Passenger numbers after the holiday period

[irish_rail]

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

Remember it at the next general election.

Indeed. Anyone associated in any way whatsoever with the railway, be it a punter, staff, or interested observer, would be mad to vote for the government that has single handedly ruined franchises such as XC at the next election. Passenger numbers may be down, but not on long distance services like XC operate. This government thinks it operates with impunity, that its actions won't face consequences, its our job to tell them what we think if the unelected PM ever has the guts to call an election!

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Anyone associated in any way whatsoever with the railway, be it a punter, staff, or interested observer, would be mad to vote for the government that has single handedly ruined franchises such as XC at the next election. Passenger numbers may be down, but not on long distance services like XC operate. This government thinks it operates with impunity, that its actions won't face consequences, its our job to tell them what we think if the unelected PM ever has the guts to call an election!

I agree. Railway passengers have a duty to defend Britain's Railway at the next election.

 

[slowroad]

Indeed. Anyone associated in any way whatsoever with the railway, be it a punter, staff, or interested observer, would be mad to vote for the government that has single handedly ruined franchises such as XC at the next election. Passenger numbers may be down, but not on long distance services like XC operate. This government thinks it operates with impunity, that its actions won't face consequences, its our job to tell them what we think if the unelected PM ever has the guts to call an election!

As someone has already suggested, the answer is to put the fares up. Why should I, who hardly ever uses the train, pay half the fare of someone who does? And if the argument is based on the externalities of road transport, the answer is to introduce congestion charges and increase fuel duty. You could then eliminate rail subsidies entirely.

 

[yorksrob]

As someone has already suggested, the answer is to put the fares up. Why should I, who hardly ever uses the train, pay half the fare of someone who does? And if the argument is based on the externalities of road transport, the answer is to introduce congestion charges and increase fuel duty. You could then eliminate rail subsidies entirely.

If you rarely use the train, wouldn't you prefer to pay a lower fare than someone who uses the train regularly ?

 

[slowroad]

If you rarely use the train, wouldn't you prefer to pay a lower fare than someone who uses the train regularly ?

No - because I am paying indirectly for them via my taxes.

 

[yorksrob]

No - because I am paying indirectly for them via my taxes.

So you'd prefer to pay a higher fare !

Why not just use the service that you're paying for ?

 

[slowroad]

So you'd prefer to pay a higher fare !

Why not just use the service that you're payin

So you'd prefer to pay a higher fare !

Why not just use the service that you're paying for ?

Of course I’d prefer to pay a higher fare. I’d save far more in lower taxes.

Trains usually don’t go where I want when I want. And you often have to put up with awful behaviour from other passengers.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course I’d prefer to pay a higher fare. I’d save far more in lower taxes.

Trains usually don’t go where I want when I want. And you often have to put up with awful behaviour from other passengers.

You won't see that saving recouped in lower taxes. It would be lost in the treasury.

You have the choice not to use trains.

 

[irish_rail]

As someone has already suggested, the answer is to put the fares up. Why should I, who hardly ever uses the train, pay half the fare of someone who does? And if the argument is based on the externalities of road transport, the answer is to introduce congestion charges and increase fuel duty. You could then eliminate rail subsidies entirely.

Trouble is the trains that are actually busy, ie XC and GWR intercity, are already the ones that are expensive. Its the heavily subsidised trains at places like Northern running round half empty anyway, so not a lot of people to "price off".

 

[slowroad]

Trouble is the trains that are actually busy, ie XC and GWR intercity, are already the ones that are expensive. Its the heavily subsidised trains at places like Northern running round half empty anyway, so not a lot of people to "price off".

Fair enough- so cut frequencies for those services then, and/or make them DOO.

 

[yorksrob]

Trouble is the trains that are actually busy, ie XC and GWR intercity, are already the ones that are expensive. Its the heavily subsidised trains at places like Northern running round half empty anyway, so not a lot of people to "price off".

And to not withdraw the rolling stock from the busy lines (which the DfT/Government is doing).

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

Fair enough- so cut frequencies for those services then, and/or make them DOO.

No, keep the rolling stock that the Government is forcing the TOC's to scrap.

 

[GardenRail]

Indeed. Anyone associated in any way whatsoever with the railway, be it a punter, staff, or interested observer, would be mad to vote for the government that has single handedly ruined franchises such as XC at the next election. Passenger numbers may be down, but not on long distance services like XC operate. This government thinks it operates with impunity, that its actions won't face consequences, its our job to tell them what we think if the unelected PM ever has the guts to call an election!

Who do you want us to vote for then? And why? Which party has committed to investment in rail?

 

[yorksrob]

Who do you want us to vote for then? And why? Which party has committed to investment in rail?

Anyone but the incumbent.

We know they have nefarious intentions towards the railway system by their actions.

 

[JonathanH]

Trouble is the trains that are actually busy, ie XC and GWR intercity, are already the ones that are expensive.

No doubt both have lost large amounts of business and commuting revenue, even if the leisure usage is holding up, so there is still a hole, regardless of the fact that long distance journeys are considered (and are) expensive.

 

[GardenRail]

Anyone but the incumbent.

Truth is, no party wants the responsibility of a rail network. Not one other party is pro public transport, let alone in rail. Its ok saying vote someone else to support rail..... Who? Labour, won't save the day, and all the others are pointless.

 

[Hadders]

I don't expect things to be materially different if there's a change of Government.

For example, who let 'no growth' franchises for 15 years?

 

[yorksrob]

Truth is, no party wants the responsibility of a rail network. Not one other party is pro public transport, let alone in rail. Its ok saying vote someone else to support rail..... Who? Labour, won't save the day, and all the others are pointless.

That's a good let out for the current Government, but the reality is that if this Government get in again, they will continue to run the railway into the ground.

It is imperative that this Government is gotten rid of.

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

I don't expect things to be materially different if there's a change of Government.

For example, who let 'no growth' franchises for 15 years?

Just get the current service running is what we need.

 

[irish_rail]

I don't expect things to be materially different if there's a change of Government.

For example, who let 'no growth' franchises for 15 years?

Well we can be sure the industrial dispute will definitely continue under the Tories that seems a certainty. So you take a chance with Labour, or condemn yourself to voting for the party thats screwed things up for the past 13 years. Thats the dilemma I suppose.

 

[Horizon22]

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!?

As an extreme flip side, are the tickets too cheap for the weekend? If supply isn't increasing any time soon (this government certainly doesn't appear keen) that's the other alternative.

 

[yorksrob]

Well we can be sure the industrial dispute will definitely continue under the Tories that seems a certainty. So you take a chance with Labour, or condemn yourself to voting for the party thats screwed things up for the past 13 years. Thats the dilemma I suppose.

As an extreme flip side, are the tickets too cheap for the weekend? If supply isn't increasing any time soon (this government certainly doesn't appear keen) that's the other alternative.

Yes, if we want to kill off the only growth area.

 

[JonathanH]

As an extreme flip side, are the tickets too cheap for the weekend? If supply isn't increasing any time soon (this government certainly doesn't appear keen) that's the other alternative.

Birmingham to Coventry after 6.30pm costs £2.80. An off-peak day return from Coventry to Birmingham costs £6.90, and passengers with a railcard get a third off.

I doubt the train is full of people paying £123.80 to travel from Bournemouth to Birmingham, which I don't think anyone could argue to be too cheap for the weekend.

 

[yorksrob]

Birmingham to Coventry after 6.30pm costs £2.80. An off-peak day return from Coventry to Birmingham costs £6.90.

That's lovely. Why does it cost thirty quid for a cheap day return from Leeds to Manchester ?

 

[JonathanH]

That's lovely. Why does it cost thirty quid for a cheap day return from Leeds to Manchester ?

£26.00, to be pedantic, to travel 42 miles from Leeds to Manchester, because that isn't artificially kept low by being wholly within a former PTE area. Seems to be the market price.

Coventry to Birmingham is 19 miles. £6.90 scaled up to 42 miles is about £15. Arguably a better comparison is Leeds to Huddersfield at £8.80, which is a similar distance to Coventry to Birmingham.

 

[Andrew1395]

trains are not really subsidised, because the purpose of travel leads to economic activity that benefits the UK economy. So they are enablers of the economy. Whether that is making it possible for individuals to take up jobs and generating profits for employers, or people making leisure trips, exporting money to areas they don’t live in. Even your in laws using the train to spend Christmas with you, results in you spending a bit more within your local community.

 

[irish_rail]

trains are not really subsidised, because the purpose of travel leads to economic activity that benefits the UK economy. So they are enablers of the economy. Whether that his making it possible for individuals to take up jobs and generating profits for employers, or people making leisure trips, exporting money to areas they don’t live in. Even your in laws using the train to spend Christmas with you, results in you spending a bit more within your local community.

Which is why it is so criminal for the health of the country that the Tories are refusing to negotiate with the trades unions!

 

[Krokodil]

As someone has already suggested, the answer is to put the fares up.

No. The answer is to provide enough carriages to accommodate demand, including passengers who can be persuaded to leave their cars behind by offering more reasonable fares. This is a 21st Century Western European country, the rest of them are cutting fares (€49 for a mont's unlimited regional travel, anyone?)

Why should I, who hardly ever uses the train, pay half the fare of someone who does?

Why do I have to pay for schools and hospitals even though I haven't set foot in one for years? Because efficient public services are a social good.

the answer is to introduce congestion charges and increase fuel duty.

You'll hear no argument for me there, I'd happily tax the bejeezus out of polluters. Fuel duty has been frozen for years.

Its the heavily subsidised trains at places like Northern running round half empty

Really? On what basis do you make that claim? The fact that Manchester - Blackpool services are now formed of six coaches (vice the 150 used in the past) is not an accident. Things are busy in the North. If you're looking for severely reduced demand, take a wander over to the ex-NSE commuter land.

 

[modernrail]

Perhaps they should have their contracts of employment, particularly the "normal place of work" section, shoved under their noses as a reminder.

Whilst it is lovely and easy to make statements like this, there are some big underlying structural problems that make WFH particularly attractive in the UK vs other countries, namely:
- having to live miles away from work due to high housing costs so very long commutes
- those very long commutes being very expensive because they are long commutes on a railway system that is far more expensive to use than our European neighbours
- long commutes causing significant practical problems for parents in trying to do the school drop off and pick up
- ridiculously high childcare costs meaning that a second salary can easily be pretty much blown on those costs. Add in expensive commuter fares and you can be operating at a loss. Combined commuter plus childcare costs can easily exceed £50k for a family with 2 children. That is laughable and unworkable for most.

Intelligent politicians and bosses would recognise this is the real reason for WFH being so attractive here and that overall productivity is most probably going to be higher in the UK with WFH. However we don’t have such things here and the horse has well and truly bolted. Most graduates and younger workers simply can’t afford rent or mortgage anywhere and are so ply not having children because the system is so anti-family. If we wanted it to be different we shouldn’t have stuffed money into the pockets of the older generations by taking it out of the pockets of the more productive workers in our economy, which would look like:
- it being easy to buy or rent a property close to your place of work
- you being able to buy a new property if you move because of a new place of work without taking a massive stamp duty hit
- the cost of using public transport to get to work not costing £7k ish per person per year.

Most people I know with kids who live miles away from London/their place or work, are finding it much easier to balance those very real and serious budget and time questions with at least a few WFH days a week.

Somebody should shove that very very obvious point under the noses of anybody obsessed with reversing the trend.

 

[irish_rail]

Really? On what basis do you make that claim? The fact that Manchester - Blackpool services are now formed of six coaches (vice the 150 used in the past) is not an accident. Things are busy in the North. If you're looking for severely reduced demand, take a wander over to the ex-NSE commuter land.

i can only speak as I find. My experience of travel in the north in past 3 years has been the trains are quieter than pre pandemic. It is probably to do with the fact in many cases there are more carriages now and so doesn't feel as crowded. Re the south east, in my experience again, the trains do seem to have filled up once more, but I speak anecdotally and going by what I read on this forum. But there is definitely a case to be looked at for certain south east commuter routes being reduced. I suppose the trouble is, these south east commuter routes are not subsidised and have the high fares, so there is less incentive to remove the capacity.

 

[dk1]

i can only speak as I find. My experience of travel in the north in past 3 years has been the trains are quieter than pre pandemic. It is probably to do with the fact in many cases there are more carriages now and so doesn't feel as crowded. Re the south east, in my experience again, the trains do seem to have filled up once more, but I speak anecdotally and going by what I read on this forum. But there is definitely a case to be looked at for certain south east commuter routes being reduced. I suppose the trouble is, these south east commuter routes are not subsidised and have the high fares, so there is less incentive to remove the capacity.

And many MPs use those SE area services too

 

[modernrail]

i can only speak as I find. My experience of travel in the north in past 3 years has been the trains are quieter than pre pandemic. It is probably to do with the fact in many cases there are more carriages now and so doesn't feel as crowded. Re the south east, in my experience again, the trains do seem to have filled up once more, but I speak anecdotally and going by what I read on this forum. But there is definitely a case to be looked at for certain south east commuter routes being reduced. I suppose the trouble is, these south east commuter routes are not subsidised and have the high fares, so there is less incentive to remove the capacity.

I wonder whether the reality is that the overall service pattern needs changing in the SE. It was designed around massive flows in single directions. Now it feels like metro land is as busy if not busier than ever, and because cars are not a thing for many in London, there is scope to make it even busier. Meanwhile outer suburban is quieter. Where those services effectively inter work - so an outer surburban also stopping through metro land, you are getting oversupply at the extremities but yet under supply in the metro area where carriages or services have been cut from something starting outside the metro area.

I also suspect there is much more scope for more intelligent timing of connections at the key non-terminating nodes if somebody could work out how to model this new reality better.