UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[Starmill]

It’s reasonable to assume that any reduction in long distance fleets will be through reducing services that don’t cover their marginal costs. This is to limit the increase in subsidy that would otherwise be required compared to previously expected budget guidelines.

It's not straightforward to see what those actually are in the case of CrossCountry and LNER though is it? Obviously a small number of early and late ones could go in order to shorten diagram lengths, the LNER London - Lincoln services could all go, and CrossCountry could withdraw the planned reintroduction of additional services between Reading and Birmingham or York. Are LNER really going to be withdrawing the Middlesbrough service for example right after it has started? Abandon the Harrogate services?

 

[yorksrob]

That might be happening now, but that’s because the service level is still the same.

If LNER is getting over 100% of 2019 passenger usage, it needs the same service level or more.

That's before we consider potential future growth.

 

[JonathanH]

If LNER is getting over 100% of 2019 passenger usage, it needs the same service level or more.

Doesn't it depend where that 100% is? Running a core clockface service, for example, of 2tph to Edinburgh, 2tph to Leeds, 1tp2h to York and nothing else, with no extensions beyond that core network, would reduce costs, and probably not lose too many passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

Doesn't it depend where that 100% is? Running a core clockface service, for example, of 2tph to Edinburgh, 2tph to Leeds, 1tp2h to York and nothing else, with no extensions beyond that core network, would reduce costs, and probably not lose too many passengers.

But when it comes to further passenger demand, instead of being able to generate more revenue from it, you end up putting passengers off through crowding discomfort.

 

[Ken H]

If LNER is getting over 100% of 2019 passenger usage, it needs the same service level or more.

That's before we consider potential future growth.

depends on revenue. Is downtrading occurring. If so, reducing the offering at a higher price will make more money.

 

[JonathanH]

But when it comes to further passenger demand, instead of being able to generate more revenue from it, you end up putting passengers off through crowding discomfort.

Concentrating on the core network means you can maintain capacity while also losing the older rolling stock, and most importantly reduce costs.

As for 'further passenger demand', it is presumably on the core routes rather than any of the extensions, so you would have the same issue on the core network running the existing level of service as you do running a core network only service with less rolling stock.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not straightforward to see what those actually are in the case of CrossCountry and LNER though is it? Obviously a small number of early and late ones could go in order to shorten diagram lengths, the LNER London - Lincoln services could all go, and CrossCountry could withdraw the planned reintroduction of additional services between Reading and Birmingham or York. Are LNER really going to be withdrawing the Middlesbrough service for example right after it has started? Abandon the Harrogate services?

Oh it’s very straightforward! Look at the trains, see where they are barely carrying passengers.

If LNER is getting over 100% of 2019 passenger usage, it needs the same service level or more.

That's before we consider potential future growth.

Not necessarily. For example I don’t think we really need 5 trains arriving at Kings X from Leeds between 0730-0900 any more. Nor do I think LNER really need to serve Hull.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh it’s very straightforward! Look at the trains, see where they are barely carrying passengers.




Not necessarily. For example I don’t think we really need 5 trains arriving at Kings X from Leeds between 0730-0900 any more. Nor do I think LNER really need to serve Hull.

Probably not, but the mk4's (as an example) aren't just used between 7:30 and 9:00. They are used on whole day diagrams. Even if you take away some peak extras, I find it hard to believe that you would be able to withdraw substantial fleets without damaging the core service.

And if the morning peak ceases to be a thing, shouldn't we be supporting the new peak times created by the post Covid world ?

As regards Hull, do we know that that city can do with one less London service a day (forgetting TOC and remembering that the LNER is part of a timetable).

 

[Starmill]

Oh it’s very straightforward! Look at the trains, see where they are barely carrying passengers.

With respect my post identified where that's already the case. Sunderland is already being abandoned, you've suggested Hull as an additional daily pair of services but that's still basically just losing the Lincolns and about a quarter of the Leeds services. Relatively thin in terms of a week's worth of diagrams isn't it? CrossCountry has even fewer, although Birmingham - Leicester and Birmingham - Nottingham could drop to hourly.

 

[yorksrob]

depends on revenue. Is downtrading occurring. If so, reducing the offering at a higher price will make more money.

But you'll end up degrading the 'product' through overcrowding and putting people off.

 

[Starmill]

Concentrating on the core network means you can maintain capacity while also losing the older rolling stock, and most importantly reduce costs.

As for 'further passenger demand', it is presumably on the core routes rather than any of the extensions, so you would have the same issue on the core network running the existing level of service as you do running a core network only service with less rolling stock.

Removing the extensions to Skipton and Bradford as well as Sunderland is tinkering at best however. Same for removing four services to Middlesbrough and Hull. Maybe five to remove the 'Flying Scotsman'. It doesn't save much even all together.

Removing all of the Lincoln services (all the way) and about a quarter of the Leeds services (mostly the ones that go to Harrogate) would do but even then is that enough?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2023 ==

But you'll end up degrading the 'product' through overcrowding and putting people off.

To be fair withdrawing the Lincoln and Middlesbrough services wouldn't lead to crowding as they are five car and aren't full. Nor would truncating the Skipton and Bradford services at Leeds.

 

[yorksrob]

Removing the extensions to Skipton and Bradford as well as Sunderland is tinkering at best however. Same for removing four services to Middlesbrough and Hull. Maybe five to remove the 'Flying Scotsman'. It doesn't save much even all together.

Removing all of the Lincoln services (all the way) and about a quarter of the Leeds services (mostly the ones that go to Harrogate) would do but even then is that enough?

Also, aren't these quarter of Leeds services part of the twice hourly core Leeds service anyway ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2023 ==

Removing the extensions to Skipton and Bradford as well as Sunderland is tinkering at best however. Same for removing four services to Middlesbrough and Hull. Maybe five to remove the 'Flying Scotsman'. It doesn't save much even all together.

Removing all of the Lincoln services (all the way) and about a quarter of the Leeds services (mostly the ones that go to Harrogate) would do but even then is that enough?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2023 ==


To be fair withdrawing the Lincoln and Middlesbrough services wouldn't lead to crowding as they are five car and aren't full. Nor would truncating the Skipton and Bradford services at Leeds.

That's a fair point, but as above, when you start chopping Leeds -London services, you're damaging your core market.

I'm not against reducing frequencies where numbers justify it, but LNER is already over 100% of 2019 demand.

 

[Starmill]

Also, aren't these quarter of Leeds services part of the twice hourly core Leeds service anyway ?

Yes, but from a capacity perspective Leeds would be OK with three trains every two hours rather than four.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but from a capacity perspective Leeds would be OK with three trains every two hours rather than four.

Hmmm. Even if that's true now I'm not sure how long that would last.

 

[Starmill]

The more likely outcome is that the government doesn't have the authority to override their stakeholders in Lincoln or Middlesbrough anyway, so core routes will have to be cut in order to preserve less efficient services.

 

[yorksrob]

So we're back to running shorter trains when passenger numbers are increasing, as I mentioned previously.

What we need are a few MP's between Leeds and London to cotton on and kick up a stink.

 

[Goldfish62]

I’d like to know which “independent pay review body” they are referring to?

There isn’t one for rail, so presumably someone has erroneously cut and pasted that phrase from a different report dealing with another sector?

Given that a mistake like that has slipped through the net, I rather doubt the rest of it is worth reading!

Personally I'd be highly sceptical of the accuracy of anything from the "Taxpayers" Alliance.

 

[30907]

Personally I'd be highly sceptical of the accuracy of anything from the "Taxpayers" Alliance.

Aka Tax Avoiders' Alliance - I would be sceptical of their motives, anyway.

On the question of the LNER short distance services - the 2019 (and immediately before) provision was generous, as was reflected in the relatively low Advance fares. The timetable needs rejigging to focus more on the main line rather than the branches (and I say this, living on a branch) if that is where the money is. Whether that actually means reducing the fleet is another matter....

 

[yorksrob]

Aka Tax Avoiders' Alliance - I would be sceptical of their motives, anyway.

On the question of the LNER short distance services - the 2019 (and immediately before) provision was generous, as was reflected in the relatively low Advance fares. The timetable needs rejigging to focus more on the main line rather than the branches (and I say this, living on a branch) if that is where the money is. Whether that actually means reducing the fleet is another matter....

The Leeds - London link is a vital corridor. It's two trains per hour need to be maintained with their capacity as much as Manchester's do.

 

[30907]

The Leeds - London link is a vital corridor. It's two trains per hour need to be maintained with their capacity as much as Manchester's do.

I broadly agree, but - given the changed balance between business and leisure travel - is the balance between short and long distance services right?

If 100% of the 2019 passengers means some routes are very busy and some still relatively quiet, then it is responsible to balance out the capacity to allow for the busy routes to get busier.

 

[yorksrob]

I broadly agree, but - given the changed balance between business and leisure travel - is the balance between short and long distance services right?

If 100% of the 2019 passengers means some routes are very busy and some still relatively quiet, then it is responsible to balance out the capacity to allow for the busy routes to get busier.

Surely that would be better done by stopping the trains at more stations, rather than reducing the amount of rolling stock.

 

[The Ham]

I broadly agree, but - given the changed balance between business and leisure travel - is the balance between short and long distance services right?

If 100% of the 2019 passengers means some routes are very busy and some still relatively quiet, then it is responsible to balance out the capacity to allow for the busy routes to get busier.

If you look at the passenger km traveled for Q1 and Q2 of 2022/23 and compare with the same 6 month period in 2019/20 it's 97% is the pre Covid levels.

That's with ongoing strikes.

 

[tbtc]

Surely that would be better done by stopping the trains at more stations, rather than reducing the amount of rolling stock.

You’d stop existing trains at more stations to compensate for the scrapped services

So you’d slow the Leeds - London trains down by picking up the stations previously served by the (now withdrawn) Newark/ Lincoln trains… And you’d slow down the Newcastle services by picking up the stations previously served by some of the Leeds services once that drops to 3tp2h (Matthew the Newcastle services would also pick up more Durham/ Darlington/ Northallerton/ Thirsk stops to compensate for cuts to TPE/ XC

If you look at the passenger km traveled for Q1 and Q2 of 2022/23 and compare with the same 6 month period in 2019/20 it's 97% is the pre Covid levels.

That's with ongoing strikes.

You keep quoting passenger km figures and ignore the fact that capacity has gone up a lot on some lines during this period

It’s hard to assess “typical” figures in the first few months but let’s say Crossrail is carrying a million passengers a week… That’s going to help the 22/23 figures, but since there was no Crossrail “core” in 19/20 it’s not fair to use those millions of journeys when comparing whether typical lines are bouncing back sufficiently

Regardless, the government don’t care about “passenger km”, they care about money - if we’ve lost a billion pounds a year in dependable commuter revenue then it doesn’t matter very much whether someone travels best part of a thousand miles on a bargain basement “Lumo” return ticket from London to Edinburgh, the Government would rather have shorter distance passengers that paid significantly more per mile

The fact that Rail is beating Air for London to Edinburgh journeys is great news but all these cheap tickets for such long distance services can skew the average journey length and mask problems on other lines

The continued focus on “passenger km” is interesting to people like us but it’s not the metric that the government will be looking at

 

[yorksrob]

You’d stop existing trains at more stations to compensate for the scrapped services

So you’d slow the Leeds - London trains down by picking up the stations previously served by the (now withdrawn) Newark/ Lincoln trains… And you’d slow down the Newcastle services by picking up the stations previously served by some of the Leeds services once that drops to 3tp2h (Matthew the Newcastle services would also pick up more Durham/ Darlington/ Northallerton/ Thirsk stops to compensate for cuts to TPE/ XC



You keep quoting passenger km figures and ignore the fact that capacity has gone up a lot on some lines during this period

It’s hard to assess “typical” figures in the first few months but let’s say Crossrail is carrying a million passengers a week… That’s going to help the 22/23 figures, but since there was no Crossrail “core” in 19/20 it’s not fair to use those millions of journeys when comparing whether typical lines are bouncing back sufficiently

Regardless, the government don’t care about “passenger km”, they care about money - if we’ve lost a billion pounds a year in dependable commuter revenue then it doesn’t matter very much whether someone travels best part of a thousand miles on a bargain basement “Lumo” return ticket from London to Edinburgh, the Government would rather have shorter distance passengers that paid significantly more per mile

The fact that Rail is beating Air for London to Edinburgh journeys is great news but all these cheap tickets for such long distance services can skew the average journey length and mask problems on other lines

The continued focus on “passenger km” is interesting to people like us but it’s not the metric that the government will be looking at

Yes, you could do that, but then you're left with nowhere to go when your service, which is already at 2019 levels of demand, starts to get even busier.

If the bods in the treasury really want to grow revenue, they need to be having strong words with the DfT to make sure they don't kill off revenue growth.

 

[philosopher]

You’d stop existing trains at more stations to compensate for the scrapped services

So you’d slow the Leeds - London trains down by picking up the stations previously served by the (now withdrawn) Newark/ Lincoln trains… And you’d slow down the Newcastle services by picking up the stations previously served by some of the Leeds services once that drops to 3tp2h (Matthew the Newcastle services would also pick up more Durham/ Darlington/ Northallerton/ Thirsk stops to compensate for cuts to TPE/ XC

Leeds to London I think has two trains an hour, so you could have one fast train that only stops at say Wakefield and Doncaster and then a slow train that stops at all the places served by the train that currently runs to Newark. That way one fast service, which could in fact be faster than currently to Leeds would be maintained. The slower service could have cheaper advanced fares to attract those passenger less bothered by journey times.

This is similar to what Avanti have done on their West Midlands services.

 

[Bald Rick]

As is well known - timetabling the ECML is rather tricky, and ‘just’ adding in stops really isn’t as easy as it sounds!

 

[JonathanH]

The slower service could have cheaper advanced fares to attract those passenger less bothered by journey times.

That doesn't follow. The fast service needs to be full of people making the long distance journey. The slower journey needs to have room for the passengers at intermediate stations. The cheaper advanced fares need to manage that mix of demand, not just encourage full distance passengers onto the slower service.

As is well known - timetabling the ECML is rather tricky, and ‘just’ adding in stops really isn’t as easy as it sounds!

Presumably part of that is trying to cram in too many services, whereas simplifying the timetable, culling unnecessary services and focusing on a sustainable reduced timetable, while managing demand, could make timetabling a whole lot easier.

 

[The Ham]

The continued focus on “passenger km” is interesting to people like us but it’s not the metric that the government will be looking at

Indeed, however (and sorry it perhaps wasn't clear) that 97% km value was for only LNER.

As I'm not aware of TOC specific income data it's a fairly helpful metric to use to compare where TOC's could be with regards to income

 

[E27007]

Some back of the envelope calculations:

The Govt subsidy has leapt, was £4.7 bn 2018-19, then £6.8 bn the following year, fast forward to 2022-23, the estimated subsidy if £11bn.
If fare revenue is added to Govt subsidy for each to give a figure of house-keeping for the railway, 2018-2019 was £15.7 bn, the the following year £17.7 bn, then £20bn for 2022-23.
If passenger journeys rise to a record 2 bn, for 2023-2024, then fare revenue would be £12bn leaving an prediction of an £8bn Govt subsidy to square the account to £20bn
£8bn divided by 2bn passenger journeys still leave a subsidy of £4 per journey.

What is an acceptable figure for the subsidy per journey to 1) the puiblic, 2) the Chancellor, the MPs ?

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed, however (and sorry it perhaps wasn't clear) that 97% km value was for only LNER.

As I'm not aware of TOC specific income data it's a fairly helpful metric to use to compare where TOC's could be with regards to income

It is fairly clear from various comments that usage changes are uneven, some commuter lines have lost third, some like LNER are close to 2019, some leisure routes are up, and there are a tiny number of new bits and services like Crossrail core.

It is also clear that some operators are running similar timetables to 2019 (LNER, GWR etc) and others seem to have thinned out service levels. Although why some operators have retained or trained enough staff, and other operators have incompetent HR Departments, and are short of staff, is for another thread.

But ultimately this is about bums on seats, fare revenue, if some operators are filling their trains (peak, off-peak, weekends) and others aren't then clearly some are going to need much bigger subsidies to fill the revenue hole than others. No one wants to see 90% empty trains wasting money, whilst passengers are struggling to squeeze on in a different area. At the moment the system is broken it cannot match supply and demand

The DfT has been very ham fisted, it seems to have requested cuts across the network, rather than saying these are the subsidies per Operator. Should be saying the inefficient (or costly per person Km) ones need to cut. The good ones can stay (or grow where there is crowding. For clarity I am talking about the bulk of the network, not the sparse rural services that have the social subsidy which is a special case.

If figures were available by type of service, or seat occupancy percentages by operators then would be a much more productive debate. But of course if that data was available there would be lot of pressure to fire the underperforming operators, and encourage the good operators to take over services of the subsidy heavy companies.