UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[43066]

I know road travel isn't subsidised, but imagine if it were. Would we be trying to differentiate between journeys "worthy" of subsidy ?

The annual roads budget would suggest otherwise!

About the only use of railways that isn't at least arguably worthy of some degree of subsidy (if necessary) is the "meta-use" - ie railway enthusiasts travelling by train for the sake of travelling by train and not actually spending anything at a destination. Everything else potentially (important word) either removes cars from the road or contributes to economic or social well-being. Now, the degree to which different benefits are worth subsidising is a different matter....

I agree. Perhaps we should ban things like rover tickets, because why should enthusiasts be subsidised making pointless journeys?!

Many rail services are undoubtedly worth subsidy, but I am not sure taking leisure passengers around on diesel trains is that high up the list.

Again - what’s your proposed solution? Close the railways? Ask people what the purpose of their journey is and charge them accordingly?

The big difference is that everyone uses the roads. A minority of people use the railways, so we should be more thoughtful about what gets subsidised and whether that provides good value for the taxpayer.

The fact that a minority use the railways is completely irrelevant when you’re considering whether the economic externalities justify the subsidy.

 

[43096]

About the only use of railways that isn't at least arguably worthy of some degree of subsidy (if necessary) is the "meta-use" - ie railway enthusiasts travelling by train for the sake of travelling by train and not actually spending anything at a destination.

How many services are actually provided with that usage group solely in mind? By that I mean regular service trains as charters are priced completely separately.

The answer, of course, is none, so enthusiasts travelling on trains are reducing the subsidy required for the whole operation. There's no significant extra costs for them travelling (barring a tiny bit of fuel/electricity).

 

[squizzler]

I'm sure it was discovered that over 50% of the population used the train over the course of a year.

That is true, I'm sure it can be found by searching the my post history; can't be bothered now but can confirm the source was official government statistics. Although it probably was from just before the coronavirus the actual share of population using the train once a year is probably the same or greater, since the much discussed decline in travel is those commuting every day of the week.

I will admit that the economy of the UK (and anglosphere generally) is fixed to favour highway traffic over rail, and within that favour motor traffic over foot bicycle or equine traffic. This is the world order that came from the USA in the postwar period but was not enthusiastically adopted in many parts of the world like the soviet block or the far east. That the rail is - viewed over the last few decades - growing its relevance for both passenger and goods despite the rigged economy against it, shows how good a technology it is.

 

[Dr Day]

Trying to get back vaguely on topic.

Pre-Covid, the railways overall were subsidised by an amount that, presumably, the taxpayer/Treasury were fairly comfortable with and one could possibly presume would be comfortable going back to (in real terms). I don't think anyone at the DfT etc is suggesting there should be no subsidy, just they are looking for it to get closer to the levels it was at before. We can disagree on here with that number, but it was a number that was broadly accepted.

This is a significant challenge given many of the 'more profitable' bits of the network (wedged medium-distance commuter routes) have probably become marginal with more working from home, and even the busier ones (eg LNER) have become less profitable as they are carrying fewer high-yield business passengers, and the more basket-case rural lines, even if they are a bit busier at certain times, remain basket-cases. In most cases it would appear costs are going up faster than average fare-per-passenger which won't help bring overall subsidies back into line, even if volumes are up on certain segments of the network at certain times.

 

[slowroad]

Rail Market Monitoring (RMMS)

The Commission presented the 7th report on development of the rail market, covering a broad range of topics such as growth of the rail market, the infrastructure and services available, the state of the network, congestion, and barriers to more effective rail services.

transport.ec.europa.eu

This is a really interesting report. It shows that road use dominates pretty much everywhere in Europe, despite high rail subsidies.

Car share is a bit higher than average in the UK, but not much. And it is more low use of buses, rather than rail, which accounts for this.

Overall, no sign of modal shift.

 

[Bikeman78]

I agree. Perhaps we should ban things like rover tickets, because why should enthusiasts be subsidised making pointless journeys?!

I guess this is slightly tongue in cheek? An enthusiast wasting time riding around only becomes a problem if the train is so full that other people cannot get on. If I spend my time travelling around Merseyrail for three days, the railway gets some revenue from a rover ticket. If I had to buy single or return tickets for every run, I wouldn't bother and they get nothing.

 

[43066]

I guess this is slightly tongue in cheek? An enthusiast wasting time riding around only becomes a problem if the train is so full that other people cannot get on. If I spend my time travelling around Merseyrail for three days, the railway gets some revenue from a rover ticket. If I had to buy single or return tickets for every run, I wouldn't bother and they get nothing.

Partly - but then there was a recent discussion on Eurostar not accepting inter-rail tickets (or charging a high price for interrail users), and Avanti have not made advance tickets available in the past. These are all examples of people, likely including enthusiasts, being priced off the network

I agree it would be mean spirited to remove rovers, but so many on here seem dead against railway subsidies, and sometimes it’s a case of being careful what one wishes for!

 

[Class 170101]

Latest ORR data released today

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2190/passenger-rail-usage-oct-dec-2022.pdf

headlines


Yes strikes aren't helping but another Billion pound shortfall on revenue shows the challenge for the industry and how much support the govt is continuing to provide when so many other parts of society are creaking.

Below shows where the problem lies

View attachment 131041
Reality is season ticket revenue is unlikely ever to recover with changes to working practices now embedded in workers psychology so the industry has to match resources to meet the new paradigm albeit that can't be achieved overnight.

One wonders though in revenue terms whether season ticket revenue should be allowed to recover rather instead people buy tickets reflecting the cost of the railway they wish to use at the time they wish to use it.

However by the same token road usage should reflect the costs required to accommodate all users and if that means fuel duty has to rise then so be it. It should be pointed out that the Treasury has increased rail fares by circa 5% this March and last March but yet hasn't reflected the costs of roads in recent years. Which brings a contradiction in that we have had COP26 and COP27 where we need to reduce our environmental impact but yet we incrase public transport prices but not the cost of private transport (ie the car).

 

[SamYeager]

One wonders though in revenue terms whether season ticket revenue should be allowed to recover rather instead people buy tickets reflecting the cost of the railway they wish to use at the time they wish to use it.

However by the same token road usage should reflect the costs required to accommodate all users and if that means fuel duty has to rise then so be it. It should be pointed out that the Treasury has increased rail fares by circa 5% this March and last March but yet hasn't reflected the costs of roads in recent years. Which brings a contradiction in that we have had COP26 and COP27 where we need to reduce our environmental impact but yet we incrase public transport prices but not the cost of private transport (ie the car).

You appear to be under the impression that fuel duty is the only cost that car users have to pay. A new car will pay VAT at 20% and be liable for an initial tax payment. More generally, most car users will pay vehicle excise duty (VED) eaxh year, which I can assure you has not been frozen for non EVs, in addition to fuel duty which of course also has VAT at 20% added. There is an VED exemption for classic cars but they are a small proportion of cars.

 

[Krokodil]

Pre-Covid, the railways overall were subsidised by an amount that, presumably, the taxpayer/Treasury were fairly comfortable with and one could possibly presume would be comfortable going back to (in real terms).

If they were they wouldn't be freezing budgets (so real terms cuts).

 

[squizzler]

It should be pointed out that the Treasury has increased rail fares by circa 5% this March and last March but yet hasn't reflected the costs of roads in recent years.

The freeze on petrol duty might be justified by the fact that the roads are are falling to bits. I understand in some developing countries petrol is actually subsidised but the deal is you have to drive on dirt roads. For foot and bike traffic it is even worse, you don't pay anything but are treated a second class citizen to the precious motorist.

Rail users have got used to paying more each year but that we get a growing railway in return. There are a lot of new trains coming on stream and the network is still expanding with projects both large and small, so looked at in the large I don't think we have too much to worry about. Sure some trains are getting scrapped regrettably early but we have an excellent industrial base of train factories to replace them when the mistake is realised. It doesn't mean we as a community should not be pushing harder for more growth however.

 

[Dr Day]

If they were they wouldn't be freezing budgets (so real terms cuts).

Real cuts in expenditure, but not real cuts in subsidy relative to pre COVID, surely?

 

[Krokodil]

Real cuts in expenditure, but not real cuts in subsidy relative to pre COVID, surely?

If departmental budgets get frozen then it's the next logical step. If someone can extract figures from the budget, we will know exactly what we're fighting with.

 

[Class 170101]

You appear to be under the impression that fuel duty is the only cost that car users have to pay. A new car will pay VAT at 20% and be liable for an initial tax payment. More generally, most car users will pay vehicle excise duty (VED) eaxh year, which I can assure you has not been frozen for non EVs, in addition to fuel duty which of course also has VAT at 20% added. There is an VED exemption for classic cars but they are a small proportion of cars.

I'm not under the impression that fuel duty is the only costs however Fuel duty reflects the costs the best (in my opinion) of driving on a mileage basis and also therefore reflects the damage to the environment.

 

[SamYeager]

I'm not under the impression that fuel duty is the only costs however Fuel duty reflects the costs the best (in my opinion) of driving on a mileage basis and also therefore reflects the damage to the environment.

I see you've now changed your argument from wanting the costs of roads covered to now talking about damage to the environment.

 

[Class 170101]

I see you've now changed your argument from wanting the costs of roads covered to now talking about damage to the environment.

Surely damage to the environment is a cost of roads that needs to be covered and isn't?

 

[Merle Haggard]

You appear to be under the impression that fuel duty is the only cost that car users have to pay. A new car will pay VAT at 20% and be liable for an initial tax payment. More generally, most car users will pay vehicle excise duty (VED) eaxh year, which I can assure you has not been frozen for non EVs, in addition to fuel duty which of course also has VAT at 20% added. There is an VED exemption for classic cars but they are a small proportion of cars.

As has been pointed out in a slightly different way up thread, taxes aren't prices.
V.A.T. is a tax (the clue being the 'T'). It's a means of raising money for government expenditure, not a charge for using a car.
Would you expect the revenue raised by the tax on alcohol to be spent on maintaining public houses?

 

[Jimini]

Would you expect the revenue raised by the tax on alcohol to be spent on maintaining public houses?

Sounds like a great idea to me

 

[The exile]

Drinking and shopping contributes to economic or social well being - does that mean they should be subsidised?

I refer to my final sentence.

 

[dk1]

Sounds like a great idea to me

Me too

 

[SamYeager]

Surely damage to the environment is a cost of roads that needs to be covered and isn't?

I believe part of the argument by the Blair government for the fuel duty escalator was aimed at that area by discouraging the use of fossil fuels. Flying has APD imposed for a similar reason. VED is charged on CO2 emissions. Where's the equivalent for rail fares considering the amount of DMUs and diesel locomotives still in use not to mention new developments such as Easy-West rail which will be using DMUs? Do TOCs pay the same level of fuel duty on diesel used for rail as commercial transport? From a quick search on the internet I believe they may well pay a much lower rate with a zero VAT rate but maybe that information is out of date.

Perhaps this discussion should cease as we're rather off topic.

 

[ChrisC]

About the only use of railways that isn't at least arguably worthy of some degree of subsidy (if necessary) is the "meta-use" - ie railway enthusiasts travelling by train for the sake of travelling by train and not actually spending anything at a destination. Everything else potentially (important word) either removes cars from the road or contributes to economic or social well-being. Now, the degree to which different benefits are worth subsidising is a different matter....

I agree. Perhaps we should ban things like rover tickets, because why should enthusiasts be subsidised making pointless journeys?!

Perhaps that may describe some railway enthusiasts, but not all. I regularly make use of rail rover tickets and usually this will be the 7 or 8 day regional rover tickets. Whilst using this ticket I will be contributing to the economy of the region. Firstly by staying in a hotel for between 6 and 10 nights. Then during my time there I will be spending money each day on meals in restaurants, pubs, tearooms etc. Also I will visit local attractions including museums, cathedrals, historic buildings etc and paying admission charges and spending in gift shops and cafes. I may even go to the theatre one evening in the area where I am staying. Therefore after paying around £100 for my rail rover, plus the return train fare to reach the area, I can also be contributing in excess of £1,000 to the local economy during that stay.

 

[Meerkat]

Perhaps that may describe some railway enthusiasts, but not all. I regularly make use of rail rover tickets and usually this will be the 7 or 8 day regional rover tickets. Whilst using this ticket I will be contributing to the economy of the region. Firstly by staying in a hotel for between 6 and 10 nights. Then during my time there I will be spending money each day on meals in restaurants, pubs, tearooms etc. Also I will visit local attractions including museums, cathedrals, historic buildings etc and paying admission charges and spending in gift shops and cafes. I may even go to the theatre one evening in the area where I am staying. Therefore after paying around £100 for my rail rover, plus the return train fare to reach the area, I can also be contributing in excess of £1,000 to the local economy during that stay.

What would you do with that £1,000 if you didn't take the trip though?

 

[ChrisC]

What would you do with that £1,000 if you didn't take the trip though?

Probably what I am going to do for a week at Easter and have done quite often over these last 3 years due to reduced timetables and now uncertainty of strike action. Use my car and drive to a hotel, usually in a more rural location that wouldn’t be as accessible by train. My spending in the area would be about the same but travelling around would be a lot more localised using my car and local buses. Therefore another car on the road and no money going to the railways. I’m also getting quite used to this and enjoying staying in more remote country hotels and may not go back to the railway quite so regularly.

 

[Meerkat]

Probably what I am going to do for a week at Easter and have done quite often over these last 3 years due to reduced timetables and now uncertainty of strike action. Use my car and drive to a hotel, usually in a more rural location that wouldn’t be as accessible by train. My spending in the area would be about the same but travelling around would be a lot more localised using my car and local buses. Therefore another car on the road and no money going to the railways. I’m also getting quite used to this and enjoying staying in more remote country hotels and may not go back to the railway quite so regularly.

You aren't selling this as meaning rover tickets should be cheap!
They should be priced to fill empty seats without losing revenue on journeys that would have been made anyway. The only reason to subsidise them would be if they were for a struggling area with particularly bad tourist traffic and spare train capacity.

 

[Bikeman78]

You aren't selling this as meaning rover tickets should be cheap!
They should be priced to fill empty seats without losing revenue on journeys that would have been made anyway. The only reason to subsidise them would be if they were for a struggling area with particularly bad tourist traffic and spare train capacity.

How many people actually buy rover tickets? Judging by the amount of head scratching at ticket offices, they don't sell many.

 

[samulih]

^straw man argument to deflect from the real issue, not worth discussing.

If you use your car somebody else is always paying with his/her health all that dust, all that pollution etc... All those less walkable places, food deserts, loneliness.... Life is not simple. It is not so simple as shout about some tax.

 

[squizzler]

Re post above: Unfortunately shout about some tax seems to be the level that a lot of UK political discourse has devolved. As an aside, i wish I had a pound for every time the words "straw man"was uttered in this forum.

Meanwhile I think there are good vibes in the air. The announcement of the end of strikes will put the railways in a positive light in the media. The great thing is that they get to announce the end of strikes, and thus more publicity for an improving train offer, over and over as each operator and their staff reaches agreement. Same with Avanti, the story is that they are retaining their franchise because the service is improving. GBR is getting its new headquarters announced.

Meanwhile I saw a tabloid with a picture of a pothole on a street as their front cover. Bad news for bike riders like myself, but also an irritant to the motorist. But with fuel duty frozen what do they expect?

Lets see what the rail traffic does in the next few months.

 

[MikeWM]

Perhaps that may describe some railway enthusiasts, but not all. I regularly make use of rail rover tickets and usually this will be the 7 or 8 day regional rover tickets. Whilst using this ticket I will be contributing to the economy of the region. Firstly by staying in a hotel for between 6 and 10 nights. Then during my time there I will be spending money each day on meals in restaurants, pubs, tearooms etc. Also I will visit local attractions including museums, cathedrals, historic buildings etc and paying admission charges and spending in gift shops and cafes. I may even go to the theatre one evening in the area where I am staying. Therefore after paying around £100 for my rail rover, plus the return train fare to reach the area, I can also be contributing in excess of £1,000 to the local economy during that stay.

My experience is very similar - pretty much every year I would normally be on a 7/8 day rover around now, having already done a shorter one in late February/early March.

This year, mainly due to the threat of strikes being announced with just two weeks notice, combined with the massively increased cost of hotel rooms when booked at short-notice, I've not taken any holiday at all yet. Hopefully I can 'catch up' later in the spring.

But if Rovers were removed, obviously I wouldn't be doing this sort of holiday at all. I expect in that case I'd just spend less overall for a few years, until I hopefully found some other type of holiday that suited me equally.

 

[The Ham]

I believe part of the argument by the Blair government for the fuel duty escalator was aimed at that area by discouraging the use of fossil fuels. Flying has APD imposed for a similar reason. VED is charged on CO2 emissions. Where's the equivalent for rail fares considering the amount of DMUs and diesel locomotives still in use not to mention new developments such as Easy-West rail which will be using DMUs? Do TOCs pay the same level of fuel duty on diesel used for rail as commercial transport? From a quick search on the internet I believe they may well pay a much lower rate with a zero VAT rate but maybe that information is out of date.

Perhaps this discussion should cease as we're rather off topic.

For most of the time DMU's aren't that close to people (unlike quite a lot of cars, often with exhaust pipes within 3m of people walking).

Also if you look at the average of rail CO2 emissions (and I'm aware there's other pollutants too) they compare broadly with EV's. In part that's because so few passengers actually use DMU's compared to EMU's, however trains are generally more efficient at moving lots of people when compared to cars, as most cars average <1.5 people per trip in vehicles which can easily carry 4 and sometimes as many as 7.

The other thing with cars is there's quite a lot of travel over very short distances (it's possible to see people drive 500m to get children to school, and whilst that's an extreme example many people wouldn't have an issue driving less than 1km, which the round trip saves 14 minutes over walking - only it doesn't add you've then got to do some form of other exercise to stay even vaguely healthy - over 30 minutes a day is the recommended minimum).

Even if there was a good environmental reason to tax the TOC's for fuel use, it would be fairly pointless as it would be government taking a tax to then pay to support the railways so all it would do is add a load of admin (and therefore cost) for little benefit.

If the TOC's were in the position to be able to find electrification then such a tax could be a good way to encourage more to happen.