Passenger numbers after the holiday period

[Krokodil]

Fewer journeys are being undertaken on public transport than pre-pandemic, end of.

Is it any wonder when the service has been cut back? And when the remaining service is often unreliable? The government has been blocking efforts to grow passenger numbers, and has been largely responsible for the failure to provide the reliable service needed to get people back on the rails.

The Elizabeth Line is a perfect demonstration of "build it and they will come". It should be used as a reason to upgrade infrastructure (electrification, new lines etc.), not as an excuse for cutbacks. It wasn't that long ago that stopping services west of Paddington were handled by 3 car Turbos, not 9 car 345s. I wonder if the "excludes Elizabeth Line" column only excludes the core, or if it also excludes the services that have been taken over from GWR/HC/GA. If the latter then it's not a fair comparison.

 

[Goldfish62]

Is it any wonder when the service has been cut back? And when the remaining service is often unreliable? The government has been blocking efforts to grow passenger numbers, and has been largely responsible for the failure to provide the reliable service needed to get people back on the rails.

Completely agree. I hold the government almost wholly responsible. They also instilled a climate of fear over using public transport during Covid and that's clearly still an issue for some people. There's not been any, "forget what we said, PT is now safe to use again" statement. In the interests of balance the Scottish government was even worse.

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

I wonder if the "excludes Elizabeth Line" column only excludes the core, or if it also excludes the services that have been taken over from GWR/HC/GA. If the latter then it's not a fair comparison.

Of course the data has been adjusted properly to allow a viable comparison. There'd be no point in publishing it otherwise:

Inclusion of Elizabeth Line data​

Since services in the central section of Crossrail started running in May 2022, there has been a significant uplift in National Rail journeys counted in the LENNON database. Before May 2022, Crossrail services were operated under ‘TfL Rail’ branding, which ran between Paddington and Reading or Heathrow Airport, and between Liverpool Street and Shenfield. These journeys were direct replacements for previous National Rail services and were counted in LENNON. Following the opening of the central section, when Crossrail services began operating under ‘Elizabeth line’ branding, these journeys started being recorded in LENNON, replacing some journeys that would have been taken on other modes such as London Underground and DLR.

From September 2023 onwards, the ‘Daily domestic transport use by mode’ statistics include a second rail usage timeseries which excludes Elizabeth Line services (and other relevant services that have been replaced by the Elizabeth Line) from both the travel week and its equivalent baseline week in 2019, where appropriate.

Before May 2022, services which would correspond to the current western Elizabeth Line services were operated by TfL Rail and Great Western Railway (GWR). Therefore, journeys allocated to the Elizabeth line in the current travel week, and journeys allocated to the relevant TfL Rail/GWR services in the equivalent baseline week are removed. This allows for a more meaningful like-for-like comparison of rail demand across the period because the effects of the Elizabeth line on rail demand are removed .

This time series excluding Elizabeth line services presents a lower recovery than the time series which includes the effect of Elizabeth line services.

From September 2023, the ‘Daily domestic transport use by mode’ statistics bulletin exclusively refers to the time series excluding Elizabeth Line services, however, the time series including Elizabeth Line services is still available in the accompanying data tables.

Domestic transport use by mode: methodology note

www.gov.uk

 

[Sly Old Fox]

There does indeed seem to be a somewhat desperate narrative being peddled by some that "everything is all right" on the railway in this context whereas in reality revenue is tanking and having to be propped up by yet more Government subsidy, and hybrid/new ways of working is sucking the business/season ticket income away.

There has been a post COVID recovery in passenger numbers however largely in the leisure market and occasional Advance fares do not equal the guaranteed income/cashflow of 5 day a week commuters buying annual season tickets, or the more eye watering peak flexible fares used mainly by those on business travel.

Railway advocates/enthusiasts need to get the blinkers off and acknowledge this as well as the need for change to reflect it.

What can they change though? They’re not allowed to change anything.

 

[bramling]

Completely agree. I hold the government almost wholly responsible. They also instilled a climate of fear over using public transport during Covid and that's clearly still an issue for some people. There's not been any, "forget what we said, PT is now safe to use again" statement.

Agree. In fact I’d go further, the government has been completely remiss by not having ever properly declared an end to the whole Covid thing. Transport is just one element of that.

Ditching stuff like peak extra services hasn’t exactly helped, as it reduces the choice available to people.

 

[jon0844]

I think for working from home, the best thing would be to encourage staggered hours so people don't have to travel in the peak and let people request working for home on days where there is disruption/strikes/bad weather or other needs (like having a child off school) etc.

One way or another, more people will be returning to work most of the time - either because they're told to or because they want to.

I've gone from working in offices to working from home (exclusively) and then back... and whatever you do, you'll miss the other in due course. So if everyone went back to work 5 days a week, you can be sure in a year or two they'd miss the home working. As such, hybrid working makes the most sense.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Interesting article in the 'Times' today - behind paywall so can't quote directly.

Times

In essence, home working has also meant that 19bn fewer miles were driven last year (244bn total) than 2019 and the lowest (COVID aside) for a decade. There is also a shift from traffic peaks before 9am to later in the day and at wekends. So it is not only railways that are affected by the 'new reality'. Worryingly, the article suggests, because of the big fall in rail traffic especially on Mondays and Fridays and a slump in season ticket sales 'Beeching' type cuts are likely on the agenda.

 

[yorksrob]

Completely agree. I hold the government almost wholly responsible. They also instilled a climate of fear over using public transport during Covid and that's clearly still an issue for some people. There's not been any, "forget what we said, PT is now safe to use again" statement. In the interests of balance the Scottish government was even worse.

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


Of course the data has been adjusted properly to allow a viable comparison. There'd be no point in publishing it otherwise:

Domestic transport use by mode: methodology note

www.gov.uk

I don't see why we should exclude Elizabeth line passengers for statistics.

Yes, the opening of the Elizabeth line is a one off which makes direct comparisons with previous years skewed, but then again so was the Pandemic, and they're jumping all over that as an excuse to cut services.

Sould we only consider one-off events that have a negative consequence on rail usage, so as to suit the Governments anti-rail agenda ?

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

Interesting article in the 'Times' today - behind paywall so can't quote directly.

Times

In essence, home working has also meant that 19bn fewer miles were driven last year (244bn total) than 2019 and the lowest (COVID aside) for a decade. There is also a shift from traffic peaks before 9am to later in the day and at wekends. So it is not only railways that are affected by the 'new reality'. Worryingly, the article suggests, because of the big fall in rail traffic especially on Mondays and Fridays and a slump in season ticket sales 'Beeching' type cuts are likely on the agenda.

Beeching style cuts would be a stupid overreaction, although I wouldn't put it past the Establishment.

 

[HSTEd]

There does indeed seem to be a somewhat desperate narrative being peddled by some that "everything is all right" on the railway in this context whereas in reality revenue is tanking and having to be propped up by yet more Government subsidy, and hybrid/new ways of working is sucking the business/season ticket income away.

There has been a post COVID recovery in passenger numbers however largely in the leisure market and occasional Advance fares do not equal the guaranteed income/cashflow of 5 day a week commuters buying annual season tickets, or the more eye watering peak flexible fares used mainly by those on business travel.

Railway advocates/enthusiasts need to get the blinkers off and acknowledge this as well as the need for change to reflect it.

It's much easier to repeat "nothing has changed" than confront the reality of the crisis facing the railway.

It is probably not existential yet, but if things continue as they are it will rapidly become so. The railway is going to have to reduce its cost base and work out how to adapt to a post commuter traffic environment.

That requires a reimagining of the entire industry from top to bottom and will unfortunately require the slaughtering of a great many sacred cows, and not just for the general work force.

 

[jon0844]

I said a while ago that lower passenger numbers are giving the Government supposedly valid arguments to cut services and staff, and potentially go further, with the argument that people are travelling less.

And, like Beeching, it doesn't consider a future rise (in this case people going back to work) and is just a good excuse to make drastic cuts that could hurt people for years, maybe even decades.

There are signs that things are returning to normal, but some people don't have the patience to wait.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't see why we should exclude Elizabeth line passengers for statistics.

Yes, the opening of the Elizabeth line is a one off which makes direct comparisons with previous years skewed, but then again so was the Pandemic, and they're jumping all over that as an excuse to cut services.

You can deny what the statistics as much as you like, but it doesn't change them. To repeat once more, in order to compare two datasets it needs to be on the same basis. In this case, if you read the methodology in post no. 122 you might have more of an understanding.

 

[yorksrob]

You can deny what the statistics as much as you like, but it doesn't change them. To repeat once more, in order to compare two datasets it needs to be on the same basis. In this case, if you read the methodology in post no. 122 you might have more of an understanding.

In that case, why are we basing future service patterns on one one off event affecting future revenue of the railway network (the pandemic) and not another one off event affecting future revenue of the railway network (the Elizabeth line)

Answer - pure political agenda.

 

[bramling]

I said a while ago that lower passenger numbers are giving the Government supposedly valid arguments to cut services and staff, and potentially go further, with the argument that people are travelling less.

And, like Beeching, it doesn't consider a future rise (in this case people going back to work) and is just a good excuse to make drastic cuts that could hurt people for years, maybe even decades.

There are signs that things are returning to normal, but some people don't have the patience to wait.

There’s a significant lesson from the 1980s in that if capacity is designed out, it is very expensive and difficult to restore if / when usage increases again. Of course that doesn’t sit well with a political system which works to electoral cycles, especially with a current government who are fairly certain to lose the next election.

 

[Goldfish62]

Sould we only consider one-off events that have a negative consequence on rail usage, so as to suit the Governments anti-rail agenda ?

You're conflating acknowledging the fact that passengers numbers are down significantly compared to 2019 with the government's agenda to cut. Complete nonsense. I don't wear blinkers and acknowledge the decline in passenger numbers, but my view is that the railway needs to grow to incentivise people to return, thus closing the gap between costs and income. The government is taking the opposite approach, but cutting to grow never works and the likely outcome is that the gap between costs and income on the railways will continue to grow.

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

There’s a significant lesson from the 1980s in that if capacity is designed out, it is very expensive and difficult to restore if / when usage increases again. Of course that doesn’t sit well with a political system which works to electoral cycles, especially with a current government who are fairly certain to lose the next election.

This country suffers from chronic short-termism and has done for a long time. Unfortunately it's been going on for such a long time now that it's been ingrained in most of the population that that's the only approach.

 

[yorksrob]

You're conflating acknowledging the fact that passengers numbers are down significantly compared to 2019 with the government's agenda to cut. Complete nonsense. I don't wear blinkers and acknowledge the decline in passenger numbers, but my view is that the railway needs to grow to incentivise people to return, thus closing the gap between costs and income. The government is taking the opposite approach, but cutting to grow never works and the likely outcome is that the gap between costs and income on the railways will continue to grow.

I also acknowledge that there has been a decline in passenger numbers (and the point about needing to grow the business) however, on what basis should we exclude one improvement in the passenger service over other smaller improvements.

If its so important to compare like with like in terms of the service, where does the calculation take into account all of the missing services - on Avanti and TPE for example, and the strike days etc.

 

[12LDA28C]

I said a while ago that lower passenger numbers are giving the Government supposedly valid arguments to cut services and staff, and potentially go further, with the argument that people are travelling less.

And, like Beeching, it doesn't consider a future rise (in this case people going back to work) and is just a good excuse to make drastic cuts that could hurt people for years, maybe even decades.

There are signs that things are returning to normal, but some people don't have the patience to wait.

Maybe if the Transport Secretary didn't put out blatant lies to the media such as his quote in today's Daily Express that "Post pandemic, the number of people using the rail network is about 50 percent lower" then those arguments wouldn't be seen as remotely 'valid'. Either that, or he is woefully ignorant or poorly briefed.

 

[jon0844]

There’s a significant lesson from the 1980s in that if capacity is designed out, it is very expensive and difficult to restore if / when usage increases again. Of course that doesn’t sit well with a political system which works to electoral cycles, especially with a current government who are fairly certain to lose the next election.

Quite. We're seeing reduced services, especially in the evening, short formed services, trains going off lease to save money and now plans to reduce staffing (and perhaps even drivers may see cuts). It won't be quick to reverse such moves.

 

[Goldfish62]

If its so important to compare like with like in terms of the service, where does the calculation take into account all of the missing services - on Avanti and TPE for example, and the strike days etc.

If you want the comparison including the Elizabeth line it's in Column G.

The instances you cite and others are small fry in their impact compared with the skewing of numbers by the EL.

Not referring to any comments you've made, but also some people seem to think reaching 100% passenger numbers compared with 2019 is "job done". It's not. In normal circumstances annual growth should have been expected in the intervening years, so anything less than 100 + X% projected annual growth isn't really good enough.

 

[yorksrob]

If you want the comparison including the Elizabeth line it's in Column G.

The instances you cite and others are small fry in their impact compared with the skewing of numbers by the EL.

Not referring to any comments you've made, but also some people seem to think reaching 100% passenger numbers compared with 2019 is "job done". It's not. In normal circumstances annual growth should have been expected in the intervening years, so anything less than 100 + X% projected annual growth isn't really good enough.

Fundamentally 100% passenger use should not precipitate cuts to services.

Running the service should not depend on continual growth in passenger numbers. Any policy that says that it should is a policy decision.

 

[bramling]

Quite. We're seeing reduced services, especially in the evening, short formed services, trains going off lease to save money and now plans to reduce staffing (and perhaps even drivers may see cuts). It won't be quick to reverse such moves.

Exactly and it puts people off. Round here people liked the services which started at Baldock because they knew they stood a high chance of getting a seat, and indeed when GTR put out their consultation for the (was it 2022 or 2023?) timetable changes people told GTR as much.

The current service simply doesn’t incentivise people, especially those who have an element of choice.

Baldock is a particularly salient example given the numbers of houses being constructed there right now.

 

[northwichcat]

Worryingly, the article suggests, because of the big fall in rail traffic especially on Mondays and Fridays and a slump in season ticket sales 'Beeching' type cuts are likely on the agenda.

While Fridays may be a popular work from home day for hybrid workers, my experience of Friday PM services is they've gone from being severely overcrowded pre-COVID to busy trains with a small number of standing passengers now. I would see that as that is saving the railways millions in not needing to procure additional carriages to cope with overcrowding issues.

 

[misterredmist]

Traveling up to Scotland from the west country for the bank holiday weekend plus a bit more, and despite it being the day after a strike and warnings plastered all over every ticketing site going my 5-car voyager is rammed full to standing and is borderline dangerously full. Good thing they’re not binning off some 7 coach trains with no replacement lined up! The capacity along the Exeter-Bristol route I regularly use is pitiful and only getting worse.

The railways are being used, and in good numbers, but no one seems happy about doing so. The passenger experience is shocking and the value is awful. It’s a great opportunity to establish rail as the norm and as a comfortable eco-friendly means of travel, and the government have absolutely no interest in taking the chance (as no government has for decades).

anybody who has to use 'Voyagers' as their staple means of train travel have my deepest sympathies.....Yuck !

 

[Xavi]

Column H is the relevant one for comparison with pre-Covid, not column G, because it strips out the Elizabeth line. 85% for the August Bank Holiday.

It’s a matter of comparing like with like. At least some Elizabeth Line journeys are those which would have been on London Underground, which are counted separately. So an apparent increase in traffic is merely a shift from one mode to another. Stripping EL out allows a direct comparison of the traffic on the same set of lines to the previous dataset.
The other way to do it would be to include all the TfL traffic in both before and after. Though as they’re run differently that may not be particularly enlightening.

It does not give a like-for-like position.

48% of trips on Liz Line were previously made on other National Rail operators. 4% were previously on DLR, 19% underground, and a huge 30% were not previously using public transport.

It’s blatantly corrupt by DfT to publish the without Liz Line data, and claim that other rail usage is much lower.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

It does not give a like-for-like position.

48% of trips on Liz Line were previously made on other National Rail operators. 4% were previously on DLR, 19% underground, and a huge 30% were not previously using public transport.

It’s blatantly corrupt by DfT to publish the without Liz Line data, and claim that other rail usage is much lower.

I think this tread and this post shows the comparison is impossible, I would just add simplistically the industry cannot get back to 100% of Pre COVID passengers as service patterns have changed i.e 100 trains a day on a line now could be 104 TPD Pre COVID so the extra 4 trains could carry 1800 extra passengers a day.

On the subject of the Elizabeth line impact, you have to remember Shenfield to Liverpoolit has Street service has been there for years with different operators and I'm sure the equivalent in great Western so you can't just discount it or totally include it for a direct comparison.

It has to be the case that revenue vs costs as a whole is what guides the industry. The problem I have is that there doesn't seem to be a difference between a TPE p&l verses a LNER for example

 

[Goldfish62]

It does not give a like-for-like position.

48% of trips on Liz Line were previously made on other National Rail operators. 4% were previously on DLR, 19% underground, and a huge 30% were not previously using public transport.

It’s blatantly corrupt by DfT to publish the without Liz Line data, and claim that other rail usage is much lower.

Ah, those blinkers.

You really should have read the methodology that I took the trouble to post above before commenting...

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, those blinkers.

You really should have read the methodology that I took the trouble to post above before commenting...

The methodology that you've outlined in a previous post looks decidedly dodgy.

If I've read it correctly, they've removed the EL statistics and to apparently make it a more "accurate" comparison, they've removed the corresponding local services between Reading and Paddington from the 2019 statistics as well.

However Reading - Paddington usage may have grown because of the more frequent service to London provided. Why should this growth be excluded ?

It seems to me that a better comparison would be to include Elizabeth Line data but exclude journeys exclusively undertaken within the Paddington - Liverpool Street section as these wouldn't have been possible by national rail previously.

The way they've calculated it seems corrupt and suspect.

 

[Goldfish62]

However Reading - Paddington usage may have grown because of the more frequent service to London provided. Why should this growth be excluded ?

Because that growth has occurred due to the Elizabeth line.

The Elizabeth line is a TfL service and the majority of revenue goes to TfL, not to the Treasury's national rail piggy bank. In other words, Elizabeth line performance has little impact on the income for the National Rail network. In fact it could be argued that it's having a negative impact due to revenue abstraction from GWR in particular.

If you included Paddington to Reading on the Elizabeth line you'd still have to exclude the majority of the revenue because it doesn't go the the Treasury, making the gap between revenue and passenger numbers even more stark than it already is.

 

[yorksrob]

Because that growth has occurred due to the Elizabeth line.

The Elizabeth line is a TfL service and the majority of revenue goes to TfL, not to the Treasury's national rail piggy bank. In other words, Elizabeth line performance has little impact on the income for the National Rail network. In fact it could be argued that it's having a negative impact due to revenue abstraction from GWR in particular.

If you included Paddington to Reading on the Elizabeth line you'd still have to exclude the majority of the revenue because it doesn't go the the Treasury, making the gap between revenue and passenger numbers even more stark than it already is.

That explanation makes the corruption even worse, as cuts to mainline services are being justified off the back of an accounting decision, whereby a large chunk of main line revenues have been transferred to TfL.

Entirely corrupt and underhand.

 

[Goldfish62]

That explanation makes the corruption even worse, as cuts to mainline services are being justified off the back of an accounting decision, whereby a large chunk of main line revenues have been transferred to TfL.

Entirely corrupt and underhand.

It's not corrupt and underhand. It's trying to make a meaningful comparison.

As for "cuts to mainline services being justified off the back of an accounting decision", the recasting and transfer of services between Reading and Paddington were decided and agreed long before Covid.

How can it be corrupt and underhand when the full data including the EL is also shown?

I don't understand where your coming from. On the one you acknowledged earlier that passenger numbers are down, now you appear to be saying its all a fiddle to justify cuts.

My peak hour services on SWR have been cut from 4tph to 2tph and are comfortably able to cope with the passenger numbers. Prior to Covid 4tph could barely cope. That's a huge reduction and an even larger reduction in annual season ticket revenue.

Roger Ford has written several articles in Modern Railways recently on the state of railway finances, forensically interrogating all the available numbers. I highly recommend a read.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not corrupt and underhand. It's trying to make a meaningful comparison.

As for "cuts to mainline services being justified off the back of an accounting decision", the recasting and transfer of services between Reading and Paddington were decided and agreed long before Covid.

How can it be corrupt and underhand when the full data including the EL is also shown?

I don't understand where your coming from. On the one you acknowledged earlier that passenger numbers are down, now you appear to be saying its all a fiddle to justify cuts.

My peak hour services on SWR have been cut from 4tph to 2tph and are comfortably able to cope with the passenger numbers. Prior to Covid 4tph could barely cope. That's a huge reduction and an even larger reduction in annual season ticket revenue.

Roger Ford has written several articles in Modern Railways recently on the state of railway finances, forensically interrogating all the available numbers. I highly recommend a read.

It's failing to make a meaningful comparison. Don't forget that before covid there wasn't such a huge pressure to make cuts to the service.

I do acknowledge that passenger numbers are down, but that doesn't prevent those with nefarious motives using statistics to make the figures look worse than they are. It doesn't really matter that both sets of figures are being published - the worse set of figures will be used by those wanting to justify cuts.

Do you not agree that my suggested methodology would be a far better reflection of the situation on the ground ? Afterall, the sections either side of Paddington - Liverpool Street are essentially a route modernisation. Why shouldn't the passenger usage generated by this be reflected in the statistics.

 

[Xavi]

It's not corrupt and underhand.

It certainly is underhand. Excluding Reading to Paddington growth says it all. Incredible but predictable that new infrastructure that was always going to attract new business to the wider railway, should be used to present a negative picture of the rest of the network. Especially as regional traffic away from London is fairing better than the total of London & SE.

Roger Ford has written several articles in Modern Railways recently on the state of railway finances, forensically interrogating all the available numbers. I highly recommend a read.

Oh they have been read, and I predicted much of what was written months after the pandemic started.

There’s plenty of new good facts around that also undermine the DfT anti-rail narrative. For example, yesterday Trainline announced a £50m share buyback as sales rocketed by 23 per cent in the 6 months to August.