UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[dk1]

No, the government will just find a different excuse.

Another example of "provide a decent service and people will use it" to add to the GA example further up. There's a lot of untapped demand if the government was prepared to provide some investment.

In no small part due to Delay Repay I suppose. TPE must be losing a fortune in refunds.

Didn't Northern's MD recently state that revenue had recovered to pre-pandemic levels? In part due to a revenue protection clampdown [and probably some poaching from TPE].

TOCs such as TPE must be repaying a fair amount although it’s often less than sometimes assumed. Then others are performing very well indeed.

Much of that franchise like GWR in the South West is leisure traffic which has returned in leaps & bounds so I’d expect that to be stronger financially to recover & that’s with the dreadful service Northern has offered it’s passengers since the pandemic & before that with the industrial unrest.

 

[Watershed]

Tweet from Philip Haigh of Rail Mag:

https://twitter.com/philatrail/status/1635955580522184707?s=46&t=Uj1PminkMk5uLaRpDQX48Q

So, will this result in a slowing down of the proposed cutbacks I hope?

In short, no. Not a chance, sadly.

Whilst passenger numbers may be near 100% of pre-Covid, that does not equal 100% of pre-Covid revenue. The highly profitable business market remains around 60% down; far more recovery has been in the slimmer margin leisure market.

It's also worth noting that industry costs are carried by the DfT, whilst revenues go to the Treasury. The DfT's budget has effectively been frozen in cash terms, and with the inflation of the past few years, that same cash budget won't stretch as far as it did in 2019. This is on top of the issue of them having no incentive to increase or strengthen services, as they don't get any of the additional revenue.

And even if the DfT suddenly decided that it wanted to reverse these cutbacks, it is too late in many cases. It would take months if not years to rebuild some of the traction and route knowledge that will shortly be lost, as well as the time taken to remobilise and reintroduce withdrawn stock. Some stock will be scrapped or cannibalised for parts.

This is all very wrong, of course, as timetables and capacity should be driven by demand, not revenue. The rail industry will always need subsidy and it is no good complaining that revenue is down when passengers are having to stand for long periods, or are put off by reduced timetables.

How much of that is down to the central section of the Elizabeth line gaining national rail passengers who would have otherwise used LU/DLR? (For example someone from Ealing heading to Stratford or someone from Dartford heading towards Canary Wharf)

That's certainly a significant factor, although TfL doesn't receive day to day subsidies in the same way that the 'franchised' operators do.

 

[yorksrob]

It should be a national scandal that these cuts are being driven through on 90-100% passenger numbers (on the back of the most unreliable service for decades).

There seems to be little real scrutiny of the Government over this.

 

[The Ham]

There seems to be little real scrutiny of the Government

You could just finish your sentence there!

 

[Killingworth]

Didn't Northern's MD recently state that revenue had recovered to pre-pandemic levels? In part due to a revenue protection clampdown [and probably some poaching from TPE].

He did, but when I heard him say that he added the caveat that the revenue increase was at least partially due to fare inceases over the period.

Whether by accident or design the numbers are certainly inflated on routes where they are picking up stranded TPE passengers. Some of them will not go back to TPE even when a normal service is restored. Not a few have given up on rail travel altogether.

 

[Meerkat]

This is all very wrong, of course, as timetables and capacity should be driven by demand, not revenue. The rail industry will always need subsidy

I disagree heartily.
It should be driven by revenue, revenue made up of two things.
Passengers who want to pay a profitable fare for a journey, and passengers who are making a journey that the government considers to be worthy of subsidy.
Improving the Labour market by enabling commuting can justify subsidy (not always though). Reducing congestion can justify subsidy.
Spending taxpayers’ money on subsidised leisure journeys is somewhat harder to justify.

 

[43066]

Spending taxpayers’ money on subsidised leisure journeys is somewhat harder to justify.

Not if those leisure journeys deliver significant positive economic benefits - eg a family or group of friends taking a day trip to London to do touristy things will spend quite a bit of money.

Focussing on ticket revenue completely misses this point, which is the entire reason why the railway is subsidised in the first place.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not forgetting the impact of the Elizabeth line on passenger numbers (It adds approx 14% on a comparable basis, so ‘100% compared to 2019’ is actually 86%)

 

[yorksrob]

Not forgetting the impact of the Elizabeth line on passenger numbers (It adds approx 14% on a comparable basis, so ‘100% compared to 2019’ is actually 86%)

And why should we discount passenger numbers on the Elizabeth line ? The railway network has lost some commuters and business travellers and gained some cross-London passengers.

 

[Bald Rick]

And why should we discount passenger numbers on the Elizabeth line ? The railway network has lost some commuters and business travellers and gained some cross-London passengers.

I‘m not saying they should be discounted. I’m saying that it doesn’t enable a direct comparison.

In this case it is quite pertinent, as that 14% of passengers that are ’new’ to the network are on a very specific (and relatively small) part of it, and one that has been specifically (and expensively) upgraded to provide that capacity.

or put another way, the railway that existed in 2019 is now carrying, at best, 86% of the passengers it was carrying back then.

 

[yorksrob]

I‘m not saying they should be discounted. I’m saying that it doesn’t enable a direct comparison.

In this case it is quite pertinent, as that 14% of passengers that are ’new’ to the network are on a very specific (and relatively small) part of it, and one that has been specifically (and expensively) upgraded to provide that capacity.

or put another way, the railway that existed in 2019 is now carrying, at best, 86% of the passengers it was carrying back then.

It's also not a direct comparison because the Elizabeth line and its extremities have been heavily improved, whereas the rest of the network is being run into the ground.

It's also not a direct comparison because there has been a pandemic in the meantime.

We seem to be happy to make imperfect comparisons to the detriment of the railway but not to its benefit.

 

[Krokodil]

“We should also bear in mind that today’s figures are being compared to March 2020, the end of the second highest period of passengers in UK rail history. And that in the last year we have had significant industrial action and some poor service levels on some parts of the network. Imagine how much higher these passenger figures would be were this not the case.

This is an important point to remember. We are comparing with a high point in history. It would be fairer to compare current figures with the average of the five years before covid.

The DfT's budget has effectively been frozen in cash terms, and with the inflation of the past few years, that same cash budget won't stretch as far as it did in 2019.

That's the thing, isn't it? Services aren't being cut because demand is down. Services are being cut because budgets are being cut in real terms.

Spending taxpayers’ money on subsidised leisure journeys is somewhat harder to justify.

Take a look at this image of the M5 on a Bank Holiday weekend and tell me why public transport funding isn't a good thing:

https://i2-prod.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/incoming/article5252630.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/0_241118GVsBB-13.jpg

Perhaps you should also visit some medieval towns popular with tourists and try and find a space to park. Other countries (Switzerland for example) impose tourist taxes which are token sums (3CHF/night for example) and in return you get a free travel pass covering local services in the town you're staying in, they want people to use public transport rather than bringing their cars.

 

[railfan99]

Indeed. The key numbers are 2019/20 revenue, 2019/20 costs, 2022/23 revenue and 2022/23 costs.

But 'the pandemic' commenced in January 2020 so if your financial year ends in March, that would mean February and March especially in 2019-20 would have shown massively decreased passenger numbers and hence increased taxpayer subsidies.

That's why I used 2018-19 as the comparison above with 2021-22 for stations like Sheringham, bearing in mind 18-19 was a 'normal' year and IIRC in England you still had some lockdows between April 2021 and March 2022, so I'm being conservative in praising any stations recording passenger usage increases.

I am delighted for your rail subsector that patronage appears to have recovered despite the ongoing strikes by one union in particular.

While Treasury and your Department (of) for Transport may 'only be interested in revenue', the more people that are using passenger trains, the greater the hue and cry that governments ought invest in rail infrastructure and unless passenger usage was shockingly poor throughout the week on a particular line, not shut down branches or make significant frequency cuts. Of course WFH (if considered to be an immutable factor) could and perhaps should mean some reductions in peak period weekday frequencies, but conversely, lines heavily used by leisure travellers could be considered for additional timetabled trips if the government of the day can afford the expenditure.

 

[lammergeier]

or put another way, the railway that existed in 2019 is now carrying, at best, 86% of the passengers it was carrying back then.

Yes, I'm sure that's what the spreadsheets say. Meanwhile, back on the trains...

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, I'm sure that's what the spreadsheets say. Meanwhile, back on the trains...

The spreadsheets show usage percentage against a pre pandemic baseline. It's an overall average. It could easily mask one route at 125% and another down 25%.

There are other threads, eg GWR short form (where people have written to their MP about being unable to board), or TPE (have rolling stock, but insufficient trained staff etc). Not going to repeat here, but clearly many of the services are now out of balance with current usage levels

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but the nearer we get to an election, more likely to get action from MPs. But in short term unclear how the problem will be solved.

Many lines simply have wrong type of train for booming leisure type services, or split of franchises means a now common (and growing in popularity) journey requires to Operators and messy connections or ticket types. Commuter EMUs cannot get to places like Oxford, Bath, Harrogate, etc so go off for scrap (or sit idle like 701, 379s).

If passenger numbers are approaching former levels, and cost of living crisis eases through the year then leisure growth might soon start flying upwards again.

 

[Dr Day]

The industry must have this data, but is anything published that shows say passenger miles versus seat miles on a disaggregate route basis, preferably by time of day, day of week and direction?

The 'new' overcrowding to some extent is on routes which are picking up the demand being pushed off elsewhere (by a variety of factors) and in places is being encouraged to do so by pricing - I'm thinking for example of the Marches (TfW Cardiff-Manchester) which is picking up demand say Bristol-Manchester formerly carried by XC, on top of its base local demand which was largely leisure based already.

We may have also forgotten just how wedged some of the commuter and Sunday afternoon trains actually were pre-Covid, and the 'new' leisure customers are experiencing similar conditions but have higher expectations of a seat.

 

[Meerkat]

Not if those leisure journeys deliver significant positive economic benefits - eg a family or group of friends taking a day trip to London to do touristy things will spend quite a bit of money.

Focussing on ticket revenue completely misses this point, which is the entire reason why the railway is subsidised in the first place.

That's a big if, especially if you consider what those people would do with the money otherwise - the cash doesn't disappear.
Also your example - subsidising people to spend money in London - seems an odd 'good thing' considering the constant demands for levelling up.

 

[43066]

That's a big if, especially if you consider what those people would do with the money otherwise - the cash doesn't disappear.

Yes, but it might not be spent. If it’s left sitting in a bank account that doesn’t benefit the economy in the same way.

Also your example - subsidising people to spend money in London - seems an odd 'good thing' considering the constant demands for levelling up.

Not really? London and the south east is the economic centre of the country. Levelling up isn’t meant to be about taking away from these areas, it’s about encouraging growth elsewhere.

In any case, surely you’ve realised by now this government has no real interest in improving things in the north, “levelling up” is just a hollow phrase that sounds good.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Mar 2023 ==

We may have also forgotten just how wedged some of the commuter and Sunday afternoon trains actually were pre-Covid, and the 'new' leisure customers are experiencing similar conditions but have higher expectations of a seat.

I’m not sure that follows on Sundays. Surely it’s the same people making the same journeys!

It’s true of course that the policy of making cuts when demand is rising will make both usability and travelling conditions worse, and will likely limit growth longer term, which is why it’s so monumentally stupid.

 

[yorksrob]

That's a big if, especially if you consider what those people would do with the money otherwise - the cash doesn't disappear.
Also your example - subsidising people to spend money in London - seems an odd 'good thing' considering the constant demands for levelling up.

But that assumes everyone's going to London to spend their money, which they aren't.

If people aren't spending money on domestic leisure, they're more likely to be spending it on imported goods and subscriber services, many of which will be based abroad.

Domestic leisure spending is better for the balance of payments.

 

[squizzler]

Not forgetting the impact of the Elizabeth line on passenger numbers (It adds approx 14% on a comparable basis, so ‘100% compared to 2019’ is actually 86%)

I struggle with this as an important factor in the debate. The fact is that any dynamic business is going to be different now than it was four years ago. New cycle ways open all the time.

We seem to be happy to make imperfect comparisons to the detriment of the railway but not to its benefit.

I agree. We keep being told that the railways are a static industry unable to change and adapt. But when there is a major change in network topology it is seen as "cheating". Of course in Rail Forums there seems to be a rule that you can only change the network by closing lines; actually adding to the network is somehow unsporting or beyond the pale.

 

[The Planner]

I agree. We keep being told that the railways are a static industry unable to change and adapt. But when there is a major change in network topology it is seen as "cheating". Of course in Rail Forums there seems to be a rule that you can only change the network by closing lines; actually adding to the network is somehow unsporting or beyond the pale.

I don't think it is, its how its often proposed on here, reopening disused rose tinted lines YAY!, brand new route, should have spent it on upgrading existing or no interest at all, meh.

 

[Meerkat]

Not really? London and the south east is the economic centre of the country. Levelling up isn’t meant to be about taking away from these areas, it’s about encouraging growth elsewhere.

In any case, surely you’ve realised by now this government has no real interest in improving things in the north, “levelling up” is just a hollow phrase that sounds good.

You aren't encouraging local growth if you are subsidising people to spend money in London.
The second line is just generic political nonsense.

I agree. We keep being told that the railways are a static industry unable to change and adapt. But when there is a major change in network topology it is seen as "cheating".

Bit of a strawman there.
If the proposal is 'look passenger numbers are back to normal, so we need more services' then it is cheating to include the Lizzie.

 

[endicomark69@g]

---

All I know is that on the two occasions this week I've had to interchange at Clapham Junction to get to Victoria, we seem to be back to the good old/bad old days of worryingly overcrowded subway passages at 9 in the morning, and hardly a space to wedge yourself in on platform 14.

But hey ho, numbers in terminal decline and working from home and all that.

 

[Meerkat]

---

All I know is that on the two occasions this week I've had to interchange at Clapham Junction to get to Victoria, we seem to be back to the good old/bad old days of worryingly overcrowded subway passages at 9 in the morning, and hardly a space to wedge yourself in on platform 14.

But hey ho, numbers in terminal decline and working from home and all that.

I think that just proves how overcrowded Clapham Junction was before Covid

 

[43066]

You aren't encouraging local growth if you are subsidising people to spend money in London.

This is just the standard anti London trope. You’re clearly more interested in seeing things made worse in London than improved anywhere else (which is a theme that comes out again and again on here).

The second line is just generic political nonsense.

The levelling up agenda is indeed generic political nonsense. It’s a few small token gestures here and there, as has been obvious for a long time.

 

[yorksrob]

You aren't encouraging local growth if you are subsidising people to spend money in London.
The second line is just generic political nonsense.


Bit of a strawman there.
If the proposal is 'look passenger numbers are back to normal, so we need more services' then it is cheating to include the Lizzie.

It's not "we need more services" it's "we need the pre-existing services back/running properly".

 

[Meerkat]

This is just the standard anti London trope. You’re clearly more interested in seeing things made worse in London than improved anywhere else (which is a theme that comes out again and again on here).

You are quite wrong - I'm actually against the 'poor downtrodden northerners oppressed by London' trope.

The levelling up agenda is indeed generic political nonsense. It’s a few small token gestures here and there, as has been obvious for a long time.

I disagree, but I sense we wont agree on that! But any major efforts to level up would have to contradict your previous statement about not making London worse off.

It's not "we need more services" it's "we need the pre-existing services back/running properly".

Same logic holds. You only need the previous services back if those particular services are back to planned ridership, not if the Lizzie has warped the top level data.

 

[Krokodil]

You aren't encouraging local growth if you are subsidising people to spend money in London.

It's just an example. Other destinations are available.

 

[Trainbike46]

You are quite wrong - I'm actually against the 'poor downtrodden northerners oppressed by London' trope.

I disagree, but I sense we wont agree on that! But any major efforts to level up would have to contradict your previous statement about not making London worse off.

Same logic holds. You only need the previous services back if those particular services are back to planned ridership, not if the Lizzie has warped the top level data.

on the other hand, reduced services (whether planned or due to issues as on TPE/Avanti) and strikes will reduce demand, so keeping service levels down is hindering the recovery/expansion of passenger numbers.

It's also important that not all Lizzie line passengers are in fact new to rail, some of them would have been on heathrow connect/GWR stoppers/TfL rail before, so just excluding all Lizzie line passengers wouldn't be an equal comparison either.

None of this means that I think there can be no cuts, but I think they should primarily be in the way of:
- where passenger numbers allow, run shorter trains (eg an 8car instead of a 12, for example)
- removing peak extras that only ever ran because of capacity needs

Things like halving the XC frequency compared to pre-covid, on the other hand, almost ascertain that these operators won't go back to seeing passenger growth.

 

[Meerkat]

Things like halving the XC frequency compared to pre-covid, on the other hand, almost ascertain that these operators won't go back to seeing passenger growth.

Problem is that if the XC services are full then you spend a lot of money expanding the service for the existing passengers (revenue) to spread themselves out, and the extra passengers gained are even less likely to be profitable.