ORR release quarterly passenger data

[yorksrob]

This argument works in some places, but across most of the country it’s a big stretch when rail only accounts for a few percent of journeys.

But important journeys.

Someone in Bootle, Cumbria for example, might be happy driving 90% of the time. But they need the railway for when they're on a night out in Manchester/their daughter goes to uni etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2024 ==

They really don't. I like trains, obviously, but the notion that they are relevant to a majority of the population is a lie. It just is. A slight majority of the population use trains more than once a year, just, but it for many it is often one trip a year to London or something, nothing important. Most of those are infrequent users at best. Some of the people use trains all the time, but we are very much not the majority, we just aren't

People need the trains when they need them. Yes, we regular users help to keep them around for the occasional users, but see the reaction of those occasional users if their train is taken away.

Take my family in the 1980's as an example. We were a car family - my dad, before his eyesight deteriorated, loved driving.

Yet even through that, we still used the train. My sister going to Uni, me going to the record shops etc.

In spite of being a motor-centric family, we couldn't have countenanced an existence without the railway (NSE as it was).

The railway is far more a part of people's options than the statistics make out.

 

[Krokodil]

And the funding should take account of the facts that most people rarely if ever travel by train and that on average those that do tend to be better off (and hence subsidised by non users who are on average less well off).

You mean that funding needs to be targeted at cutting fares so that the working classes can afford them again? Well I won't argue with you there.

 

[Goldfish62]

And the funding should take account of the facts that most people rarely if ever travel by train and that on average those that do tend to be better off (and hence subsidised by non users who are on average less well off).

That's very surprising indeed (the bit in bold) . I'd have thought the complete opposite was true. Can you point me towards the source?

 

[Kingston Dan]

That's very surprising indeed (the bit in bold) . I'd have thought the complete opposite was true. Can you point me towards the source?

The vast majority of train journeys are commuter journeys in and out of London (and the distances are increasing over time). This is the part of the country with highest average incomes. It's also the part of the country with the most extensive rail network and highest public transport use.

 

[JamesT]

The vast majority of train journeys are commuter journeys in and out of London (and the distances are increasing over time). This is the part of the country with highest average incomes. It's also the part of the country with the most extensive rail network and highest public transport use.

If you want some numbers to go with that https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ome-household-type-ns-sec-and-mobility-status has some from the ONS. (The page is a bunch of links to spreadsheets)
NTS0705 looks particularly relevant as it splits by household income quintile.
Filtering for just the most recent year (2023), the bottom quintile averaged 14 surface rail trips in a year, whereas the top averaged 31. Whereas local bus is the complete opposite, 42 trips at the bottom but only 12 at the top.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

We need to remember every train going into London on a weekday morning carries 500 passengers on average, there is no other means of transport that could get that quantity into work, cars and busses would just gridlock and aircraft flying in wouldn't have the capacity.. that's just one train.

 

[slowroad]

We need to remember every train going into London on a weekday morning carries 500 passengers on average, there is no other means of transport that could get that quantity into work, cars and busses would just gridlock and aircraft flying in wouldn't have the capacity.. that's just one train.

True. But commuting mode share in central London is completely different from the rest of the country. On average across the rest of the UK rail accounts for only a few percent of commuting journeys.

 

[absolutelymilk]

If you want some numbers to go with that https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ome-household-type-ns-sec-and-mobility-status has some from the ONS. (The page is a bunch of links to spreadsheets)
NTS0705 looks particularly relevant as it splits by household income quintile.
Filtering for just the most recent year (2023), the bottom quintile averaged 14 surface rail trips in a year, whereas the top averaged 31. Whereas local bus is the complete opposite, 42 trips at the bottom but only 12 at the top.

Also true for cars though - the rich make far more trips than the poor

 

[The exile]

“Non train” journeys will always dominate, not only because the vast majority of journeys are very local (thanks to a bit of bad planning on my part I made as many “journeys” [on foot] yesterday morning as I had by train all week) but also because nearly every train journey is preceded and followed by other journeys using other means (I have to get to and from the station some how)

 

[The Ham]

This argument works in some places, but across most of the country it’s a big stretch when rail only accounts for a few percent of journeys.

Rail on average is 10% of miles travelled, that's the same as school travel, yet the level of congestion for most of the country plummets during school holidays.

Even those days where there's no real reason for traffic to be worse but it is, is about 2%.

Small percentages have a big impact on the levels of traffic congestion.

They really don't. I like trains, obviously, but the notion that they are relevant to a majority of the population is a lie. It just is. A slight majority of the population use trains more than once a year, just, but it for many it is often one trip a year to London or something, nothing important. Most of those are infrequent users at best. Some of the people use trains all the time, but we are very much not the majority, we just aren't

I use trains a few times a year, most of my travel is not by train, but then most of my travel is also not by car either. For me not by car is walking, for others that could be cycling or by other public transport.

By allowing people to not need to have a car for one off trips it allows people not to need to own an extra car (for some own a car at all).

The better the rail network, the more people this applies to and the less demands there is on road space.

Yes in total places with little congestion it'll have limited impact, however for the 85% of people who live in an urban settlement, there's a good chance that they are at least indirectly benefiting from there being a rail network in this country.

 

[Goldfish62]

The vast majority of train journeys are commuter journeys in and out of London (and the distances are increasing over time). This is the part of the country with highest average incomes. It's also the part of the country with the most extensive rail network and highest public transport use.

Sorry, but if that's all you got to back up your assertion I'm not buying it at all. I assumed there was some report you could link to.

London also has the lowest car ownership of any connurbation and some the areas of highest deprivation in the country. If you haven't done so before perhaps you should travel around London, not just the centre, or the few "posh parts" and then still try to tell me everyone is rich!

You also seem to assume that commuter journeys by rail are all "in and out" of London. Er, no. Plenty, if not the majority are wholly within London.

 

[Snow1964]

The vast majority of train journeys are commuter journeys in and out of London (and the distances are increasing over time). This is the part of the country with highest average incomes. It's also the part of the country with the most extensive rail network and highest public transport use.

Have to be careful about cause and effect (possible circular arguments).

Many have higher incomes because they choose to commute to better paid jobs, whereas the poorer choose not to do long commutes to increase their income. OK not that blunt, but the number of rail journeys is interlinked to income level.

To be fair the railway hasn't caught up with well paying companies moving some of their London operations, and taking up lots of flashy new offices in selected cities like Bristol, Leeds and Birmingham. You simply can't get a fast electric commuter train every 10-15 minutes to many of these yet, so rail is not encouraging new location commuting because they (or DfT) are not yet in mindset some have relocated.

 

[Sonic1234]

You mean that funding needs to be targeted at cutting fares so that the working classes can afford them again? Well I won't argue with you there.

And reverse the price perception problem the railway has. I've met very few people (only one I can think of) that would never use the train. But plenty who say "I once thought about going to (medium/long distance destination), had a look at the train, saw the price and never thought of going by rail again"

There may be journeys by rail they would find acceptable, but the high walk-up Intercity fares have scared them off the whole railway, along with the media messaging about fare rises.

 

[slowroad]

Also true for cars though - the rich make far more trips than the poor

And reverse the price perception problem the railway has. I've met very few people (only one I can think of) that would never use the train. But plenty who say "I once thought about going to (medium/long distance destination), had a look at the train, saw the price and never thought of going by rail again"

There may be journeys by rail they would find acceptable, but the high walk-up Intercity fares have scared them off the whole railway, along with the media messaging about fare rises.

The bigger problem is that rail is not suitable for the large majority of people for the large majority of journeys, including those on low incomes. And for many journeys subsidies (largely paid by no-users) already account for well over half the costs.

 

[Goldfish62]

You mean that funding needs to be targeted at cutting fares so that the working classes can afford them again? Well I won't argue with you there.

A lot of the working class are quite healed these days, have massive SUVs and vote Tory.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The bigger problem is that rail is not suitable for the large majority of people for the large majority of journeys, including those on low incomes. And for many journeys subsidies (largely paid by no-users) already account for well over half the costs.

This is the way British cities have grown although there is slight reversal of the spread now with office blocks being converted to flats. You're quite right though that there are very few places rail has enough point to point flows to make it worth the investment. Prime example of this is commuting from Norwich to Milton Keynes once a week, I'm probably 1 of less than 100 doing that over the week, rail doesn't work for that.

 

[yorksrob]

The bigger problem is that rail is not suitable for the large majority of people for the large majority of journeys, including those on low incomes. And for many journeys subsidies (largely paid by no-users) already account for well over half the costs.

It's peculiar that on the one hand, people decry the fact that rail journeys are dominated by wealthy london commutes, yet those same people also decry the subsidy which supports the regional railway - i.e. the bit that serves the non-wealthy non-London commuters.

The argument seems to be "the railway is too London centric and tilted towards the wealthier, therefore lets withdraw subsidy and kill off the regional railway and whack up fares. That will surely make the railway less London centric and tilted towards the wealthy" !

 

[HSTEd]

Also true for cars though - the rich make far more trips than the poor

Cars are, however, less biased towards the rich than railways.
The highest income quintile made 605 car journeys versus 365 for the lowest. The corresponding figure is 31 and 14 for rail.
It's also worth noting that the second lowest income quintile figures are 520 for car and 11

Car use is fairly flat outside the bottom quintile, whereas rail use is fairly flat outside the top quintile.
The railway tends to favour the richest in society and the car is used by everyone except the very poorest.

 

[slowroad]

It's peculiar that on the one hand, people decry the fact that rail journeys are dominated by wealthy london commutes, yet those same people also decry the subsidy which supports the regional railway - i.e. the bit that serves the non-wealthy non-London commuters.

The argument seems to be "the railway is too London centric and tilted towards the wealthier, therefore let’s withdraw subsidy and kill off the regional railway and whack up fares. That will surely make the railway less London centric and tilted towards the wealthy" !

It argues for reducing the subsidy to rail and other public transport in the south east, perhaps coupled with an expansion of congestion charging on the roads, and diverting subsidy from regional rail in other areas to forms of public transport that are more attractive to those on low incomes (buses, perhaps trams and metros).

 

[43066]

It argues for reducing the subsidy to rail and other public transport in the south east, perhaps coupled with an expansion of congestion charging on the roads, and diverting subsidy from regional rail in other areas to forms of public transport that are more attractive to those on low incomes (buses, perhaps trams and metros).

Notable how nobody really argues for any of that other than a few people on this forum, though (and some politicians to the right of the Tory party).

The alternative would of course be choosing to fund all services properly rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul, and defunding rail to pay for them…

 

[The Ham]

The bigger problem is that rail is not suitable for the large majority of people for the large majority of journeys, including those on low incomes. And for many journeys subsidies (largely paid by no-users) already account for well over half the costs.

Many of those in the bottom quartile aren't doing daily trips (full time work is circa 400 moments a year, whilst as @HSTEd highlights below they don't reach that level and max out at about 1 a day - rather than nearly 2 a day for the top quartile.

Also it's worth noting that at least some of the money which is paid to the railways (be that government support or from passengers) goes back to the government in the form of taxes (for example I'd there were no train drivers, there would be no tax on their pay).

It's also worth noting that the top 10% of earners (circa £67,000 per year or higher) provide the government with 1/3 of the government income. This compares with the bottom 50% (less than £35,000 a year) who provide 25%.

Therefore, those in the top 25% are likely to be providing much of their own subsidy for running the railways.

Cars are, however, less biased towards the rich than railways.
The highest income quintile made 605 car journeys versus 365 for the lowest. The corresponding figure is 31 and 14 for rail.
It's also worth noting that the second income quintile figures are 520 for car and 11

Car use is fairly flat outside the bottom quintile, whereas rail use is fairly flat outside the top quintile.
The railway tends to favour the richest in society and the car is used by everyone except the very poorest.

The extra rail use for the top quartile is often attributed to rich people going into London (chiefly The City). Someone doing so for even 100 days (200 trips, as there's a trip in and a trip out) a year would mean they used up 6 people's rail use in the same quartile or 14 people's in the lowest quartile.

If 1 in 15 people in the upper quartile commuted into London for high pay work (full time) then that would allow the rest of those in the upper quartile to use trains the same amount as everyone else.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Someone in Bootle, Cumbria for example, might be happy driving 90% of the time. But they need the railway for when they're on a night out in Manchester/their daughter goes to uni etc.

As the last train from Manchester to Bootle leaves Manchester around 5PM and gets to Bootle around 9PM, so I don’t think the railway is a big factor in nights out… (that said, Barrow-Bootle is to be avoided on a weekend teatime!)

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I look at it a bit differently. The purpose of the rail network is to stimulate and facilitate economic activity. In the broadest sense, this encompasses all aspects of travel - commuters are travelling to work in the economy, business travel generally involves travel during and related to that work, leisure travellers are moving wealth from one geographical area to another.

If certain demographics are showing lower rail use than others, I think this indicates where economic activity of those groups is currently underperforming. So the statistics are more a symptom rather than a cause of inefficiency. Tackle the underlying economic problem (and subsidising transport use for those groups is generally a very effective way of doing that - as it improves employment prospects by widening travel options) is better than cutting things further, chasing a short-term cost efficiency that only exists if you’re thinking from inside a silo.

 

[43066]

I look at it a bit differently. The purpose of the rail network is to stimulate and facilitate economic activity. In the broadest sense, this encompasses all aspects of travel - commuters are travelling to work in the economy, business travel generally involves travel during and related to that work, leisure travellers are moving wealth from one geographical area to another.

If certain demographics are showing lower rail use than others, I think this indicates where economic activity of those groups is currently underperforming. So the statistics are more a symptom rather than a cause of inefficiency. Tackle the underlying economic problem (and subsidising transport use for those groups is generally a very effective way of doing that - as it improves employment prospects by widening travel options) is better than cutting things further, chasing a short-term cost efficiency that only exists if you’re thinking from inside a silo.

Very well put.

 

[HSTEd]

I look at it a bit differently. The purpose of the rail network is to stimulate and facilitate economic activity. In the broadest sense, this encompasses all aspects of travel - commuters are travelling to work in the economy, business travel generally involves travel during and related to that work, leisure travellers are moving wealth from one geographical area to another.

If certain demographics are showing lower rail use than others, I think this indicates where economic activity of those groups is currently underperforming. So the statistics are more a symptom rather than a cause of inefficiency. Tackle the underlying economic problem (and subsidising transport use for those groups is generally a very effective way of doing that - as it improves employment prospects by widening travel options) is better than cutting things further, chasing a short-term cost efficiency that only exists if you’re thinking from inside a silo.

We do have to consider the efficiency of providing that subsidy to the population though.
The railway is proving to be a very expensive way of providing transport capabilities, and still does not appear to reach the lower income brackets particularly well.

It's all very well saying that subsidies need to keep growing, but at some point its just become a bonfire of cash and not a transport system

 

[yorksrob]

It argues for reducing the subsidy to rail and other public transport in the south east, perhaps coupled with an expansion of congestion charging on the roads, and diverting subsidy from regional rail in other areas to forms of public transport that are more attractive to those on low incomes (buses, perhaps trams and metros).

You're assuming that because numbers are skewed towards London and the South East, it follows that regional rail is "unpopular" elsewhere. This simply isn't true. Where regional rail capacity is increased (as with TPE) the extra capacity is used up, demonstrating surpressed demand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

As the last train from Manchester to Bootle leaves Manchester around 5PM and gets to Bootle around 9PM, so I don’t think the railway is a big factor in nights out… (that said, Barrow-Bootle is to be avoided on a weekend teatime!)

I'm sure lots of people get a travelodge !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

Many of those in the bottom quartile aren't doing daily trips (full time work is circa 400 moments a year, whilst as @HSTEd highlights below they don't reach that level and max out at about 1 a day - rather than nearly 2 a day for the top quartile.

Also it's worth noting that at least some of the money which is paid to the railways (be that government support or from passengers) goes back to the government in the form of taxes (for example I'd there were no train drivers, there would be no tax on their pay).

It's also worth noting that the top 10% of earners (circa £67,000 per year or higher) provide the government with 1/3 of the government income. This compares with the bottom 50% (less than £35,000 a year) who provide 25%.

Therefore, those in the top 25% are likely to be providing much of their own subsidy for running the railways.



The extra rail use for the top quartile is often attributed to rich people going into London (chiefly The City). Someone doing so for even 100 days (200 trips, as there's a trip in and a trip out) a year would mean they used up 6 people's rail use in the same quartile or 14 people's in the lowest quartile.

If 1 in 15 people in the upper quartile commuted into London for high pay work (full time) then that would allow the rest of those in the upper quartile to use trains the same amount as everyone else.

The other thing to remember is that over half of the population use rail to some extent which means that there are a rump of people who never use the train. However, given that half of the railways costs are paid by farepayers anyway, the old whinge "why should I subsidise trains when I don't use them" doesn't really hold water.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

We do have to consider the efficiency of providing that subsidy to the population though.
The railway is proving to be a very expensive way of providing transport capabilities, and still does not appear to reach the lower income brackets particularly well.

It's all very well saying that subsidies need to keep growing, but at some point its just become a bonfire of cash and not a transport system

Unfortunately people on very low incomes are excluded from all sorts of economic activities. Subsidising cheaper fares for them would likely make it easier for them to go about their business, however we seem to be stuck with a commercialmodel that's fixated on London commuters and business travellers.

 

[matt_world2004]

The south east England commuter rail subsidy does generate secondary economic output though if you suddenly closed all rail services in London the economic damage to tax revenues would almost certainly be greater than the cost of the subsidy itself.

Many of the london area TOCs were returning more money to the DfT prior to covid than the they were being subsidised by as well

 

[slowroad]

I look at it a bit differently. The purpose of the rail network is to stimulate and facilitate economic activity. In the broadest sense, this encompasses all aspects of travel - commuters are travelling to work in the economy, business travel generally involves travel during and related to that work, leisure travellers are moving wealth from one geographical area to another.

If certain demographics are showing lower rail use than others, I think this indicates where economic activity of those groups is currently underperforming. So the statistics are more a symptom rather than a cause of inefficiency. Tackle the underlying economic problem (and subsidising transport use for those groups is generally a very effective way of doing that - as it improves employment prospects by widening travel options) is better than cutting things further, chasing a short-term cost efficiency that only exists if you’re thinking from inside a silo.

If that is the purpose then in most places you’d get more bang for your buck by spending the money on other modes.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

If that is the purpose then in most places you’d get more bang for your buck by spending the money on other modes.

I think that is a misleading generalism. If I’m in a low income bracket in a regional town unable to find work, usually it’s only the trains that are a realistic option for commuting into a nearby city. Show me a bus network that can utilise A roads or motorways that don’t get jammed up in the rush hour, with journey distances in the 20-30 mile range, that can compete with a good regional train service. I will be surprised if there are many.

 

[JamesT]

I think that is a misleading generalism. If I’m in a low income bracket in a regional town unable to find work, usually it’s only the trains that are a realistic option for commuting into a nearby city. Show me a bus network that can utilise A roads or motorways that don’t get jammed up in the rush hour, with journey distances in the 20-30 mile range, that can compete with a good regional train service. I will be surprised if there are many.

They might get jammed up, but the buses exist. Commuting into Oxford by rail is very much a minority compared to bus as there just aren’t train lines to some of the satellite towns.