Do punctuality, reliability and fares affect patronage levels?

[johncrossley]

Do punctuality, reliability and fares affect patronage levels?

This may sound like a silly question but I'm not so sure of the answer now.

There seems to be an assumption that people will inevitably flock to the railway, regardless of how bad the service is and/or how expensive fares are.

The industry seems to put more emphasis on expanding capacity rather than improving punctuality and reliability.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do punctuality, reliability and fares affect patronage levels?

Yes, very much so, albeit to different extents in different markets and on different journeys.

There are a number of very, very intelligent people who work all this out for their jobs.

 

[JonathanH]

The industry seems to put more emphasis on expanding capacity rather than improving punctuality and reliability.

Yes, one obvious issue is that filling up all available paths, and diagramming too much of the fleet without hot spares, causes issues with punctuality and reliability.

However, a more frequent service does appear to be something that people seem to value, and put up with the punctuality and reliability issues that sometimes arise.

 

[Craig1122]

In the 2004 timetable change South West Trains doubled the frequency of service on the Hounslow loop from every 30 to every 15 minutes. Within 3 years the number of passengers at each station had somewhere between doubled and trebled.

There are plenty of other examples where an increase in frequency has led to increase in passenger numbers well above any overall increase on the network.

Likewise fares will increase patronage, hence why you get special offers.

It's a delicate balance though, filling spare capacity on existing trains that might otherwise be empty is effectively free money.

Once you reach the point that you need more or longer trains there's a jump in expenditure which may not be covered by the extra fares (This is why UK railways have often priced off growth rather than increase capacity)

 

[izvor]

Once you reach the point that you need more or longer trains there's a jump in expenditure which may not be covered by the extra fares (This is why UK railways have often priced off growth rather than increase capacity)

I see this as a reason the Government is pushing hard for almost unrestricted housing development around stations in the commuter belt. With an (almost) captive market, the DfT controlling peak fares, and all revenue going to the Government. it's quite a cash cow isn't it?

 

[cuccir]

However, a more frequent service does appear to be something that people seem to value, and put up with the punctuality and reliability issues that sometimes arise.

The more frequent the service, the less important punctuality and to some degree reliability is. Except perhaps for the very first or last couple of services of the day, nobody knows or cares what the timetable is on the Victoria Line in London.

I'm not sure exactly what the inflection point is where punctuality starts to become almost of no importance, it will be somewhere between a service every 5 and every 15 minutes depending on the length and nature of the journey.

Broadly, people will if forced trade punctuality for frequency and reliability. They can live with and plan for a service that is habitually up to 15 minutes late that always shows up, but people stop using trains if they are frequently cancelled, particularly at short notice.

 

[Western Lord]

If there's a train every 15 minutes and they are all 15 minutes late, nobody would notice!

 

[fandroid]

I see this as a reason the Government is pushing hard for almost unrestricted housing development around stations in the commuter belt. With an (almost) captive market, the DfT controlling peak fares, and all revenue going to the Government. it's quite a cash cow isn't it?

There is also the significant point that locating development near to existing high capacity public transport reduces traffic chaos on surrounding roads and avoids expensive and disruptive major roadworks.

Back to the topic:

My local train service is often disrupted, but the frequency and convenience is sufficient for me not to be out off using it.

I'm reminded of the slightly bewildering announcements on the Tube:

The "Xxxxx line is suffering severe delays". Most of us assume that they'll turn up anyway as we don't care if they're running well behind their schedules. We just want a train.

 

[Magdalia]

Do punctuality, reliability and fares affect patronage levels?

Much of this is down to what economists call elasticities of supply and elasticities of demand.

On the railway supply is very inelastic, and in the short term, it is often fixed, especially in the most congested parts of the network. Even if the infrastructure can take more trains, the supply of rolling stock and traincrew is difficult to increase. In particular supply is much more inelastic on the railway than bus services or airlines, because the way the railway operates makes it much more difficult to reallocate rolling stock and traincrew from one route to another.

Some demand is inelastic too, most notably travel to and from work. People choose where to work and where to live, and are then stuck with limited choice (and sometimes no choice) on how to travel between the two. Sometimes the only way to escape high costs, poor reliability and unpunctuality is to change jobs or move house. Now working from home can be a partial solution too, so travel to work is possibly more elastic now than it used to be.

On the other hand, most demand for leisure travel is very elastic: price matters, and bad experiences of reliability and punctuality put people off using the railway again.

Business travel is an interesting case. Before Covid demand would not have been very elastic on price but much more elastic on reliability and punctuality. That's probably still the case, but technology has shifted demand downwards.

The industry seems to put more emphasis on expanding capacity rather than improving punctuality and reliability.

Other things being equal, expanding capacity should improve punctuality and reliability, though I expect that some people won't see Thameslink as in that category.

And some new infrastructure is primarily for improve punctuality and reliability, the Hitchin flyover being a good example.

 

[Craig1122]

I'm reminded of the slightly bewildering announcements on the Tube:

The "Xxxxx line is suffering severe delays". Most of us assume that they'll turn up anyway as we don't care if they're running well behind their schedules. We just want a train.

The delay status for the underground isn't reflecting variance from the timetable. Severe Delays means the service is running at a significantly reduced frequency from normal which will be reflected in a much longer wait than usual and/or over crowding on stations & trains. The official advice is to find another route where possible when delays are advertised as severe. Of course it's not always perfect in reflecting what's actually running.

 

[johncrossley]

Excluding trips to London and other trips where rail has a captive market, can we see a correlation between punctuality/reliability and patronage? If Swiss level of performance is achieved, would patronage go up significantly?

 

[sh24]

Excluding trips to London and other trips where rail has a captive market, can we see a correlation between punctuality/reliability and patronage? If Swiss levels of performance is achieved, would patronage go up significantly?

My hunch is no. It would be frequency and connectivity that would significantly increase patronage.

 

[styles]

The more frequent the service, the less important punctuality and to some degree reliability is. Except perhaps for the very first or last couple of services of the day, nobody knows or cares what the timetable is on the Victoria Line in London.

Yes I came here to say this. If you work near Manchester Oxford Road, but live near a station where services call at Manchester Piccadilly and not Manchester Oxford Road, the punctuality of the services from Oxford Road to Piccadilly are not really that important because they're like 15tph at rush hour. The Tube is probably the extreme version of this with the Victoria Line having 36tph at its peak (that's one every 100 seconds). I had that Manchester scenario once for a short client gig, and I'd just get to Oxford Road about 15 minutes before my Piccadilly train left and worry about the specific train when I get there.

I'm not sure exactly what the inflection point is where punctuality starts to become almost of no importance, it will be somewhere between a service every 5 and every 15 minutes depending on the length and nature of the journey.

Broadly, people will if forced trade punctuality for frequency and reliability. They can live with and plan for a service that is habitually up to 15 minutes late that always shows up, but people stop using trains if they are frequently cancelled, particularly at short notice.

I'd agree with this. There's roadworks near me at the moment and I know it adds 5 minutes on to the timetabled journey times. I just mentally add 5 minutes onto the time I need to be at the destination. It doesn't really affect me that the bus is late because they're every 20 minutes.

 

[Craig1122]

Yes I came here to say this. If you work near Manchester Oxford Road, but live near a station where services call at Manchester Piccadilly and not Manchester Oxford Road, the punctuality of the services from Oxford Road to Piccadilly are not really that important because they're like 15tph at rush hour. The Tube is probably the extreme version of this with the Victoria Line having 36tph at its peak (that's one every 100 seconds). I had that Manchester scenario once for a short client gig, and I'd just get to Oxford Road about 15 minutes before my Piccadilly train left and worry about the specific train when I get there.

While this is undoubtedly true I still reckon reliability may have an impact when trains are close to capacity. There are places on the tube and mainline networks where any disruption means people can't actually get on trains. If that's a regular event it may well push them to find another way to travel or just not travel. The south end of the Northern line is a classic example where it can be very hard to board at Clapham during peak times.

 

[Krokodil]

Excluding trips to London and other trips where rail has a captive market, can we see a correlation between punctuality/reliability and patronage?

If punctuality/reliability gets so bad as to threaten people's livelihoods (i.e. they risk losing their jobs because they can't trust the train to turn up) then we have seen patronage decline as a result.

The Wrexham-Bidston line has suffered from this over the years when it has had periods of very poor performance (often rolling stock related).

I suspect that the Marston Vale lost a lot of patronage when it had an extended period of 230 unreliability followed by bustitution.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

My hunch is no. It would be frequency and connectivity that would significantly increase patronage.

The evidence would suggest otherwise.

 

[Carlisle]

There are a number of very, very intelligent people who work all this out for their jobs.

Sad those very intelligent people aren’t capable of managing other aspects of our industry or we’d have a world class railway, akin to Austria Switzerland France or Japan

 

[sh24]

The evidence would suggest otherwise.

I'd be interested to see the evidence!

 

[Bald Rick]

Sad those very intelligent people aren’t capable of managing other aspects of our industry or we’d have a world class railway, akin to Austria Switzerland France or Japan

Interstingly, SNCF came over to visit NR recently. They asked us to go over there because we operate the railway much better than they do. Seriously.

If Swiss level of performance is achieved, would patronage go up significantly?

Some parts of our network would see patronage fall if Swiss levels of performance were achieved. (Because some parts of our network are better than SBB).

But to answer a bit less tartly, it depends. Long Distance demand is much more dependent on avoiding cancellations than punctuality. The average punter doesn‘t mind if their Manchester to London service is 12 mins late, but they certainly mind if it doesn’t turn up at all. And delay repay helps ease the pain for longer delays.

Conversely, individual cancellations matter little on very high frequency services - if there’s an Elizabeth line cancellation between meaning a gap in services between Liverpool St and Paddington, most punters in the core won’t even notice. However they will notice if the train takes an extra 12 minutes from Liverpool St to Paddington.

But widespread cancellations or major delays, eg where a whole service is suspended for a couple of hours, or everything is 15+ late, is bad for high volume services. If it happens in the morning, it is a licence to work from home, and that revenue is lost for the day. This is less of an issue for long distance, where passengers will often shift their journey to a future day.

In summary, reducing any type of cancellation on long distance services (especially to/from London) is great for revenue, as is reducing wholesale service suspensions on the commuter network. Improving punctuality on commuter services helps as well. See Greater Anglia.

 

[Horizon22]

But widespread cancellations or major delays, eg where a whole service is suspended for a couple of hours, or everything is 15+ late, is bad for high volume services.

Although "everything" being 15+ late, means you still get a train when you wanted to, just a 15 minute delayed one! So in this case, if frequency can be maintained, it doesn't matter too much. However these are more prone to service amendments and crew risks.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Punctuality probably has little impact on long distance, but the key across the whole is to eliminate cancellations - nothing worse than the train you go for not there or not arriving, even if it's only half an hour to the next as that's then crowded.

 

[Horizon22]

Punctuality probably has little impact on long distance, but the key across the whole is to eliminate cancellations

Not necessarily - as stated above, an individual cancellation on a high-frequency metro service may not even compute.

This is why I find it slightly off that all operators are measured equally against On-Time, Time to 3 and cancellation figures where the impact of these and the response to service management is quite different if you are say Merseyrail or LNER.

 

[johncrossley]

Because some parts of our network are better than SBB

Which parts? Very curious about this!

But to answer a bit less tartly, it depends. Long Distance demand is much more dependent on avoiding cancellations than punctuality. The average punter doesn‘t mind if their Manchester to London service is 12 mins late, but they certainly mind if it doesn’t turn up at all. And delay repay helps ease the pain for longer delays.

Conversely, individual cancellations matter little on very high frequency services - if there’s an Elizabeth line cancellation between meaning a gap in services between Liverpool St and Paddington, most punters in the core won’t even notice. However they will notice if the train takes an extra 12 minutes from Liverpool St to Paddington.

What are you calling "high frequency"? Obviously the Elizabeth Line is high frequency, but maybe lines like Woking-London or Haywards Heath-London might also be high frequency. But cancellations on these busy routes might mean overcrowding on the next train, meaning you actually have to wait for the train after that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although "everything" being 15+ late, means you still get a train when you wanted to, just a 15 minute delayed one! So in this case, if frequency can be maintained, it doesn't matter too much. However these are more prone to service amendments and crew risks.

Poorly worded on my part; I mean if everthing is going to take (say) 15 mins longer than scheduled, eg a usual 20 min journey becomes 35mins. I know plenty of people who will bail when that is the ‘offer’.

 

[Horizon22]

Poorly worded on my part; I mean if everthing is going to take (say) 15 mins longer than scheduled, eg a usual 20 min journey becomes 35mins. I know plenty of people who will bail when that is the ‘offer’.

Oh yes, definitely if the journey time is doubled people will often seek alternative. And the shorter the journey and the more alternatives (e.g. Tube and buses for London rail services) the more likely they will. And to be fair the operator would probably rather people did reroute to prevent overcrowding and other risks.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which parts? Very curious about this!

Most of East Anglia.

Swiss Railways punctuailty in 2024 was 93.2% (Time to 3 at destination, ie punctual if it arrives at destination at 2m59s late or better).

Greater Anglia for the reporting year 2024/25 was 93.9% Time to 3 (measured at every station)
c2c was 93.3%

 

[millemille]

Back in the days of franchises, when as a consultant I was of part of the bid team for several franchises, the DfT position was that an operators performance could exert a maximum of a +/- 3% impact upon the franchise model's forecast passenger numbers.

Within that +/-3% band it was "tough luck" or "congratulations" with regards to passenger numbers and hence increase or decrease in income.

If the variance was greater than 3%, then either DfT trousered the extra income or gave income support, such as SE received post 2008, to make up the shortfall because the DfT position was that significant a variation had nothing to do with the operator's performance and was down to wider socio economic factors that the franchise model had not taken into account (such as the global economic crash of 2008).

 

[Magdalia]

Improving punctuality on commuter services helps as well. See Greater Anglia.

I am not convinced of cause and effect here.

What has changed on Greater Anglia is the new train fleet, which has delivered the increase in capacity, better reliability and improved punctuality.

 

[Horizon22]

I am not convinced of cause and effect here.

What has changed on Greater Anglia is the new train fleet, which has delivered the increase in capacity, better reliability and improved punctuality.

Not sure that it was suggested otherwise? All was mentioned was "improving punctuality" and how that is done can be through various measures, once of which is a newer fleet.

 

[Krokodil]

Interstingly, SNCF came over to visit NR recently. They asked us to go over there because we operate the railway much better than they do. Seriously.

That doesn't surprise me. Alstom couldn't believe the availability statistics the 390 fleet was achieving. They sent people over from France to investigate who demanded to know where Longsight was hiding its units during the day - they were all out at work because most maintenance was done on nights.

Not sure that it was suggested otherwise? All was mentioned was "improving punctuality" and how that is done can be through various measures, once of which is a newer fleet.

But is the improved punctuality the cause of GA's passenger uptick, or is it (for example) extra capacity or faster services?