That simply shows the craziness implicit in franchising. Everything is cast into the concrete of a contract, which is based entirely on crystal ball gazing sometime well before the actual start of operations within the franchise.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Do punctuality, reliability and fares affect patronage levels?
- Thread starter johncrossley
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Speaking as someone who doesn't drive, and commutes 3-4 days a week by rail, I'd say from my own experience they still definitely do. From a personal standpoint, whereas once upon a time I'd just travel by train without thinking, these days I tend to make rail travel decisions based on the likelihood of being able to complete the journey in good time. I find myself checking previous journeys on sites like RTT to see if issues have arisen previously, and if connections are a risk before making travel decisions. And price definitely is a factor, a recent away trip with my club was considered and decided against because quite simply the fares were just insane (Warrington - Plymouth). In fact it was one of those situations you see spread across social media, because it was cheaper to fly via Malaga to Newquay with an 18 hour layover than go by train!
More broadly speaking, I do know that many people are put off rail travel because of these factors, especially cost and reliability. And given that rail is used for only 2% of journeys, accounting for 8% of miles made & 7% overall travel hours, whilst Britain's roads groan & strain with way too much traffic, there's definitely an issue here.
Has anyone ever tried to work out those figures to give a road / rail comparison only for journeys where there is a viable rail option (ie excluding trips to the supermarket / council tip and between places without a train service or where not even the most diehard enthusiast would consider the train)?
Theres a lot that the railways can do to improve, and it seems obvious that an intense focus on reliability and punctuality should be the priorities of the nationalised operators. However, we know that overcrowding is another serious turnoff for potential passengers, so a broad attack on all aspects is also essential. Not an easy one to succeed at, because increased capacity needs additional investment plus time to implement it.
Honestly I don't know, but I think it's fair to say there will be lots of commutes made by road, that have a rail equivalent. And for longer trips with multiple people travelling together such as families, prices quickly become a factor.
That may be true of some areas, but there are lots of routes where adding capacity would just require acquiring more units, and that's something that could be resolved in a reasonable time period, say of 5 or so years. There always seems to be a reluctance to increase capacity to promote more rail use, rather extra capacity only seems to come when it's at breaking point. Investing in more over the next decade may help actually promote more use, and bring in some useful additional revenue.
Greater Anglia gets about a quarter of its revenue from the Stansted Express, which has a 4tph service. Usage is mainly driven by what is happening to air travel, not anything that Greater Anglia do, though the new trains have helped, mainly by increasing capacity.
Another area where new trains have had a big impact is the rural branches, where a class 755 is a big step up for capacity.
Reliability was the killer for me. On a line where the service is hourly an early evening cancellation is extremely annoying (especially after an early start and a day at work) and I walked away from a job I liked because of it - it was the last straw.
That hourly service is still unreliable and regularly late enough to break what should be safe connections, so I am sure that useage would increase draamatically if it was better. I guess that the people using it either have no choice (for whatever reason) or haven't yet learnt what they will encounter...
I'd certainly agree with this. Save a couple of peak additions (and they get canned quite a bit), my line is hourly so a cancellation can be the deal breaker for many, especially if people have an onward connection on another mode as I do (although that's a whole thread's worth in itself when it comes to the two modes actually "connecting").
Is it really useful to look at cherry-picked parts of the network like that? I assume that 93.2% isn't universal across the entire Swiss network, so could they not have looked at a bit of their network that has higher figures?
Is it far to say that c2c had a big advantage over other TOCs because their network is almost entirely self contained with no other passenger TOCs operating on it, so no competition for paths? It was obviously the most reliable of all the TOCs around London that I used.
Sit in your own cabin with comfy seats. Radio climate control and no one else. Sure it might take longer. Very often, door to door it’ll be quicker. Question is, why would anyone take the train, save for a 7am commute into London? Not mention depending on travel habits a car could actually work out more cost effective. Oh and I can leave when I want.
One reason you might take the train is that you don't have to drive!
I like cars, but having an intense period of concentration driving prior to/straight after working, and/or sitting in rush hour traffic is not my idea of fun or relaxing.
I know other people like to work on the train, I don't/can't do this, but you definitely couldn't do this while driving.
Probably all of the above (and more), to varying degrees.
Exhibit A: Crosscountry
Sitting stone-cold sober (I don't always want a drink but if I'm having a meal out why shouldn't I have wine?) strapped to one's seat with no access to a toilet, no supply of fresh tea, and being forced to stare at the string of stationary brake lights as far as the eye can see? No thanks.
Quite apart from the considerable costs cars place upon society. That free parking isn't really free, you know.
As I said, maybe at rush hour trains make sense. You must’ve missed that bit. At other times I can’t see the use of trains. At all. They go from somewhere I’m not at to somewhere I don’t want to be.
Haha fresh tea. Luke warm pisswater from an urn that was cleaned at god knows when charged at eye watering prices, like the fares? No thanks. And yes. Trains have toilets (when they work). You can certainly smell them through the vents sometimes! Amazing way to travel.
As a coach fan you must find the same frustrations with coaches. Not only going from somewhere you're not at to somewhere you don't want to be, but also doing it quite slowly and only infrequently and at times that do not suit you.
I do not mind coaches if they do a route that trains don't serve and appreciate that I'll usually get help at stowing and retrieving big bags.
Not just rush hour, try heading down the M5 on a bank holiday weekend. Trains are far faster for long journeys too. I could walk to the bus stop, catch a bus into town, walk to the railway station, catch a train and be in London an hour earlier than if I'd driven, not even counting the time taken to find somewhere to park near whatever theatre or concert hall I'm attending. Knock a further half hour off if I cycle to the station instead of getting the bus. If I wanted to go to Paris, the gap widens further - the train will be between two and five hours faster depending upon how much traffic the car gets stuck in - this is a thread about punctuality and reliability, "I might get to you by 14:00 but it could equally be 19:00" is not the sort of reliability I want, even Amtrak would be better than that. Cars are about the least punctual mode of transport on the planet.
That’s probably because the trains close for “engineering works” on bank holiday so everyone has to use the m5
MatthewHutton
Member
One of the issues is the train to the south west is pretty weak from the Thames Valley excluding Reading.
And there isn’t anywhere on the A30 to rent a car after 5pm or whatever if you need one down there.
Also the fares aren’t really always aimed at leisure travel. I had to arrive at midnight to get a super off peak in the evening for example (and the non super off peak really isn’t competitive with driving on cost).
Certainly with an off peak as opposed to a super off peak ticket I really don’t see why if the train is due to arrive at Plymouth after 9am it shouldn’t be valid - or that even from London there should be an evening peak into Devon and Cornwall.
Last edited:
Old Yard Dog
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 1,823
Definitely. There are TOCs that I trust and rely on, in particular Merseyrail - and those I do not, in particular Northern and EMR. I build in a lot more contingency when using less reliable TOCs, sometimes choosing to drive instead or not travel. Reliability also includes the probability of the train having a working toilet, particularly if trains are hourly or less, and me getting a seat. I use realtimetrains to check how many coaches a train will have and recenttraintimes to gauge the chances of a cancellation or short working.
This is rather naive. Successful coach routes generally do run at the times for which there's demand for them to, and aren't "infrequent". If they were, they'd be empty, and thus they'd be quickly withdrawn. The coach operators will chop routes wholesale on little notice if they are making a loss. What else would a private enterprise do?
Coaches are much more responsive to demand that trains are.
- Status