April to June 2023 Passenger numbers released

[156421]

if there's no scan and both stations are unbarriered the passenger may claim a refund.

Is this actually true? If so I've missed out on a lot of refunds

 

[hwl]

How are strike days accounted for in these statistics? Especially when comparing to pre-pandemic levels. I haven't had a chance to look into it myself.

They aren't, there is no attempt to put strikes into context.
About 3% impact on pax journeys.

 

[josh-j]

The Tories have spend a lot of money on the railways even though the vast majority of journeys are still by car.

Don't worry, they've spent plenty on roads too yet somehow nobody ever seems to consider those expensive even with the costs they place on other services (poor health costs the NHS, etc.). If the government actually wanted to reduce railway costs they'd bin off the ROSCOs and resolve industry fragmentation, but instead they're happy to have excuses to cut services.

The fact most journeys are by car is a great reason to improve the railways. Car travel physically can't expand indefinitely, cars take up loads of space. A particular problem in cities but not exclusively. (I'm not anti car by the way, but it's a question of priorities)

 

[The exile]

They aren't, there is no attempt to put strikes into context.
About 3% impact on pax journeys.

How is that 3% arrived at?

 

[Jamesrob637]

How much of the decrease in travel per 2019 is down to a worsened economic environment rather than COVID? Mondays and Fridays definitely seem to be getting busier for commuting in London

Friday commuters were decreasing even pre-pandemic, Mondays to a lesser extent. This gave rise to an awkward acronym for those working in city centre offices midweek!

 

[HSTEd]

Looks like that last 20% of revenue is not going to be recoverable.

That's going to cause problems for the industry.
Also note the overestimation of Elizabeth line performance by 20%

 

[Jamesrob637]

Looks like that last 20% of revenue is not going to be recoverable.

No, because who's going to want to go back to the office 5 days a week every week now? 5 days on odd weeks are acceptable, but that still means you won't be buying the same quantity or quality of ticket as before. Besides, most are going to want to be compensated from a 5 day week in the office, by maybe only doing 1 or 2 days in the office the following week.

 

[yorksrob]

Looks like that last 20% of revenue is not going to be recoverable.

That's going to cause problems for the industry.
Also note the overestimation of Elizabeth line performance by 20%

With a railway service not being run into the ground, the industry may be able to further grow revenue for journeys outside of the 9-5 commute.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a railway service not being run into the ground, the industry may be able to further grow revenue for journeys outside of the 9-5 commute.

Well, quite. One notable example is suppressed demand on the execrable XC.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==

No, because who's going to want to go back to the office 5 days a week every week now? 5 days on odd weeks are acceptable, but that still means you won't be buying the same quantity or quality of ticket as before. Besides, most are going to want to be compensated from a 5 day week in the office, by maybe only doing 1 or 2 days in the office the following week.

Though 3 days a week costs about the same as a monthly season on many routes.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

No, because who's going to want to go back to the office 5 days a week every week now? 5 days on odd weeks are acceptable, but that still means you won't be buying the same quantity or quality of ticket as before. Besides, most are going to want to be compensated from a 5 day week in the office, by maybe only doing 1 or 2 days in the office the following week.

It's unlikely to go back to a 5 day a week commute but I totally disagree that revenue is not recoverable as the trend is to make it harder to get a car into city centres plus there is definitely commuters that go by car today that could be tempted to go by train, the industry just has to work a bit harder to tempt them.

Also these figures include the reduction of services at Avanti and the unreliability of TPE and northern - there's a simple fact that often gets lost in these statistics, if the train doesn't run you can't realise the revenue, the revenue will be 0 for that train!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How is that 3% arrived at?

Is it just the number of strike days in the year, particularly the NR strikes which closed most routes?
3% is about 10 days, which seems about where we have been in the last year.
There were limited services on some routes, but these would be offset by disruption the day before/after.
People will still be buying remotely, but again offset by refunds of tickets on strike days.
And a general lack of confidence in forward bookings, with strikes in the offing.

 

[HSTEd]

With a railway service not being run into the ground, the industry may be able to further grow revenue for journeys outside of the 9-5 commute.

It could take a decade to make good that income loss through natural growth.
And it won't fill the hole in long term projections because continued revenue growth was projected before coronavirus.

It's impossible to escape that this a major financial black hole that has appeared in the railway finances for the forseable future.

 

[43066]

It could take a decade to make good that income loss through natural growth.
And it won't fill the hole in long term projections because continued revenue growth was projected before coronavirus.

It's impossible to escape that this a major financial black hole that has appeared in the railway finances for the forseable future.

At some point we need to stop endlessly comparing the position with what might have been had Covid not happened. We don’t still say “but for the 2008 financial crisis, revenue would be X”.

The government could take a decision to reframe the financial package offered to rail and shift the focus onto growing it. As we have seen attempting to cut costs by slashing services saves little (because the railway is expensive whether it’s providing a good or bad service) and suppresses revenue growth.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==

No, because who's going to want to go back to the office 5 days a week every week now? 5 days on odd weeks are acceptable, but that still means you won't be buying the same quantity or quality of ticket as before. Besides, most are going to want to be compensated from a 5 day week in the office, by maybe only doing 1 or 2 days in the office the following week.

It isn’t always just down to the individual. People in many industries are increasingly being leaned on to spend more time in the office.

 

[Jamesrob637]

It's unlikely to go back to a 5 day a week commute but I totally disagree that revenue is not recoverable as the trend is to make it harder to get a car into city centres plus there is definitely commuters that go by car today that could be tempted to go by train, the industry just has to work a bit harder to tempt them.

"A short-notice change to the timetable" definitely won't help there! (I live in Northern land, for now at least)

 

[The exile]

Is it just the number of strike days in the year, particularly the NR strikes which closed most routes?
3% is about 10 days, which seems about where we have been in the last year.
There were limited services on some routes, but these would be offset by disruption the day before/after.
People will still be buying remotely, but again offset by refunds of tickets on strike days.
And a general lack of confidence in forward bookings, with strikes in the offing.

In which case I would suggest that the dampening effect of the strikes is underestimated. I know it’s dangerous to extrapolate from personal circumstances, but….
I can drive to work or catch the train. Time wise, there’s little in it. Rail is more expensive in terms of direct costs, driving is more stressful. Pre strikes I had a monthly ticket - except when I knew I was going to be off for a longer period. Statistical result - how ever many journeys a monthly ticket is calculated at. Ever since we’ve only known whether there was going to be service two weeks in advance, I’ve been buying weeklies - but only when I know I’m not going to need to drive on any of those days. Result - a drop off in train journeys to work of between 40 - 50% (estimated)

 

[Jamesrob637]

It isn’t always just down to the individual. People in many industries are increasingly being leaned on to spend more time in the office.

Many are obliging with their employer to go (back) in 2 or 3 days a week, but those employers mandating 5 days once again are losing staff hand over fist.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==

Though 3 days a week costs about the same as a monthly season on many routes.

3 is still much cheaper if Advances are used even outbound each day or outbound and return one of the days. Advances are more popular outbound because start times are much more set in stone than finish times. If you're late because of a delay and you've chosen a train that allows plenty of time from station to office even on foot, it's hardly your fault you're late, is it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

3 is still much cheaper if Advances are used even outbound each day or outbound and return one of the days. Advances are more popular outbound because start times are much more set in stone than finish times. If you're late because of a delay and you've chosen a train that allows plenty of time from station to office even on foot, it's hardly your fault you're late, is it?

Advances aren't applicable to the majority of commuter journeys, or where they are (e.g. Northern) they are typically priced at not much below half the return, those ones exist solely to snaffle revenue from other TOCs. And because returns often aren't two singles, that means Advances don't always offer good value in this sort of case.

I suspect the main savings on commuter routes are people travelling off-peak and working a couple of hours from home before heading in.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Well, quite. One notable example is suppressed demand on the execrable XC.

XC is Ex something with CR in it - usually ending in Ment! Mind you, double Voyagers on many services and pre-pandemic frequencies from next year should bring them more revenue as passengers as people get wind of the fact they might actually get a seat. Maybe they could do more Advances. I would be happy to split my Stockport to Plymouth journey at Stoke, Birmingham, Cheltenham (at a push), Bristol and one of Taunton or Exeter, if the whole lot cost no more than £40-50 one-way. I use almost that in diesel one-way at current prices until I buy a newer vehicle, probably next year now when the wedding is financed.

 

[yorksrob]

It could take a decade to make good that income loss through natural growth.
And it won't fill the hole in long term projections because continued revenue growth was projected before coronavirus.

It's impossible to escape that this a major financial black hole that has appeared in the railway finances for the forseable future.

It could take a decade to make back lost growth. Alternatively, if the railway industry were provided with more freedom to grow the business, this might be shorter.

On your second point it's foolish and naive for a Government to expect continual growth at the best of times, let alone after twenty years of (mainly) uninterrupted growth.

 

[Krokodil]

No, because who's going to want to go back to the office 5 days a week every week now? 5 days on odd weeks are acceptable, but that still means you won't be buying the same quantity or quality of ticket as before. Besides, most are going to want to be compensated from a 5 day week in the office, by maybe only doing 1 or 2 days in the office the following week.

Not all revenue is from office drones. Leisure travel would have a better chance of growing if the service wasn't being run into the ground by the government (for the second day I'm having to rearrange passenger itineraries because certain companies can't run a service).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==

It could take a decade to make good that income loss through natural growth.

On many routes in the North if there were the resources (crew and rolling stock) available to run a frequent, reliable service with longer trains the extra capacity would fill almost overnight. As things stand though, 3 car 185s are rammed with the following service cancelled.

XC too has had growth heavily constricted by lack of capacity.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

On your second point it's foolish and naive for a Government to expect continual growth at the best of times, let alone after twenty years of (mainly) uninterrupted growth.

The curse of many organisations and businesses (and not just the Government) to assume that something that's being measured (sales revenue, profit, etc) will inevitably always increase in the manner of the proverbial hockey stick. What could possibly ever go wrong?

 

[HSTEd]

It could take a decade to make back lost growth. Alternatively, if the railway industry were provided with more freedom to grow the business, this might be shorter.

It is unreasonable to expect the Treasury to pour in more taxpayer's money without assurances that it would actually improve the railway's financial (or broader societal benefit) position.

Given that most proposals for "growing the business" seem to revolve around expensive increases in capacity on the most subsidy hungry portions of the railway (like Northern rail etc), it is not at all clear that it would result in a net reduction in subsidy, even in the medium and long term. Nor is it clear that societal benefits would be worth the very large increase in cash burn to achieve them.

The era when the railway could expect a hose of money with very few questions asked are long gone and are highly unlikely to return.

 

[josh-j]

Well to meet transportation decarbonisation commitments we need a really *really* large increase in rail travel so there's a good reason for more funding right there. Except the government don't care about that, obviously.

 

[yorksrob]

It is unreasonable to expect the Treasury to pour in more taxpayer's money without assurances that it would actually improve the railway's financial (or broader societal benefit) position.

Given that most proposals for "growing the business" seem to revolve around expensive increases in capacity on the most subsidy hungry portions of the railway (like Northern rail etc), it is not at all clear that it would result in a net reduction in subsidy, even in the medium and long term. Nor is it clear that societal benefits would be worth the very large increase in cash burn to achieve them.

The era when the railway could expect a hose of money with very few questions asked are long gone and are highly unlikely to return.

A good start to growing the railway would actually be running the timetabled service for a change - something the Government (sorry for getting political) has been preventing from happening since the end of the pandemic.

Not scrapping trains without replacement would be another thing that could have been achieved easily, yet from the removal of the EMT HST's, this has happened again and again.

People want to use the train - they are being put off by a continually unreliable service.

 

[HSTEd]

Well to meet transportation decarbonisation commitments we need a really *really* large increase in rail travel so there's a good reason for more funding right there. Except the government don't care about that, obviously.

The railway industry simply does not have the capability to grow fast enough to matter in the decarbonisation context. Even if the Treasury wrote a blank cheque for the industry.
The industry is moribund to the point that electrification of Transpennine is going to take long enough to render it borderline irrelevant for decarbonisation, let alone any meaningful upgrades to increase capacity elsewhere!

The only technology with a chance of achieving decarbonisation fast enough is mass rollout of electric cars.
As a professional decarbonisation researcher, if I had money for transport decarbonisation I would not put my budget into the railway as it stands.

 

[dk1]

How much of the decrease in travel per 2019 is down to a worsened economic environment rather than COVID? Mondays and Fridays definitely seem to be getting busier for commuting in London

See I’ve been saying this all along. We have been bordering on a recession and rail travel especially business tends to follow the national economy. We for some reason seem to be transfixed with the pandemic and have forgotten that fact.

 

[yorksrob]

The curse of many organisations and businesses (and not just the Government) to assume that something that's being measured (sales revenue, profit, etc) will inevitably always increase in the manner of the proverbial hockey stick. What could possibly ever go wrong?

Indeed. After ten-fifteen years of growth in usage (which after the pandemic blip, is roughly where we're back to), the sensible thought process would be "goodness, this service really is needed by the public".

Instead the Establishment position seems to be "well, we're not going to get another ten to fifteen years of growth, so lets do the best we can to destroy the business that we already have".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==

The railway industry simply does not have the capability to grow fast enough to matter in the decarbonisation context. Even if the Treasury wrote a blank cheque for the industry.
The industry is moribund to the point that electrification of Transpennine is going to take long enough to render it borderline irrelevant for decarbonisation, let alone any meaningful upgrades to increase capacity elsewhere!

The only technology with a chance of achieving decarbonisation fast enough is mass rollout of electric cars.
As a professional decarbonisation researcher, if I had money for transport decarbonisation I would not put my budget into the railway as it stands.

And a professional town planner might not want his town centre clogged up with cars (electric or otherwise) either.

 

[slowroad]

Indeed. After ten-fifteen years of growth in usage (which after the pandemic blip, is roughly where we're back to), the sensible thought process would be "goodness, this service really is needed by the public".

Instead the Establishment position seems to be "well, we're not going to get another ten to fifteen years of growth, so lets do the best we can to destroy the business that we already have".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==



And a professional town planner might not want his town centre clogged up with cars (electric or otherwise) either.

That’s the problem with planning right there in the expression “his town centre”. Could be why one reason why they are dying.

 

[yorksrob]

That’s the problem with planning right there in the expression “his town centre”. Could be why one reason why they are dying.

The main reason why some are dying is the internet I'm afraid.

Nevertheless, a town centre clogged with traffic will be in a weak position to generate trade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nevertheless, a town centre clogged with traffic will be in a weak position to generate trade.

Accessible by car but not full of cars is going to be your optimum there, hence why pedestrianised town centres with parking on the periphery were popular in the 80s.

But we need to drive change of use - chain retail is dying or dead in small towns - we need to create other reasons for people to spend time in town centres - residential and social, plus small boutique businesses.

I'm not sure this adversely affects passenger figures, though, because very few people will take the train to a small town centre, they're local places for local people. They're more likely to take the train to the nearest large city where retail still works well, which generates more journeys, it doesn't discourage them.