UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[43066]

You are moving the argument. It was suggested that the railway is politically significant because of how many people used the trains. But if its barely half and that includes lots of people like me who could easily not use them then the leverage isnt really very high.

I’m not. I’m was pointing why it’s ridiculous to equate the railway with John Lewis.

Half of all people is also a significant number. You’ll find that many people don’t live in the middle of the countryside and drive everywhere. Even for those that do, the railway will still be useful for many to make occasional journeys.

I don't accept the basis for the figures (the multiplier logic isn't all that logical) rather than the rail figures specifically.

Whether you find it logical or not isn’t particularly relevant when it’s an accepted economic phenomenon, is perfectly logical to many economists, and even to this government. As I keep asking you, why do you think the railway is subsidised at all?!

More people use, and can use, buses, and coaches are cheaper and more flexible. And IIRC bus subsidy is more progressive, and better if you want to help people access work.

Not for the same journeys they can’t. Buses and coaches are not good substitutes for trains, and suggesting otherwise is frankly delusional. It would take me over two hours to get into central London by bus, barely twenty minutes by train.

Now you’re moving the argument by suddenly worrying about whether the subsidy is “progressive” or not. I thought you were focussed on economic benefits!

You are clearly determined to come up with any argument you can to oppose railway subsidy which, as you never seem to acknowledge, is already lower than they of comparable countries.

If you are worried about poorer people travelling then direct subsidy is probably more efficient - travelcards.

This is a different argument that could equally be dealt with by subsidising the railways more heavily and loading less of the cost onto users. Equally, railway subsidy doesn’t equal less bus subsidy, the government could choose to subsidise buses rather than freezing fuel duty and (again) subsidising motorists…

 

[railfan99]

Along with the success of the short Liskeard-Looe line in having more paying passengers in 2021-22 compared to pre-COVID 2018-19, we have the Par-Newquay branch.

From Australia, I travelled on these branches and vaguely recall the Newquay line was quite boring, in contrast to the others. I lacked time to inspect the beach as the aim was to start at Penzance and do all the branches in a day.

Fast forward to passenger usage: in 2018-19, there were a combined 103,172 entries/exits at the Newquay terminus. In 2021-22, even with some lockdowns IIRC in England and perhaps some strikes (?), numbers rose to 108.954, or more than 1,100 outwards journeys in a typical week.

Luxulyan dropped slightly from 1,770 to 1,696. Bugle had something to trumpet as it increased from 5,616 to 6,390. Roche passenger usage declined very slightly from 5,090 to 5,012.

St Columb Road more than made up for the last three in rising from 1,936 to 2,662. The penultimate station, Quintrel Downs (spelt with one 'l' in my current UK Rail Atlas but with two by often incorrect Wiki) increased from 2,684 to 2,804.

So overall, there were 120,268 entries and exits (i.e. combined figure) in 2018-19 but 127,518 in 2021-22.

Dividing it by two i.e. to get the boardings or alightings figure gives respectively 60,134 and 63,759, assuming both were equal.

I have then over estimated the number of annual trains by using the current weekly departures of 52 each way meaning 2,704 trains one way over the course of a year. However, some public holidays may have (say) a Sunday timetable (Good Friday for instance) with fewer trains. Some trains may have been cancelled in 2021-22 due to lockdown days or strikes.

So we then see in 2018-19 a median per train usage of 22.23 passengers in 2018-19 rising to 23.57 in 2019-20.

One wonders how rigorously tickets are checked by guards/conductors en route given IIRC all stations between the termini are unattended (with extremely basic passenger facilities). If many are travelling without tickets, the real usage may be much higher.

Is Par a barrier station for ticket checking purposes, or if it is, is one or more barrier gate(s) routinely left open?

It's encouraging that usage is rising, albeit off a small base.

We see a pattern here: lines that are loved by walkers or holidaymakers (lesiure travellers) seem to be already doing well, even if there are fewer available trips operated on weekends. Perhaps the Looe line feature of many schoolchildren apparently using it (suggested by another contributor) may also factor.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2023 ==

 

[Meerkat]

Half of all people is also a significant number.

Not if a lot of them are only occasional users who could easily use alternatives or just not go - they wont be banging down their MPs door to have their taxes increased to give to the railway.

Whether you find it logical or not isn’t particularly relevant when it’s an accepted economic phenomenon

Is it all that accepted - it whiffs a bit of perpetual motion. And if the principle holds it applies to other competing public spending demands.

Not for the same journeys they can’t. Buses and coaches are not good substitutes for trains, and suggesting otherwise is frankly delusional. It would take me over two hours to get into central London by bus, barely twenty minutes by train.

I don't think trains into central London are under threat under any scenario. Buses are a very good substitutes for some lines - they go where people live , cover more areas, and are more frequent for a given budget.

Now you’re moving the argument by suddenly worrying about whether the subsidy is “progressive” or not. I thought you were focussed on economic benefits!

Progressive is always important when you are spending taxpayer money.

You are clearly determined to come up with any argument you can to oppose railway subsidy which, as you never seem to acknowledge, is already lower than they of comparable countries.

I have not studied the figures to see how comparable they are, and they are other countries so why is it relevant?

 

[JonathanH]

Is Par a barrier station for ticket checking purposes, or if it is, is one or more barrier gate(s) routinely left open?

Truro is the only gated station in Cornwall.

 

[Watershed]

Quintrel Downs (spelt with one 'l' in my current UK Rail Atlas but with two by often incorrect Wiki)

It's definitely got two!

 

[43066]

Not if a lot of them are only occasional users who could easily use alternatives or just not go - they wont be banging down their MPs door to have their taxes increased to give to the railway.

Some are occasional users, many aren’t. Nobody is “banging down their MPs door” to have taxes increased for any reason. Note that hasn’t stopped the government giving wealthy savers a significant tax break. So what exactly is your point?

Is it all that accepted - it whiffs a bit of perpetual motion. And if the principle holds it applies to other competing public spending demands.

Thankfully you aren’t making the decisions.

I don't think trains into central London are under threat under any scenario. Buses are a very good substitutes for some lines - they go where people live , cover more areas, and are more frequent for a given budget.

I’m not sure there’s any serious threat of line closures, much as some so called “railway enthusiasts” on here seem to want it to be shut down.

Progressive is always important when you are spending taxpayer money.

Not necessarily, and certainly not to this government. And how “progressive” are the subsidies for roads?

I have not studied the figures to see how comparable they are, and they are other countries so why is it relevant?

It’s absolutely relevant to compare the UK with similar economies when people such as yourself falsely suggest that we spend too much on rail, or that it isn’t good value for money.

 

[Meerkat]

Some are occasional users, many aren’t. Nobody is “banging down their MPs door” to have taxes increased for any reason.

Pretty sure it was mentioned earlier on in this thread that the railways had political clout due to how many people used them

how “progressive” are the subsidies for roads

Fairly I would have thought - as they are free at the point of use and pretty much anyone can use them one way or another. Not sure they are subsidised anyway

It’s absolutely relevant to compare the UK with similar economies when people such as yourself falsely suggest that we spend too much on rail, or that it isn’t good value for money.

Not if they aren't actually similar economies in transport terms, nor political terms. Not sure I have said that we spend too much, though big chunks of it certainly arent good value for money.

 

[43066]

Pretty sure it was mentioned earlier on in this thread that the railways had political clout due to how many people used them

The railways do have political significance, yes. They’re widely viewed as an essential service, especially in the economically important parts of the country, which is why the government wasn’t able to close them down entirely during lock down. You might disagree with it but clearly the government understands it.

Fairly I would have thought - as they are free at the point of use and pretty much anyone can use them one way or another. Not sure they are subsidised anyway

So you don’t know and are just guessing.
Motorists are undoubtedly being subsidised at tax payers’ expense through fuel subsidy freezes. At the same time real terms spending on public transport is being cut in real terms. You presumably think that’s a good thing, others don’t.

Not if they aren't actually similar economies in transport terms, nor political terms.

So how else do you decide whether too much or too little is spent? Shock horror, health care in this country is rubbish, and we also pay less for it than many other economies. That’s down to the choices of successive governments. People have a tendency to moan about how bad everything is and then elect governments who don’t prioritise public services.

Not sure I have said that we spend too much, though big chunks of it certainly arent good value for money.

Not good value compared to what, though? I’m at a loss as to what you are saying.

 

[eldomtom2]

Does anyone have any figures on the reasons for passenger journeys i.e. commute, leisure, family, etc.? You'd think from how people discuss it that every passenger was either a 9-to-5 commuter or going on holiday.

 

[Horizon22]

It's asking for trouble to say anything positive about TPE, but here goes. On South Pennine we are seeing much better reliability. Only ECS cancellations so far today and risk of some late starts and early terminations. Still some way from perfection but a lot better. Having noted this we might even consider using them one day next week.

But the point made is good. TPE are being avoided. Work from home. Take a different route. Use a different operator. Take the car. Stay in a hotel for a few nights,rather than commute every day. Change job. Move home. I've heard all these. Do not rely on TPE.

It will take some time for the public to recover enough confidence to fully return, and some never will. It will take more time to capture new users who haven't been soured by their performance over the last few years.

The thing is people said this about places like Southern from 2016-2018 during the bitter strikes. That was only 5 years ago (including a pandemic) and passengers loads have generally responded well (not as well as others taking into account the WFH, London & SE commuter demographic base it generally serves). People do eventually forget these things.

I don't think trains into central London are under threat under any scenario. Buses are a very good substitutes for some lines - they go where people live , cover more areas, and are more frequent for a given budget.

The actual ideal is buses that connect properly into railway stations & timetable and better active transport measures connecting up rail stations. Even a one-car train can fit more people than your average buses, albeit being more expensive to run.

 

[railfan99]

Does anyone have any figures on the reasons for passenger journeys i.e. commute, leisure, family, etc.? You'd think from how people discuss it that every passenger was either a 9-to-5 commuter or going on holiday.

Going shopping (whether to classic markets, supermarkets, small shops for clothing) must be an important contributor.

Medical-related (visits to a GP, but more particularly to your hospitals or to surgeons' rooms) would also feature, as would trips by primary, secondary and tertiary students.

Page 4 of this link has some data:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1049929/rail-factsheet-2021.pdf

This is the most recent one, not as well set out as the previous year's:

Rail factsheet: 2022

www.gov.uk

 

[Richardr]

Motorists are undoubtedly being subsidised at tax payers’ expense through fuel subsidy freezes.

That itself doesn't necessarily follow. Fuel subsidy freezes means that, in real terms, not so much (per litre) is being paid by the motorist, but the amount being paid whilst still positive (which any tax is) may or may not be as much as the external cost of road transport.

Tax needs to be raised by the government and duties, from VAT to specific duties, are one way of doing that. Whether those raised from motorists subsidize motorists or whether they are a net add to government revenues is still a question, whether or not there is a freeze on them.

 

[Krokodil]

Not if a lot of them are only occasional users who could easily use alternatives or just not go

"just not go" having done so much for pubs and restaurants lately...

Buses are a very good substitutes for some lines - they go where people live , cover more areas, and are more frequent for a given budget.

You might want to get onto the Wrexham-Bidston threads, to see what they think of buses which take twice as long to cover the journey as the train.

 

[railfan99]

You might want to get onto the Wrexham-Bidston threads, to see what they think of buses which take twice as long to cover the journey as the train.

In Western nations, the only mode that can consistently encourage residents to ditch their car for a journey is rail. Certainly not buses.

The amount of private car road travel includes many very short trips, such as to supermarkets or other shops.

 

[philosopher]

This may be a generalisation, but I think the adult population can broadly be split into three groups. The first group like driving and highly value the car’s convenience and comfort. This group I find will only use railways if it particularly time consuming or costly to drive, such as journeys into Central London where congestion and parking plus congestion charges seem to deter all but the most keen drivers. The second group can drive but don’t like driving, they may find driving stressful or tedious. They may have a car, but will have one out of necessity to undertake trips that are very difficult to undertake by public transport. The third group don’t drive at all, they may have not bothered to learn or can’t due to medical or financial reasons.

Rail use can be increased by either trying to force those who prefer driving into the railways by increasing the cost of driving or by increasing the convenience of rail transport to encourage those who don’t like driving to be able to undertake more trips by rail. While the first option may seem the easier option, it is clear it is not popular with a large chunk of the population as witnessed by protests over fuel duty in the past. The second option unfortunately tends to be the more costly option to the government.

 

[PGAT]

You forgot the group that completely avoid public transport like the plague for most of their lives

 

[43066]

That itself doesn't necessarily follow. Fuel subsidy freezes means that, in real terms, not so much (per litre) is being paid by the motorist, but the amount being paid whilst still positive (which any tax is) may or may not be as much as the external cost of road transport.

Tax needs to be raised by the government and duties, from VAT to specific duties, are one way of doing that. Whether those raised from motorists subsidize motorists or whether they are a net add to government revenues is still a question, whether or not there is a freeze on them.

But whatever the wider costs/revenue* picture the freeze in fuel duty comes at a direct cost to the tax payer, so is still a subsidy to motorists which we are all paying for.

The government is also choosing to freeze rail budgets, supposedly on the basis that the country cannot afford them, yet the costs of the freeze in fuel duty is circa £5bn pa, so rather more than the revenue shortfall the railway is experiencing!

*as discussed previously many costs of roads are also externalised (accidents, policing, congestion) in a way that the railway’s costs aren’t.

 

[Krokodil]

*as discussed previously many costs of roads are also externalised (accidents, policing, congestion) in a way that the railway’s costs aren’t.

Not forgetting pollution. I'm not sure what figure the railway values a life at these days (in terms of 'how much is it worth spending to save one life') but it'll be in the millions. So for every life cut short by pollution or accidents, perhaps we should attribute that value to the cost of road transport.

 

[SamYeager]

But whatever the wider costs/revenue* picture the freeze in fuel duty comes at a direct cost to the tax payer, so is still a subsidy to motorists which we are all paying for.

The government is also choosing to freeze rail budgets, supposedly on the basis that the country cannot afford them, yet the costs of the freeze in fuel duty is circa £5bn pa, so rather more than the revenue shortfall the railway is experiencing!

*as discussed previously many costs of roads are also externalised (accidents, policing, congestion) in a way that the railway’s costs aren’t.

The freeze in fuel duty does NOT come at a cost to the tax payer. It merely reduces the pot of money of the government can spend and increases the available income the tax payer can choose to spend on whatever they would like but it doesn't cost the tax payer. The rail budget on the other hand is spending by the government and does cost the tax payer just like the NHS costs the tax payer..

 

[43066]

The freeze in fuel duty does NOT come at a cost to the tax payer.

Of course it does. It directly reduces revenue received, and that shortfall will have to be covered.

The same would happen if the government decided to freeze railway ticket prices (and certain people on here would be quick to criticise that due to the cost!).

 

[Tezza1978]

You forgot the group that completely avoid public transport like the plague for most of their lives

A lot of those people fall into category 1 (absolutely in love with /obsessed with their cars - a subset of these people happily drive to the end of their own street to drop their kids off at school) - or are in that slightly weird group of people who I term "bubble dwellers" [only interested in their immediate family, hate socialising, avoid nearly all hospitality venues and public spaces as they basically don't like other people at all and just want to stay at home as far as possible] - this group have very low travel needs!

I'm definitely in category 2 - I drive when needed and need a car for both work and home use, but I'm hardly in love with driving, its a chore most of the time, prefer to get the train. I can work on the train, more relaxing, have a few drinks in the evening then travel home etc etc

 

[SamYeager]

Of course it does. It directly reduces revenue received, and that shortfall will have to be covered.

The same would happen if the government decided to freeze railway ticket prices (and certain people on here would be quick to criticise that due to the cost!).

Bit in bold - The fuel duty "cut" does as stated. The shortfall can be met by either reducing expenditure or not choosing to increase expenditure. Freezing ticket prices, which to an extent the government did by delaying the increase until March, means that less income is received to help fund the rail budget and thus means it either needs to be increased or the scope of rail expenditure needs to be constrained.

 

[Bald Rick]

This may be a generalisation, but I think the adult population can broadly be split into three groups. The first group like driving and highly value the car’s convenience and comfort. This group I find will only use railways if it particularly time consuming or costly to drive, such as journeys into Central London where congestion and parking plus congestion charges seem to deter all but the most keen drivers. The second group can drive but don’t like driving, they may find driving stressful or tedious. They may have a car, but will have one out of necessity to undertake trips that are very difficult to undertake by public transport. The third group don’t drive at all, they may have not bothered to learn or can’t due to medical or financial reasons.

Outside inner London, and the centre of a couple of other big cities, Group 1 is by far the largest group. Of those aged 18-75, I’d suggest it’s over 90%.

 

[43066]

The fuel duty "cut" does as stated.

So you agree with, then, me it comes at a cost to the taxpayer.

 

[gazzaa2]

The unreliability of the trains doesn't help numbers and the service is getting worse with cutbacks/staffing/maintenance problems.

Yesterday I got a few different trains and there were the following issues: stuck waiting in a tunnel outside Birmingham New Street for over 10 minutes which caused me to miss my connection there (the train was already 10 minutes delayed). I then got the train from Birmingham NS to Bristol TM which had been reduced to 4 cars from 8 due to 'staff sickness'. This meant it was rammed full. We were then stuck in a siding outside BTM for nearly 30 minutes waiting for a platform that could connect to the other 4 cars for the return journey. So the reduction of stock not only made the journey unpleasant but extended it by half an hour. This then caused me to miss my final connecting train and I was an hour and a half late on arrival.

Return journey. train 20 minutes late waiting for the train at Bristol to Edinburgh. We were then waiting a while for it to leave as there was loads of trains backed up around Bristol Parkway due to a tresspass incident at Yate. I thus missed my connecting train at New Street. When I got on my last train at New Street there was no working toilets on board so we had an extended stop at Crewe.

I wouldn't even consider that a particularly bad day's travel these days is what's worse, as it ultimately got me there and back and I wasn't too late home. Particularly on a weekend. For the price you pay it's just not a reliable or comfortable journey a lot of the time and can be very stressful and unreliable and unpunctual.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

So you agree with, then, me it comes at a cost to the taxpayer.

There is a subtle difference, a fuel duty cut costs the government but a freeze can be seen differently because it's not revenue that you already have, bit like me giving you a tenner this month, you wouldn't argue it costs you if I didn't but it is an extra £10 you would have had.

Back on topic though, it's a political decision to make, do we run the service or not and how do we get more bums on seats for the services we do run. I'm really not in favour of pricing people off certain trains as they're full but better to look at other ways to increase capacity.

 

[SamYeager]

So you agree with, then, me it comes at a cost to the taxpayer.

Sigh. The taxpayer is not the government. The taxpayer funds the government either through direct taxes such as income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc. or through indirect taxes such as VAT, fuel duty etc. The government also borrows money but has to pay it back at some stage using funds provided by the taxpayer.

The government can also choose to increase revenue through growing the economy with the increased activity generating income through existing/lower taxes or they can increase taxes. After a certain point the latter option tends to have the effect of slowing/depressing the economy which results in decreased income.

It suits the purposes of some to describe lower revenue to the government as a "cost" to the government but it's not a "cost" to the taxpayer. Those who call lower revenue to the government a "cost" are those who believe that all taxpayer's income belongs to the government by right. Oddly enough I'm not one of them.

Anyway I think we've gone pretty much off-topic and should cease this particular discussion at this point.

 

[43066]

There is a subtle difference, a fuel duty cut costs the government but a freeze can be seen differently because it's not revenue that you already have, bit like me giving you a tenner this month, you wouldn't argue it costs you if I didn't but it is an extra £10 you would have had.

But in the case of revenue that is effectively guaranteed the difference is so subtle that it is meaningless in practice. If I choose to reduce my own income by not doing overtime next month, I will have X amount less money with which to save or pay by bills. The effect is exactly the same as if I did the overtime but choose to give the amount I’d earned away, or spent it elsewhere.

Sigh. The taxpayer is not the government. The taxpayer funds the government either through direct taxes such as income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc. or through indirect taxes such as VAT, fuel duty etc. The government also borrows money but has to pay it back at some stage using funds provided by the taxpayer.

The government can also choose to increase revenue through growing the economy with the increased activity generating income through existing/lower taxes or they can increase taxes. After a certain point the latter option tends to have the effect of slowing/depressing the economy which results in decreased income.

Thanks for the lesson in taxation, I’m fully aware of how the system works. Who has suggested the tax payer is the same as the government? The government is elected by and accountable to the tax payer, and (via the Treasury and HMRC) is charged with raising and spending public money on their behalf.

Your second paragraph is really a supply-side political statement masquerading as statement of fact, when it’s noted that the “austerity” approach of defunding public services has been fairly unsuccessful in generating meaningful growth over the last decade.

It suits the purposes of some to describe lower revenue to the government as a "cost" to the government but it's not a "cost" to the taxpayer.

Choosing to lower or freeze tax in any particular area (fuel duties in this case) results in lower income to the treasury, and this shortfall will need to be found elsewhere, or overall spending/debt repayment reduced. The effect is the same as if any particular area of spending were increased by the same amount. It is therefore disingenuous to suggest that this bung to motorists (purely for political reasons) is somehow more affordable than increasing spending on public transport. It is really no different in terms of the cash position.

It suits the purposes of some to describe lower revenue to the government as a "cost" to the government but it's not a "cost" to the taxpayer. Those who call lower revenue to the government a "cost" are those who believe that all taxpayer's income belongs to the government by right. Oddly enough I'm not one of them.

This is a complete non sequitur. It’s possible to accept that choosing to lower taxes or spend more in a particular area both result in a cost, without believing anything of the sort!

I agree the wider economic discussion is off topic, but lowering fuel duty can quite sensibly be viewed in exactly the same way as increasing subsidy and trying to dress it up as something different is disingenuous.

 

[Richardr]

But whatever the wider costs/revenue* picture the freeze in fuel duty comes at a direct cost to the tax payer, so is still a subsidy to motorists which we are all paying for.

I assume if the VAT rate was cut you would describe that as a subsidy to shoppers, as opposed to those who would say the tax shoppers pay is reduced?

 

[43066]

I assume if the VAT rate was cut you would describe that as a subsidy to shoppers, as opposed to those who would say the tax shoppers pay is reduced?

The statements above aren’t mutually exclusive (albeit VAT is levied on a wide range of goods and services, so I’m not sure it’s entirely fair to describe a cut in VAT as “a subsidy to shoppers”).

What I wouldn’t do is pretend that cutting VAT comes at no cost to the public purse/tax payer, while simultaneously arguing that increasing government subsidy in areas I don’t approve of is unaffordable.