail service. I think it is accepted that there will always be a few special cases, particularly in very rural areas, but in the main rail isn't suitable for these markets.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,269
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Exactly. Anywhere which only has enough demand for a two coach train doesn't have enough demand for a heavy rail service. I think it is accepted that there will always be a few special cases, particularly in very rural areas, but in the main rail isn't suitable for these markets.

But equally, XC is better operating twice the frequency with an 8-10 car train than half the frequency with a 4-car one (shame those units aren't gangwayed so it means two guards and two buffet stewards). Generally, long distance journeys are fine with hourly, while half-hourly is a sweet spot for urban local services because people are more time-sensitive on shorter journeys.

Similarly TPE should forget the aspiration for 6tph across the Pennines and revert to 4 (2 Liverpool, 2 Piccadilly, one to each of the 4 main destinations) with long trains, e.g. extend the 80x to 7-8 car.
 

Peregrine 4903

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2019
Messages
1,518
Location
London
But equally, XC is better operating twice the frequency with an 8-10 car train than half the frequency with a 4-car one (shame those units aren't gangwayed so it means two guards and two buffet stewards). Generally, long distance journeys are fine with hourly, while half-hourly is a sweet spot for urban local services because people are more time-sensitive on shorter journeys.

Similarly TPE should forget the aspiration for 6tph across the Pennines and revert to 4 (2 Liverpool, 2 Piccadilly, one to each of the 4 main destinations) with long trains, e.g. extend the 80x to 7-8 car.
I disagree, as there is exactly the same capacity with an hourly 8 car train and a half hourly 4 car train. If I had to chose between the two, I'm taking frequency over train length everytime. And I think a lot of people would chose the same.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,269
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I disagree, as there is exactly the same capacity with an hourly 8 car train and a half hourly 4 car train. If I had to chose between the two, I'm taking frequency over train length everytime. And I think a lot of people would chose the same.

But we have to cut costs due to the considerable reduction in premium business travellers.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
But equally, XC is better operating twice the frequency with an 8-10 car train than half the frequency with a 4-car one (shame those units aren't gangwayed so it means two guards and two buffet stewards). Generally, long distance journeys are fine with hourly, while half-hourly is a sweet spot for urban local services because people are more time-sensitive on shorter journeys.
Living in the southeast I don't get much opportunity to use XC services but when I do I get the impression that there are very few passengers that are actually using them for long journeys say over 100 miles and what is really needed is for the routes to be broken up in to mid distance journeys connecting regional hubs. When 90% of the passengers from Bournemouth get off at Reading what is the point of having 125 mph low capacity diesel trains bumbling around on third rail routes where they rarely exceed 70 mph?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,260
Location
Bolton
I disagree, as there is exactly the same capacity with an hourly 8 car train and a half hourly 4 car train. If I had to chose between the two, I'm taking frequency over train length everytime. And I think a lot of people would chose the same.
You will earn more with the same capacity at double the frequency, which is of course precisely why they were run in that way! The question is, on balance, can the service still earn more relative to the additional cost of running like that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top