Passenger numbers after the holiday period

[Taplowgreen]

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.

Things have returned to normal - but it's a new normal - and the railways, like everyone else, will need to adapt accordingly.

Genies are rarely returned to bottles, much as some would like them to be.

 

[Xavi]

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

Because DfT are quoting the excluding Elizabeth Line data in press releases and briefings, without any reference to the inclusive figures.

London and SE traffic is still lower than pre-pandemic even with Elizabeth Line, and yet the data is being used to justify cuts where there’s regional growth elsewhere!

 

[Deafdoggie]

The WFH views on this forum make me laugh, it’s always like a Daily Mail comment section and so out of touch.

WFH is here to stay in its new guise as flexible or hybrid working as many now call it. Most are doing 1-2 days in the office, if you want to be in full time, then you can, the majority are not aside a few headline grabbing sensationalist pieces in the tabloids.

Exactly this. Job adverts are full of fully WFH or hybrid working if people want it. Employers have realised this gives them a much bigger pool of talent (you're no longer limiting yourself to people who live in commuting distance) A casual look through indeed doesn't show any jobs that can be WFM that aren't offering it as an option. Things may be different in London I don't know, but round here it's really helped employment, as people can now get jobs that they couldn't before without having to move. Employers are also downsizing offices to cut costs of needing such big offices. It's a win:win really. Obviously not all jobs can be WFM for all sorts of reasons, but those that can & are are really booming from a new influx of talent.

 

[Xavi]

Exactly this. Job adverts are full of fully WFH or hybrid working if people want it. Employers have realised this gives them a much bigger pool of talent (you're no longer limiting yourself to people who live in commuting distance) A casual look through indeed doesn't show any jobs that can be WFM that aren't offering it as an option. Things may be different in London I don't know, but round here it's really helped employment, as people can now get jobs that they couldn't before without having to move. Employers are also downsizing offices to cut costs of needing such big offices. It's a win:win really. Obviously not all jobs can be WFM for all sorts of reasons, but those that can & are are really booming from a new influx of talent.

Don’t disagree with any of that, although once on boarded, the requirement to be truly hybrid is much more apparent now than 12-18 months ago.

 

[jon0844]

Employers are also downsizing offices to cut costs of needing such big offices. It's a win:win really. Obviously not all jobs can be WFM for all sorts of reasons, but those that can & are are really booming from a new influx of talent.

I think this is a big factor in the attitudes of businesses. A local council was going to downsize by closing satellite offices and move people into one, using hybrid working to provide less desks. That idea has fallen apart now, and they're keeping all the offices they had.

If an office hasn't been able to downsize or terminate a lease easily, I guess they'll conclude it's best to have everyone back in - or at least more often than before.

Corporate landlords aren't going to make it easy to downsize offices. London and other cities are still erecting huge office blocks, so that's absolutely a factor and may mean Londoners (for example) being more likely to be asked back than a smaller office in a town or village where they can downsize more effectively.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

Elizabeth Line needs to be compared between Paddington and Reading / Heathrow and between Liverpool Street and Shenfield as that was run by TOCs bhefore covid to be a fair comp[arision.

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.

No surprise with helicopter Rishi in charge

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.

This is definitely the case (build it and they will come) but how you compare pre covid with post covid in this sense I don't know as clearly comparing pre covid when Crossrail wasn't open to post covid and Crossrail being open is like comparing apples with pears

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.

Definitely nees to be included to be a fair comparision.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

TfL have done extensive research on this - there’s a few papers online about this.

About 15-20% (IIRC) of Elizabeth line traffic is believed to be brand new public transport demand.

Edit: Page 9 here says it’s 30% https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/...10-elizabeth-line-passenger-usage-insight.pdf

the remaining 30% per cent of Elizabeth line demand is ‘new’

 

[yorksrob]

TfL have done extensive research on this - there’s a few papers online about this.

About 15-20% (IIRC) of Elizabeth line traffic is believed to be brand new public transport demand.

If that's on the non-core routes, I still see now reason why it should be excluded from the national rail stats.

 

[Horizon22]

If that's on the non-core routes, I still see now reason why it should be excluded from the national rail stats.

Seeing as there’s now no routes that are solely “core” (with the exception of a few peak trains) that might be hard to distinguish.

 

[yorksrob]

Seeing as there’s now no routes that are solely “core” (with the exception of a few peak trains) that might be hard to distinguish.

I disagree. If you go onto NR territory, you're contributing a journey to it.

 

[Krokodil]

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.

Given that service cuts have already been made, the balance between income and expenditure should be restoring. As it's not, a fares review needs to take place to see why revenue is down, and to find ways of restoring it. That might involve reducing the extortionate Anytime fares, in other places it might mean reviewing the availability of Advances (Northern's short hop ones for a start), it might also involve reviewing revenue protection and increasing the number of barriered stations and/or extending hours (I know one TOC that has done the latter and recouped thousands, easily covering the cost of the extra staff).

Ah, those blinkers.

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

Even with an ingenious methodology, it's still only an educated guess. As I said earlier, the fact that the Liz Line has grown the market substantially should be used as a reason to improve other services, not a reason to cut them back. For an analogy, look at the way that BR would make services deliberately unattractive so that no one used them and they could close with less fuss.

London and SE traffic is still lower than pre-pandemic even with Elizabeth Line, and yet the data is being used to justify cuts where there’s regional growth elsewhere!

This is a key point. Only publishing these figures on a national basis doesn't provide any distinction between an LSE operator which could stand to lose a few peak extras, and a regional/IC operator that has wedged trains. We all know that there is potential for a huge amount of growth at XC where lack of capacity and the consequent pricing-off of demand has strangled growth. TPE too had the chance to grow considerably once its wedged three-car 185s were replaced by the five-car Nova fleet. Sadly mismanagement has led to that being squandered. Elsewhere TfW are increasing their fleet by 50%.

The Liz Line isn't the only example of how service improvements have grown traffic. Look at the Blackpool services where electrifying the line and replacing ropey 150s with 331s has resulted in considerable growth, such that six car sets now dominate. We should be sticking capital in and upgrading our network, not cutting back.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Stripping EL out allows a direct comparison of the traffic on the same set of lines to the previous dataset.

No it doesn't as you're missing out TfL Rail traffic (an operation that wasn't exactly minor in passenger numbers) from prior to the EL rebranding exercise.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

As I said further up, direct comparison is impossible and travel patterns have changed anyway. The industry has to deal with what's in front of it now, that means try an grow the business. Cutting services does the opposite and also reduces revenue, it's all about getting the most out of the fleet you have at present.

I had thought a better Metric to measure was average occupancy but even that is skewed by different train lengths so not really a measure either

 

[northwichcat]

Exactly this. Job adverts are full of fully WFH or hybrid working if people want it. Employers have realised this gives them a much bigger pool of talent (you're no longer limiting yourself to people who live in commuting distance)

Plus London based companies have realised that employing people from outside London and the South East is cheaper, even if you allow them to expense a few journeys to London every year. It's then also a win for job seekers outside the London commuter area who neither want to commute, nor pay commuting costs.

If an office hasn't been able to downsize or terminate a lease easily, I guess they'll conclude it's best to have everyone back in - or at least more often than before.

Corporate landlords aren't going to make it easy to downsize offices. London and other cities are still erecting huge office blocks, so that's absolutely a factor and may mean Londoners (for example) being more likely to be asked back than a smaller office in a town or village where they can downsize more effectively.

I'm reliably informed even that in 2020 office space in The City was the cheapest it had been for a very long time. It led to some companies getting a relative bargain on a small office with a renowned Cornhill address. Now when those leases come to an end I imagine it will see some companies moving out of central London. However, in the mean time the result is companies are expanding again and don't have space for everyone to be in their office, and they aren't exploring options to acquire more office space, so for now WFH or hybrid working has to remain in place.

I'm also not sure it is easier to find an alternative use for offices in towns, compared to city centres. Many towns now have modern business parks on the edge of the boundary. You just need to look at northern towns and cities to see how city centre buildings can be repurposed. Disused mills remain, but they are now offices, apartment blocks, university faculties, art galleries, health centres, shopping centres etc. In Northwich disused buildings tend to get demolished (unless they're listed). I'm not sure it's viable to demolish offices that been built since the turn of the millennium.

 

[Xavi]

Plus London based companies have realised that employing people from outside London and the South East is cheaper, even if you allow them to expense a few journeys to London every year.

Yes, since the internet became dominant 25 years or so ago, I’ve always told my executive colleagues that it was unnecessary to have London-centric teams, particularly in the service sector.

Many wanted to protect the London bubble they benefited from, but the pandemic weakened their position.

London will, of course, continue to be dominant.

 

[JonathanH]

Plus London based companies have realised that employing people from outside London and the South East is cheaper, even if you allow them to expense a few journeys to London every year.

In some cases, employing people in other countries is seen as cheaper as well.

Many wanted to protect the London bubble they benefited from, but the pandemic weakened their position.

Yes, this is quite true.

 

[Deafdoggie]

In some cases, employing people in other countries is seen as cheaper as well.

Yes. But it's less popular with customers. Things have to be significantly cheaper for customers to go to a company with non-uk call centres. Although few mention it of course! So you'll find most sales teams are UK based, as are retention teams.

 

[Xavi]

In some cases, employing people in other countries is seen as cheaper as well.

Yes, day-to-day MS Teams mtgs with colleagues in Bangalore or Bucharest is now the norm.

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

it's less popular with customers

The astute organisations concentrate on back office or support overseas.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, day-to-day MS Teams mtgs with colleagues in Bangalore or Bucharest is now the norm.

Bringing that full circle, the fact that some team members can't realistically meet in person then brings into question whether business travel at the employer's cost is necessary for those for whom it is practical, reducing the demand for rail travel.

 

[Meerkat]

If the trains are overcrowded and revenue is down then it’s time to put up the fares.
Its a nonsense to have cheap off peak fares for crowded trains and lose money. Madness.
Its what BR would do and we keep getting told that nationalised rail is better…….

 

[Krokodil]

If the trains are overcrowded and revenue is down then it’s time to put up the fares.
Its a nonsense to have cheap off peak fares for crowded trains and lose money. Madness.
Its what BR would do and we keep getting told that nationalised rail is better…….

BR was severely starved of funds. Countries which take public transport seriously (i.e. not the UK) are dropping fares and investing capital because they recognise that public transport is a social good.

Besides, you can't cut your way into profit. At some point it will finally be acknowledged that wedging people into a four-car Voyager is an inefficient way to run a service.

 

[Clarence Yard]

At times BR was not starved of funds - it depended on the Government position. For example the mid to late 1980’s were a boom time for BR investment authorisations, compared to the rather grim 1970’s.

Cutting costs isn’t about making the railway profitable - it’s all about keeping within government targets - “the external funding limit” (EFL) as we used to have on BR.

So you jack the fares and/or go on a round of cost cutting to meet that limit. In BR days, the Treasury always wanted the BRB to price off excess demand. The difference is that these days the BRB is effectively the DfT.

 

[northwichcat]

If the trains are overcrowded and revenue is down then it’s time to put up the fares.
Its a nonsense to have cheap off peak fares for crowded trains and lose money. Madness.
Its what BR would do and we keep getting told that nationalised rail is better…….

The problem with a number of routes (especially those around London) is you might run a packed train out of the city at 5pm, but then have to run it back almost empty. People using those routes probably aren't going to be willing to pay double what people pay on routes where the flows are more evenly balanced. Then the passengers on the lines with the flows evenly balanced won't want to pay more to subside those using other routes.

And then a problem with trains in general is it's not as easy to alter services, as it is with buses or planes. It was decided years ago there was sufficient demand for half-hourly Northwich to Manchester services but we've heard excuse after excuse from the operator and Network Rail about why it can't happen. First is was delayed cascades, then it was infrastructure constraints, then it was different infrastructure constraints, then staffing issues came in to the mix. If a bus operator wants to change a commercial service to suit current demand they just need to give eight weeks notice. Even if bus stops don't exist on a road they propose to serve, they can register the route on a Hail & Ride basis.

 

[yorksrob]

BR was severely starved of funds. Countries which take public transport seriously (i.e. not the UK) are dropping fares and investing capital because they recognise that public transport is a social good.

Besides, you can't cut your way into profit. At some point it will finally be acknowledged that wedging people into a four-car Voyager is an inefficient way to run a service.

Indeed. When British Rail was tasked with growing the business it did very well. The issue, as always is with who in Government is setting the task

 

[Huntergreed]

I really do think diagrams need to change to reflect the change to peak travel being leisure travel at weekends.

This is one of the vestibules on a XC 221 bound for Bournemouth from Birmingham New Street:


I assure you the whole train was just as crowded as this!

Who on earth though it was a good idea to put 4 coaches on a Saturday evening Birmingham - Bournemouth service!?

 

[irish_rail]

I really do think diagrams need to change to reflect the change to peak travel being leisure travel at weekends.

This is one of the vestibules on a XC 221 bound for Bournemouth from Birmingham New Street:

View attachment 142978
I assure you the whole train was just as crowded as this!

Who on earth though it was a good idea to put 4 coaches on a Saturday evening Birmingham - Bournemouth service!?

With HSTs now finished expect alot more of this! Good ol Tories.

 

[irp]

I really do think diagrams need to change to reflect the change to peak travel being leisure travel at weekends.

This is one of the vestibules on a XC 221 bound for Bournemouth from Birmingham New Street:

View attachment 142978
I assure you the whole train was just as crowded as this!

Who on earth though it was a good idea to put 4 coaches on a Saturday evening Birmingham - Bournemouth service!?

On this route, it was that bad on Saturdays way back in 2008 when I was doing Bracknell <-> Coventry to look for houses

 

[yorksrob]

I really do think diagrams need to change to reflect the change to peak travel being leisure travel at weekends.

This is one of the vestibules on a XC 221 bound for Bournemouth from Birmingham New Street:

View attachment 142978
I assure you the whole train was just as crowded as this!

Who on earth though it was a good idea to put 4 coaches on a Saturday evening Birmingham - Bournemouth service!?

The Government has deigned that the HST's should be scrapped to lower costs.

Remember it at the next general election.

 

[387star]

On this route, it was that bad on Saturdays way back in 2008 when I was doing Bracknell <-> Coventry to look for houses

Yeah this goes back to 2002

 

[JonathanH]

Who on earth though it was a good idea to put 4 coaches on a Saturday evening Birmingham - Bournemouth service!?

Is that leaving Birmingham, or leaving Coventry?

Unfortunately not a lot of opportunity to put out more than 4 coaches, as indeed there hasn't been since 2002. The fact it is going to Bournemouth is neither here nor there. There will most likely be plenty of room once past Reading, just awkward there isn't before then.