UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[Watershed]

Albeit offset by the current extremely high rate of inflation

The current rate of inflation doesn't make any difference to the fact that a payrise means an increase in the cash-terms operational expenditure of the industry - and therefore the government.

It is disappointing that the lack of progress in discussions over comparatively few grades (e.g. maintenance and ticket office staff) seems to be holding back progress for everyone else. In fact, I would be surprised if this doesn't start to cause as resentment to build.

 

[Snow1964]

Latest transport use figures from DfT
(column G is rail) comparison to pre covid

15th Oct 95%
16th Oct 95%
17th Oct 94%
18th Oct 94%
19th Oct 94%
20th Oct 93%
21st Oct 92%
22nd Oct 93%
23rd Oct 92%
24th Oct onwards are provisional

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain.

www.gov.uk

 

[Dr Day]

Latest transport use figures from DfT

How do these compare with those from ticket sales as don't appear to be derived from the same source?

 

[12LDA28C]

How do these compare with those from ticket sales as don't appear to be derived from the same source?

Do you mean ticket sales (as in the number of tickets sold) or revenue (the value of tickets sold)?

As has been discussed at length, passenger numbers are returning to pre-pandemic levels (and in some cases are already in excess of 2019 numbers) but revenue is still down thanks to the decline in commuter / peak time / business travel and season ticket sales.

 

[Snow1964]

Do you mean ticket sales (as in the number of tickets sold) or revenue (the value of tickets sold)?

As has been discussed at length, passenger numbers are returning to pre-pandemic levels (and in some cases are already in excess of 2019 numbers) but revenue is still down thanks to the decline in commuter / peak time / business travel and season ticket sales.

There is also lots of evidence that it is very uneven (and there was a thread on how busy has your train been recently). The DfT figures clearly show over 90-95% of pre covid for most recent week with full figures.

There are some areas (eg SWR outer suburban commuter) where it is suggested usage is nearer 70% of pre covid. There are others like Avanti that are not operating anything like 95% of pre covid service levels

Clearly if average is hitting 95% on some days, then some areas must be busier than 100% of pre covid levels, maybe even 110%+. However this doesn’t mean that commuter EMUs can suddenly be moved to busy areas which suggests there are going to be some areas with serious crowding problems and no short term solution.

 

[Dr Day]

Do you mean ticket sales (as in the number of tickets sold) or revenue (the value of tickets sold)?

I mean how do these figures compare against the journeys data in Lennon - which various people on here appear to have access to and are able to quote at a broad level. My understanding from various recent postings by @Bald Rick and others was that the industry recovery figure was considerably lower at around 80-85%%, for both revenue and journeys (not adjusted for the reduced number of trains/miles operated)

 

[Robertj21a]

As interesting as the *numbers* travelling may well be, surely the most important key stat will be anything that confirms how the *finances* are doing ?
Are these - when calculated over the whole country - still well down ?

 

[Watershed]

I mean how do these figures compare against the journeys data in Lennon - which various people on here appear to have access to and are able to quote at a broad level. My understanding from various recent postings by @Bald Rick and others was that the industry recovery figure was considerably lower at around 80-85%%, for both revenue and journeys (not adjusted for the reduced number of trains/miles operated)

These figures are based on data from LENNON (hence why they aren't accurate until some weeks afterwards, once all sales and refunds have been processed). But passenger numbers are different to overall revenue, which is lower due to the changed distribution of journey and passenger types.

 

[Trainbike46]

I mean how do these figures compare against the journeys data in Lennon - which various people on here appear to have access to and are able to quote at a broad level. My understanding from various recent postings by @Bald Rick and others was that the industry recovery figure was considerably lower at around 80-85%%, for both revenue and journeys (not adjusted for the reduced number of trains/miles operated)

There's also the point that @Bald Rick quoted those numbers several weeks ago, back when the data in this link was also displaying more or less 80-85%

 

[12LDA28C]

There is also lots of evidence that it is very uneven (and there was a thread on how busy has your train been recently). The DfT figures clearly show over 90-95% of pre covid for most recent week with full figures.

There are some areas (eg SWR outer suburban commuter) where it is suggested usage is nearer 70% of pre covid. There are others like Avanti that are not operating anything like 95% of pre covid service levels

Clearly if average is hitting 95% on some days, then some areas must be busier than 100% of pre covid levels, maybe even 110%+. However this doesn’t mean that commuter EMUs can suddenly be moved to busy areas which suggests there are going to be some areas with serious crowding problems and no short term solution.

An operator does not need to be running 95% of pre-Covid services to see passenger numbers reach 95% of pre-Covid levels. Although as others have said revenue will most likely be at a lower percentage, particularly on commuter routes.

 

[Kite159]

An operator does not need to be running 95% of pre-Covid services to see passenger numbers reach 95% of pre-Covid levels. Although as others have said revenue will most likely be at a lower percentage, particularly on commuter routes.

Just look at Northern for example, with a few routes which before Covid were half hourly but are now hourly with some random gaps.

For example Liverpool - Wigan, Liverpool - stations towards St Helens Junction/Earlstown [previously served by the Warrington BQ stoppers], Sheffield - Doncaster.

Especially on routes where there is no real bus alternative.

 

[12LDA28C]

Just look at Northern for example, with a few routes which before Covid were half hourly but are now hourly with some random gaps.

For example Liverpool - Wigan, Liverpool - stations towards St Helens Junction/Earlstown [previously served by the Warrington BQ stoppers], Sheffield - Doncaster.

Especially on routes where there is no real bus alternative.

Leading to serious overcrowding on some trains, no doubt. Hardly creating an attractive proposition to encourage people to return to train travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2022 ==

There is also lots of evidence that it is very uneven (and there was a thread on how busy has your train been recently). The DfT figures clearly show over 90-95% of pre covid for most recent week with full figures.

There are some areas (eg SWR outer suburban commuter) where it is suggested usage is nearer 70% of pre covid. There are others like Avanti that are not operating anything like 95% of pre covid service levels

Clearly if average is hitting 95% on some days, then some areas must be busier than 100% of pre covid levels, maybe even 110%+. However this doesn’t mean that commuter EMUs can suddenly be moved to busy areas which suggests there are going to be some areas with serious crowding problems and no short term solution.

Indeed. Grand Central for example, and I appreciate they are a small OA operator, has reported passenger numbers as having now reached 112% of pre-pandemic levels.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is definitely something odd about these figures, as they are not consistent with what is being reported internally, from the same source data.

As ever, it’s important to remember that:

a) growth without Covid would have seen us at about 110% passenger numbers now
b) revenue without Covid would have been at about 120%
c) costs are now around 120% of Pre Covid.

Hence why it is a very scary situation!

 

[43074]

There is definitely something odd about these figures, as they are not consistent with what is being reported internally, from the same source data.

As ever, it’s important to remember that:

a) growth without Covid would have seen us at about 110% passenger numbers now
b) revenue without Covid would have been at about 120%
c) costs are now around 120% of Pre Covid.

Hence why it is a very scary situation!

Out of interest, what proportion of the industry's income is from the government subsidy and how much is coming from the farebox at the moment?

 

[dk1]

There is definitely something odd about these figures, as they are not consistent with what is being reported internally, from the same source data.

As ever, it’s important to remember that:

a) growth without Covid would have seen us at about 110% passenger numbers now
b) revenue without Covid would have been at about 120%
c) costs are now around 120% of Pre Covid.

Hence why it is a very scary situation!

Scary Mary.

 

[yorksrob]

There is definitely something odd about these figures, as they are not consistent with what is being reported internally, from the same source data.

As ever, it’s important to remember that:

a) growth without Covid would have seen us at about 110% passenger numbers now
b) revenue without Covid would have been at about 120%
c) costs are now around 120% of Pre Covid.

Hence why it is a very scary situation!

Would we have wanted 110% of pre covid passenger numbers. I seem to recall we were worrying about infrastructure projects to increase capacity before covid - something very expensive.

 

[dk1]

Would we have wanted 110% of pre covid passenger numbers. I seem to recall we were worrying about infrastructure projects to increase capacity before covid - something very expensive.

Although we could do with a few more trains into Liverpool St, I’m more than happy with the better flow of trains in from Shenfield each weekday morning now. It became too much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

a) growth without Covid would have seen us at about 110% passenger numbers now

Would it? Pre COVID much of the railway was creaking under the strain of severe overcrowding at most times of day. It had really got quite unpleasant, and was likely to end up self-limiting if something wasn't done about it - and there was no suggestion that anything would be, e.g. ordering of more stock to solve overcrowding on the likes of Northern or XC.

 

[yorksrob]

Although we could do with a few more trains into Liverpool St, I’m more than happy with the better flow of trains in from Shenfield each weekday morning now. It became too much.

Indeed. I believe the route into Waterloo was pretty near capacity as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, what proportion of the industry's income is from the government subsidy and how much is coming from the farebox at the moment?

A bit less than 40% farebox, a bit more than 60% Government, at the current run rate, which seems to be where firebox is settling. Earlier in the year it was rather worse.

Would we have wanted 110% of pre covid passenger numbers.

Would it? Pre COVID much of the railway was creaking under the strain of severe overcrowding at most times of day. It had really got quite unpleasant, and was likely to end up self-limiting if something wasn't done about it - and there was no suggestion that anything would be, e.g. ordering of more stock to solve overcrowding on the likes of Northern or XC.

Yes, that’s what all those 700s, 701s, 720s, 730s, 745s, 755s, 345s, 195s, 196s, 331s, 800/1/2/5/7/10s, etc etc were / are being built for. ie a significant increase in network capacity, which would be filled over the years.

 

[Kite159]

Would it? Pre COVID much of the railway was creaking under the strain of severe overcrowding at most times of day. It had really got quite unpleasant, and was likely to end up self-limiting if something wasn't done about it - and there was no suggestion that anything would be, e.g. ordering of more stock to solve overcrowding on the likes of Northern or XC.

Maybe if Covid hadn't happened Northern would have been allowed to order another batch of CAF DMUs for growth & to replace some of the 150s/155s (as they are a small microfleet). Who knows what might have happened if the world didn't go crazy in march 2020

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed. I believe the route into Waterloo was pretty near capacity as well.

Hence the 701s and the resurrection of the 442s*.

*claiming a prize for getting these into this thread.

 

[Hadders]

Hence the 701s and the resurrection of the 442s*.

*claiming a prize for getting these into this thread.

Top work, Sir!

 

[Bald Rick]

Top work, Sir!

Thank you, it took a decent set up and quite a few moves, and at one point I thought I’d been rumbled, but I got the result we all wanted

 

[philosopher]

A bit less than 40% farebox, a bit more than 60% Government, at the current run rate, which seems to be where firebox is settling. Earlier in the year it was rather worse.





Yes, that’s what all those 700s, 701s, 720s, 730s, 745s, 755s, 345s, 195s, 196s, 331s, 800/1/2/5/7/10s, etc etc were / are being built for. ie a significant increase in network capacity, which would be filled over the years.

The problem is they ordered loads of trains that are generally good for capacity, but not so good for comfort. For example the class 700s have loads of room for standing passengers and indicators where on the train is less crowded, but uncomfortable seats and seemingly fewer passenger amenities than previous similar trains, such as some cases no toilets.

Now I would argue it is more important for trains to be built with passenger comfort in mind to attract more passengers, rather than buying trains with as high as a capacity as possible. Of course, to be fair in 2019 no one knew Covid would disrupt the railway market so much.

 

[AM9]

The problem is they ordered loads of trains that are generally good for capacity, but not so good for comfort. For example the class 700s have loads of room for standing passengers and indicators where on the train is less crowded, but uncomfortable seats and seemingly fewer passenger amenities than previous similar trains, such as some cases no toilets.

Now I would argue it is more important for trains to be built with passenger comfort in mind to attract more passengers, rather than buying trains with as high as a capacity as possible. Of course, to be fair in 2019 no one knew Covid would disrupt the railway market so much.

It wasn't a problem when they ordered the 700s, i.e. 15 years ago. They were delvered 5-6 'ish years ago so they are about 15 years away from their mid-life refit. That will address their suitability for services at the time, (which may not be lower density seating to attract more patronage).

 

[12LDA28C]

Now I would argue it is more important for trains to be built with passenger comfort in mind to attract more passengers, rather than buying trains with as high as a capacity as possible. Of course, to be fair in 2019 no one knew Covid would disrupt the railway market so much.

If that was the case, new trains would have a few cosy armchairs and sofas dotted around each coach, maybe also an occasional table or two. Capacity considerations take priority these days and have done for many years. Not much point having big comfy seats if a load of passengers get left behind on the platform because there's no room for them to board the train.

 

[43066]

Now I would argue it is more important for trains to be built with passenger comfort in mind to attract more passengers, rather than buying trains with as high as a capacity as possible. Of course, to be fair in 2019 no one knew Covid would disrupt the railway market so much.

Except that, as noted above, we are already back to 95% plus of 2019 numbers, and the railway was very overcrowded in 2019.

Clearly Covid has had an impact, but there are plenty of crowded trains on the network in autumn 2022, and of course rolling stock now coming into service today will be around for the next forty years or so, so must accommodate future growth too.

 

[AM9]

If that was the case, new trains would have a few cosy armchairs and sofas dotted around each coach, maybe also an occasional table or two. Capacity considerations take priority these days and have done for many years. Not much point having big comfy seats if a load of passengers get left behind on the platform because there's no room for them to board the train.

Hear Hear! These claims for higher luxury on trains justifying them as an effective way to increase demand, often come from those who board their train when/where there are always seats available, and then they sit tight watching those boarding at later stations having to stand (or even not boarding at all.

 

[Snow1964]

Hear Hear! These claims for higher luxury on trains justifying them as an effective way to increase demand, often come from those who board their train when/where there are always seats available, and then they sit tight watching those boarding at later stations having to stand (or even not boarding at all.

There are very few sections of the network where it is virtually impossible to lengthen platforms, close up signalling headways, or add reversible centre lines to allow overtaking and increase capacity.

In many cases it is just needed for hour or two on certain days of the week, so more an affordability issue.

It is not a good reason not to provide decent level of comfort for the other 90-95% of the time on same route. And of course many lines have no infrastructure capacity problems, just a lack of rolling stock, to utilise the existing platform lengths. The marginal cost of adding a coach (when available) if it means can sell extra 50+ tickets shouldn’t rule it out as a reasonable concept.