UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[tomuk]

Most of the country will be in group 2 (even if they don't use the train regularly, they would if they could), with city-dwellers leaning towards group 2B.

With a modal share of nearly 90% and with 36 million people living in households with at least one car compared to 17 million without I would suggest there a lot more people in Group 1 than your own preferences would suggest.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Do the modal share figures cover short walks of say half a mile to the shops for a loaf of bread? I know some people do make those journeys by card, but if the short walks are not considered to be journeys then unsurprisingly the % of all journeys which are by car will go up. One of the points about the walkable city model is that a whole load of journeys which currently need a car can be done on foot or by bike.

 

[Robertj21a]

Hence my “not in inner London…” qualifier!

This has really tested me for the last hour. I’ve been through my contacts list (over 1000) and of those whom I know their ‘driving status’, not one of them (in the age group 18-75 and not living in inner London) lives in a household where driving isn’t the default option unless the train is significantly quicker or easier (Eg, going to central London).

Perhaps I have an unusual group of friends / acquaintances / colleagues.

Good to see this topic well aired. I'm sure the proportions using trains is key to a lot of discussions on threads like this and there appears to be a massive divergence (10-50% ?) of opinions, with relatively few facts.

If you take out non-driving households and those living in the major city centres (notably London) it's difficult to see how train use can possibly average over 10-15%.
There's an enormous part of the country with no suitable train station in the local area and/or where a car will always be the quickest way. Once the regular use of a car is ensured within the household the additional travel costs (largely just fuel) are probably considered to be minimal.

 

[43066]

If you take out non-driving households and those living in the major city centres (notably London) it's difficult to see how train use can possibly average over 10-15%.
There's an enormous part of the country with no suitable train station in the local area and/or where a car will always be the quickest way. Once the regular use of a car is ensured within the household the additional travel costs (largely just fuel) are probably considered to be minimal.

Why would you take out people who don’t drive, don’t live in major cities/London unless you’re trying to distort the figures?

The statistics are clear - circa. 50% of the population use the train occasionally, a smaller % more regularly. That % is an affluent segment of society, hence why the railway has been subsidised over (say) buses. Rail use has also grown significantly over the past few decades, while bus use has declined.

What point are you actually trying to make?!

 

[Snow1964]

This is some very interesting background on Companies relocating (particularly in South East) which obviously affects commuting.

At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was thought that there would be an increase in occupiers adopting the hub and spoke locational model as a consequence of hybrid working. Whilst there have been examples of occupiers engaging in long-distance relocations. The trend of occupiers opening satellite offices whilst having a central operation based in Central London has not materialised on any scale.

A key trend driving tenant relocation is the flight to quality, with 98% of tenants acquiring better quality space in the past two years. This trend has been reflected in the increasing number of deals recorded notably in the smaller size bands.

Spotlight: Office Relocation Distances in Greater London and the South East

Savills Research provides advice and analysis to clients across the UK and globally, with specialists in commercial, residential and rural property research.

www.savills.co.uk

There is separate research (now loads of reports so not going to link them) that has indicated companies now realise that working from home is not sustainable for majority of week, as mentoring, innovation, training and appealing to new employees doesn't work. So most companies now expecting at least 3 days in office for hybrid working. So commuting is coming back (even if nearer 3 days than 5)

 

[43066]

There is separate research (now multiple items so not going to link them) that has indicated companies now realise that working from home is not sustainable for majority of week, as mentoring, innovation, training and appealing to new employees doesn't work. So most companies now expecting at least 3 days in office for hybrid working. So commuting is coming back (even if nearer 3 days than 5)

Quite rightly so, and that accords with my observations as a regular user of the railway in and around the London area.

Working from home suits certain niche jobs in certain industries. All the absolute hogwash we have been subjected to over the last few years about how people are generally more productive at home simply doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny, as anyone who has attempted to use various different services will attest!

The reality is that a large % of the UK population are inherently lazy and, if given an inch, will take the proverbial mile, so need to work in a setting where they can be properly supervised. This is clearly now feeding through to the bottom line, hence why “normal” work patterns are returning!

 

[Meerkat]

The reality is that a large % of the UK population are inherently lazy and, if given an inch, will take the proverbial mile, so need to work in a setting where they can be properly supervised.

Do you apply this to railway staff, or then is it just a refusal to be exploited by evil capitalists and their shareholders?

 

[ar10642]

The reality is that a large % of the UK population are inherently lazy and, if given an inch, will take the proverbial mile, so need to work in a setting where they can be properly supervised. This is clearly now feeding through to the bottom line, hence why “normal” work patterns are returning!

This is only true if you have bad employees (so why keep them at all?) and you don't bother to track what they are delivering. It also doesn't match what I'm seeing at all, at my company most people come in maybe once a week but that's not so they can be supervised, it's more to keep the team together and do in person meetings. Rest assured if people sit at home, non contactable on IM, dodging calls and delivering nothing it's going to be noticed.

The peak trains are a bit busier than they were especially once you get to Croydon but you can always get a seat on a 7:30 train out of Haywards Heath towards London which was much more difficult before the pandemic. People are definitely going in more than they were because I think people like being around real people and having somewhere to go more than they thought they did, but I still don't think the old 5 days a week in-office, don't be late, has come back in any sense.

 

[The exile]

This is only true if you have bad employees (so why keep them at all?) and you don't bother to track what they are delivering. It also doesn't match what I'm seeing at all, at my company most people come in maybe once a week but that's not so they can be supervised, it's more to keep the team together

One day a week might be enough to “keep a team together” but I very much doubt it would suffice to build a proper team atmosphere / ambience. Not that 5 days a week was a guarantee of it either….

 

[ar10642]

One day a week might be enough to “keep a team together” but I very much doubt it would suffice to build a proper team atmosphere / ambience. Not that 5 days a week was a guarantee of it either….

Seems to work just fine for us, video calls/IM/emails still happen.

 

[Snow1964]

One day a week might be enough to “keep a team together” but I very much doubt it would suffice to build a proper team atmosphere / ambience. Not that 5 days a week was a guarantee of it either….

As I understand it, the problem is when a team member changes, not maintaining existing team. As working from home is hopeless for new team integration, mentoring, on the job training, knowledge sharing, confidence / assessment and development of new person etc.

So whilst working from home worked short term, it is apparently better that companies make all staff turn up at least 3 days a week, otherwise existing staff forced back by a team newcomer resent it, and for lazier existing members if one person is seen by others to get away with not pulling their weight, others soon follow, creating downward spiral.

Which is why commuting at least 3 days a week is becoming norm again.

 

[The exile]

Seems to work just fine for us, video calls/IM/emails still happen.

None of which, IMHO, can replace that “water cooler moment’!

 

[Krokodil]

With a modal share of nearly 90% and with 36 million people living in households with at least one car compared to 17 million without I would suggest there a lot more people in Group 1 than your own preferences would suggest.

Perhaps you need to re-read my list of categories. Group 1 will use a car come what may. Group 2 view their cars as necessary but would use a suitable alternative if it were available (though this is likely to only stretch to rail, many wouldn't consider a bus though even my parents have started using Bristol's Metrobus referenced upthread). Both groups make up the car's modal share. I would certainly suggest that those who have to drive because the alternatives don't meet their needs exceed the number who actually enjoy driving.

Do you apply this to railway staff, or then is it just a refusal to be exploited by evil capitalists and their shareholders?

There are piss-takers in every walk of life. They are never popular with their colleagues.

 

[tomuk]

I would certainly suggest that those who have to drive because the alternatives don't meet their needs exceed the number who actually enjoy driving.

I think this is your error, you don't like driving so you assume others don't which isn't the case. Many people enjoy it and not just driving itself but the freedom and flexibility it provides. Where in Wales do you live where you can exist without a car?

 

[Bald Rick]

I would certainly suggest that those who have to drive because the alternatives don't meet their needs exceed the number who actually enjoy driving.

IMHO it is not a clear distinction between:

1) those that enjoy driving, and
2) those who have to drive, but wouldn’t if alternatives did meet their needs.

I suggest that there is a middle category, which is by far the majority, which is:

”Don’t mind driving, but not exactly ’enjoyable’, however the alternatives would have to match the convenience, comfort, and journey times of the car to even consider trying them”

If we‘re brutally honest, public transport of any kind is going to struggle to meet that for the majority of journeys over a mile or so, unless it involves a trip into London (or a handful of other city centres) or reasonably long distances.

 

[yorksrob]

There are also single car households where more than one member might be able to drive, but not all can use the car at the same time.

Also some people might enjoy driving but have reason to use the train on other occasions.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are also single car households where more than one member might be able to drive, but not all can use the car at the same time.

Also some people might enjoy driving but have reason to use the train on other occasions.

indeed

 

[Robertj21a]

Why would you take out people who don’t drive, don’t live in major cities/London unless you’re trying to distort the figures?

The statistics are clear - circa. 50% of the population use the train occasionally, a smaller % more regularly. That % is an affluent segment of society, hence why the railway has been subsidised over (say) buses. Rail use has also grown significantly over the past few decades, while bus use has declined.

What point are you actually trying to make?!

It's a shame that you saw fit to edit out the post that I was responding to, from Bald Rick. I was largely confirming that my view accorded with his own personal analysis.
Your comments say that the statistics are clear (though you don't quote any source, dates etc) and suggest that 50% of the population use the train occasionally [meaningless - once a week or once a decade ?] and a smaller % regularly.... [vague to the extreme - 2%, 10%, 25% ?]
I haven't seen any factual statistics on volumes of train travellers over recent years (any idea where they are?) - but I accept that it's probably in one of the threads at some point. The last data I can recall was

 

[philosopher]

This is some very interesting background on Companies relocating (particularly in South East) which obviously affects commuting.

Spotlight: Office Relocation Distances in Greater London and the South East

Savills Research provides advice and analysis to clients across the UK and globally, with specialists in commercial, residential and rural property research.

www.savills.co.uk

The flight to quality would probably result in more companies relocating their offices to city centres where overall office quality tends to be better. So whereas 5 years ago you may have got many commuters driving five days a week to an office in an out of town business park, now increasingly commuters will end up going to a city centre office two or three days a week. Since city centre locations frequently are accessed by rail, this means the shift to hybrid working in the long run may not have that much of impact on railway passenger numbers.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The flight to quality would probably result in more companies relocating their offices to city centres where overall office quality tends to be better. So whereas 5 years ago you may have got many commuters driving five days a week to an office in an out of town business park, now increasingly commuters will end up going to a city centre office two or three days a week. Since city centre locations frequently are accessed by rail, this means the shift to hybrid working in the long run may not have that much of impact on railway passenger numbers.

Its the impact on revenue that matters to the DfT aka HMT but certainly seems incremental improvement is possible from here and train service provision shouldn't be further constrained on commuter routes.

 

[railfan99]

Pleasingly, in 2021-22 Normans Bay on the south coast line (officially called East Coastway line) had a total of 17,126 entries and exits against in 2018-19 13,512. However other stations nearby still have not 'recovered'.

 

[43066]

Do you apply this to railway staff, or then is it just a refusal to be exploited by evil capitalists and their shareholders?

I’m sure it applies to some staff on the railway. Generally not the (thinly spread) operational ones who turn out at 0330 and actually have spend their entire day actually working, though!

This is only true if you have bad employees (so why keep them at all?) and you don't bother to track what they are delivering.

It isn’t always easy to get rid of people, especially if they’re just cruising/lazy rather than overtly incompetent. The NHS is a prime example of somewhere where people can hide for years, where it is virtually impossible to get sacked unless you do something outrageous like assaulting someone at work (and even then it isn’t guaranteed). A good friend of mine is an NHS manager and he has some truly extraordinary examples. The public sector has historically been more tolerant of this kind of thing but let’s not pretend it can’t also occur in the private sector and large scale working from home makes it that much easier.

It also doesn't match what I'm seeing at all, at my company most people come in maybe once a week but that's not so they can be supervised, it's more to keep the team together and do in person meetings. Rest assured if people sit at home, non contactable on IM, dodging calls and delivering nothing it's going to be noticed.

Your company doesn’t reflect the whole country (and don’t you work in IT? That is an industry with which working from home is more compatible than many). It’s all to easy to have a cruisey day working from home. I spent years working in offices, rest assured I know all the tricks. “Working from home” can mean logging in, sending a few strategic emails to look busy while lying on the sofa watching daytime tv.

Sometimes people need a rocket up their backside and someone closely watching what they’re up to.

As working from home is hopeless for new team integration, mentoring, on the job training, knowledge sharing, confidence / assessment and development of new person etc.

So whilst working from home worked short term, it is apparently better that companies make all staff turn up at least 3 days a week, otherwise existing staff forced back by a team newcomer resent it, and for lazier existing members if one person is seen by others to get away with not pulling their weight, others soon follow, creating downward spiral.

This will no doubt be a particular issue in sales type roles, where junior staff members need an “atmosphere” eg hammering phones.

Equally any kind of role where you need to build relationships with colleagues/co-workers. Ultimately we are a social species, so it should come as no surprise that people work more collaboratively and effectively in team settings rather than alone at home.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Do you apply this to railway staff, or then is it just a refusal to be exploited by evil capitalists and their shareholders?

I’d say it applies to railway staff too. However, as has been already pointed out, it’s quite difficult for operational railway staff to even be lazy whilst at work down to the impact that is felt.
Slight difference in dragging yourself to work at 0300 to drive trains than it is to meander downstairs to your sofa at 0800 still in your PJs

 

[Meerkat]

I’d say it applies to railway staff too. However, as has been already pointed out, it’s quite difficult for operational railway staff to even be lazy whilst at work down to the impact that is felt.
Slight difference in dragging yourself to work at 0300 to drive trains than it is to meander downstairs to your sofa at 0800 still in your PJs

There are often comments about guards on some lines/operators hiding in a cab, or the little office on SWR.

 

[Krokodil]

I think this is your error, you don't like driving so you assume others don't which isn't the case. Many people enjoy it and not just driving itself but the freedom and flexibility it provides.

Say someone wanted to travel to London. Group 1 would drive all the way and just stomach all of the different charges that you end up paying as a consequence. Group 2 would use public transport for at least part of the journey, whether they drove to their nearest railway station and drove from there, or drove as far as the outer reaches of the Tube and used it as a park-and-ride. The balance of convenience is very much in group 2's mind whereas group 1 are a lost cause.

Perhaps you can find a survey which supports your hypothesis of "most people enjoy driving for its own sake rather than regarding it as a minor chore". I'm willing to bet that there aren't as many die-hard petrol heads as you seem to think. Most drive because it's convenient for them, not because they enjoy driving in itself. Make public transport more convenient (or make driving less convenient with LTNs/ULEZs/CCZs/parking restrictions) and you will get modal shift.

Do you think that most people enjoy flying? Some enjoy it for its own sake (and yes, it's fun to watch down on the world from above and I've even flown light aircraft in my time, not to mention a memorable trip in the back of a Lynx); but if you're getting up at 3am to put up with poor leg room, silly luggage restrictions, and onerous security rules then you're not doing it because you enjoy sleep deprivation, you're doing it because it's the cheapest and quickest way of getting to your destination. This is why as Eurostar services sped up over gradually improving infrastructure, trains decimated the airlines' share of London-Paris traffic. HS2 will do similar for London-Scotland - though Lumo have achieved some modal shift already by competing on price.

Where in Wales do you live where you can exist without a car?

And yes, it's perfectly possible to live in Wales without a car, even a long way away from the South Wales Metro that's getting all of the investment. I only have to walk five minutes to get to a bus stop with six buses per hour in each direction. I manage it, my neighbour manages it, my ex manages it (neither of the above ever learned). My girlfriend lives just inside the National Park which is a little more challenging to get to for me but not impossible by any means - Sherpa buses run every hour, albeit the last one back is just after 7pm. Lots of people up here manage to "exist" without a car.

 

[Meerkat]

I wonder how many of the people outside city/town centres who exist 'without a car' exist without access to a car?
Ie those older folk who have friends/relatives who drive them for anything outside their walking distance, or get taxis everywhere.

 

[43066]

There are often comments about guards on some lines/operators hiding in a cab, or the little office on SWR.

Most of those comments are made by forum members who oppose guards being present at all and, if a minority of guards aren't performing properly in their roles, that’s a management issue - no different to any other workforce in any other industry. None of that changes the fact that those same guards might have had to get to work at 0400, then have one day off and be onto late shifts finishing work at 0100 or later! Hardly the same as lounging around in your own home, logged into work via a laptop 9-5, and every weekend off.

It’s laughable for anyone who hasn’t actually done railway shift work to make these comparisons, because you simply don’t have first concept.

I wonder how many of the people outside city/town centres who exist 'without a car' exist without access to a car?
Ie those older folk who have friends/relatives who drive them for anything outside their walking distance, or get taxis everywhere.

With great difficulty in many cases. How would you cope if you lived outside walking distance of local services, couldn’t drive and had no access to public transport?

What point are you actually trying to make?

 

[Meerkat]

With great difficulty in many cases. How would you cope if you lived outside walking distance of local services, couldn’t drive and had no access to public transport?

What point are you actually trying to make?

I would move. Just as I currently live in a smaller home so that I can walk to the town centre, station, football.

 

[mrmartin]

I think this definition is slightly over simplistic. There are a lot of people which will always drive in their local area but never drive further afield/long distances (especially to "big cities").

 

[railfan99]

Make public transport more convenient (or make driving less convenient with LTNs/ULEZs/CCZs/parking restrictions) and you will get modal shift.

The #1 mode for convincing residents to not use their car is rail.

Trams #2 and buses #3 (illogical as the latter may seem), but rail is #1 by many lengths in horseracing parlance.