What could be done to increase rail usage outside of London?

[yorksrob]

The government - Labour government - has been very clear - it expects rail subsidy to reduce. This essentially precludes expanding currently subsidised services - services that remain subsidised even if they are full, which means the more you run the more subsidy you pay.

This means growing rail demand has to involve increasing passengers' willingness/ability to pay to London levels, and making passengers captive to rail through land use and labour market interventions.

No one's going to pay South Eastern commuter fares (this is very different to "London Fares" see oyster fares) outside of London and the south east.

Government knows this.

 

[NCT]

No one's going to pay South Eastern commuter fares (this is very different to "London Fares" see oyster fares) outside of London and the south east.

Government knows this.

Then there will be no material increase in rail usage outside of L&SE and the inter-city routes because the government will not be able to afford to increase.

An increase could be afforded if L&SE and Intercity TOCs paid massive premia like they did pre Covid, but with the Covid reset (the 15% demand haircut isn't the end of the world, but there seems to have been a structural real term cost increase post Covid/Ukraine/Brexit which has been rather stubborn, and Iran will only make things worse) those TOCs will likely only break even for the foreseeable. A previously available cross-subsidisation opportunity is no longer available.

 

[yorksrob]

Then there will be no material increase in rail usage outside of L&SE and the inter-city routes because the government will not be able to afford to increase.

An increase could be afforded if L&SE and Intercity TOCs paid massive premia like they did pre Covid, but with the Covid reset (the 15% demand haircut isn't the end of the world, but there seems to have been a structural real term cost increase post Covid/Ukraine/Brexit which has been rather stubborn, and Iran will only make things worse) those TOCs will likely only break even for the foreseeable. A previously available cross-subsidisation opportunity is no longer available.

There are many different models for running public railway services amongst similar Western countries around the world. We don't have to forever have an over-priced system based on Majorite market fantasies.

 

[NCT]

There are many different models for running public railway services amongst similar Western countries around the world. We don't have to forever have an over-priced system based on Majorite market fantasies.

I admire your conviction.

Funding models will only go so far - there remains the problem that there aren't enough people in rail's catchment (density too low) and their destinations aren't where trains go (out-of-town land uses).

In England's specific context - there's such a reliance on geographical fiscal transfer that voters of L&SE just won't contemplate doing even more of it. So if regional rail expansion is to be tax funded then the revenue has to be raised locally - we need to growth the tax base outside of L&SE. And this takes the same measure like increasing local densities and growing the knowledge worker demographic.

 

[HSTEd]

Pre coronavirus the railway was being propped up by a lot of very high paying commuters that have, to a large extent, drained away with the rise of flexible working. See how revenue is down whilst traffic has largely recovered.

We are now in a position where farebox recovery is not much more than 50%. There is unlikely to be more money to spend on service expansions in the absence of major cost cuts.

I think the contractual paralysis of the railway and the comparative weakness of the government (in terms of pushing through unpopular policies) makes it unlikely that such cuts will be forthcoming.

So we are left with trying to raise traffic without requiring subsidy increases and without substantial capital spending.
Not sure how tenable that is, especially given the premise of this thread is specifically about increasing traffic outside London and South East. If I was trying to boost traffic in this environment I'd put any resources available into L&SE to "reinforce success".

 

[The Ham]

Pre coronavirus the railway was being propped up by a lot of very high paying commuters that have, to a large extent, drained away with the rise of flexible working. See how revenue is down whilst traffic has largely recovered.

We are now in a position where farebox recovery is not much more than 50%. There is unlikely to be more money to spend on service expansions in the absence of major cost cuts.

I think the contractual paralysis of the railway and the comparative weakness of the government (in terms of pushing through unpopular policies) makes it unlikely that such cuts will be forthcoming.

So we are left with trying to raise traffic without requiring subsidy increases and without substantial capital spending.
Not sure how tenable that is, especially given the premise of this thread is specifically about increasing traffic outside London and South East. If I was trying to boost traffic in this environment I'd put any resources available into L&SE to "reinforce success".

Given that much of the big NR subsidy is to have the network we have and this doesn't alter much depending on the number of services running (a line which is being inspected, has signalers to show trains to run, has power to the electrification equipment, etc broadly costs the same in maintenance costs if you run 1tph or 3tph) the obvious thing to do is look to see where there are sections of track which could have more trains added for limited investment.

Then look to see if you can link two useful places and don't worry about if it serves the big key local settlement directly.

One such example I've mentioned before is this:

For example it might be possible to run a new Clitheroe to Chester service (calling at all the stations via the major points Blackburn, Bolton, Salford Crescent [new junction to head away from Manchester], Warrington).

Yes it wouldn't directly serve the big market of Manchester, however, it would increase frequencies and increase the number of station pairs with a direct service. Whilst it's unlikely to beat the free services a day which can do it in 2:10 minutes or would be a direct train, rather than 3 changes. However the big advantage would be many places would see an increase in train frequency and whilst that might mean a change to get to Manchester, if that is still faster than waiting for the next service (especially true if the line/station has 1tph, it's not even that hard to do if the line is 2tph).

Obviously any suggestion like the above would likely have issues, however I was looking for lines which are otherwise fairly lightly used (especially with staitions which are lightly served but could justify an increase, especially somewhere like Patricroft which is well within the urban area of Manchester but only sees 1tph off peak) due to being massively congested within the main city station(s).

By running on the existing infrastructure we've not increased the NR spend by very much, yet several stations go from 1tph to 2tph and many others see service frequency improvements.

Yes you'd need to build a new junction and cut land beyond that already owned by the railways, however at a likely cost of, what, £200 million fairly small in terms of new infrastructure costs.

Therefore, overall, as long as the service covers its operating costs it wouldn't increase the overall cost to the government of running the railways.

Where it does help is when people then look at the cost on a per passenger km basis, as then those sorts of new services would attract more people to the network and so the perceived cost reduced.

It also means that more people feel that the railway benefits them and so fewer people are as upset by the cost that the government pays for the railways.

Of course, whilst local train travel is unlikely to generate large amounts of money, you don't need many people then using such a service to go somewhere long distance for that to add some decent ticket values to the system.

Yes, it doesn't give direct connections to Manchester, however for the good people of Clitheroe they would have 1tph direct and 1tph where they could then change to another service to the city centre, however they would also be able to benefit from getting to other places, for example, Manchester Airport a second time each hour where they would already have to change trains anyway.

As I said at the time of suggesting it, I'm sure that they'll be issues which I've overlooked, however the point is to illustrate the sorts of services which could be delivered where little to no new infrastructure is required and line usage is fairly limited so the new service only really needs to cover the TOC costs (including track access charges) and anything above that is a bonus to the industry as that would better the financial situation.

Each extra service like this may only cover their TOC costs plus £50,000 to 200,000. However if across the country we add 100 such services and they average £75,000 in "profits" that's still £0.75 million which the rest of the network has to pay for.

It will also likely have wider benefits and so whilst the railways may not capture this the government would benefit and so the cost of the railways in terms of the size of the economy reduces.

The following numbers are to illiterate the above.

Baseline
1,000 economic value of the UK
400 total government spending
6 government support to the railways

Make changes to the railways like suggested (focusing on covering TOC costs of new services without significant new infrastructure):
1,200 economic value of the UK
480 road government spend (increases proportional to the above)
6 government support to the railways.

Whilst the total level of support to the railways hasn't changed its become a smaller percentage.

Yes a 20% uplift to the economy is highly improbable just from that one policy change, and I'm certainly not suggesting that (even just general economic growth is fine to cover that, the point is that whilst the actual financial cost to the government hadn't changed the perceived cost has.

To put it in personal financial terms, if you are buying a coffee and a cake for you and a friend on a Saturday morning for £9 when you take home £600 a week, then that's going to feel more expensive than that same £9 cost when you're taking home £660 a week.

The person on the £600 a week take home might consider stopping buying their coffee and cake, the person on £660 a week take home has an extra £60 a week they can spend on the other things they need money for and so the coffee and cake isn't at risk of being cut.

That extra £60 may have nothing to do with them buying that cake, however that doesn't alter the fact they perceive the cost to be lower.

 

[The Planner]

Pre coronavirus the railway was being propped up by a lot of very high paying commuters that have, to a large extent, drained away with the rise of flexible working. See how revenue is down whilst traffic has largely recovered.

We are now in a position where farebox recovery is not much more than 50%. There is unlikely to be more money to spend on service expansions in the absence of major cost cuts.

I think the contractual paralysis of the railway and the comparative weakness of the government (in terms of pushing through unpopular policies) makes it unlikely that such cuts will be forthcoming.

So we are left with trying to raise traffic without requiring subsidy increases and without substantial capital spending.
Not sure how tenable that is, especially given the premise of this thread is specifically about increasing traffic outside London and South East. If I was trying to boost traffic in this environment I'd put any resources available into L&SE to "reinforce success".

Im confused, are you suggesting revenue is only 50% of pre COVID?

 

[yorksrob]

I admire your conviction.

Funding models will only go so far - there remains the problem that there aren't enough people in rail's catchment (density too low) and their destinations aren't where trains go (out-of-town land uses).

In England's specific context - there's such a reliance on geographical fiscal transfer that voters of L&SE just won't contemplate doing even more of it. So if regional rail expansion is to be tax funded then the revenue has to be raised locally - we need to growth the tax base outside of L&SE. And this takes the same measure like increasing local densities and growing the knowledge worker demographic.

I'm afraid that if you concentrate all the political and economic power in one corner of the country, it will have to pay for services elsewhere for the good of the Realm. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

There is plenty of rail demand for services in the North. The railway establishment needs to concentrate on getting costs down, such as not having leasing costs for depreciated rolling stock.

 

[HSTEd]

Im confused, are you suggesting revenue is only 50% of pre COVID?

No, farebox recovery is the fraction of the cost of operations covered by fare income.

The railway industry spends £26bn a year and gets about £12.2bn from fares and other passenger-related income, plus ~£0.8bn £1bn from freight income.

EDIT:
Revenue figures are here https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/7

Apologies, freight income is about £1bn, not £800m as I recalled.

 

[yorksrob]

No, farebox recovery is the fraction of the cost of operations covered by fare income.

The railway industry spends £26bn a year and gets about £12.2bn from fares and other passenger-related income, plus ~£0.8bn from freight income.

I hadn't realised that passengers contributed so much more revenue than freight. Suggests to me that freight companies calling for passenger services on routes such as Felixtowe to be restricted (to path more freight trains), are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[The Planner]

No, farebox recovery is the fraction of the cost of operations covered by fare income.

The railway industry spends £26bn a year and gets about £12.2bn from fares and other passenger-related income, plus ~£0.8bn £1bn from freight income.

EDIT:
Revenue figures are here https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-industry-finance/7

Apologies, freight income is about £1bn, not £800m as I recalled.

Its always going to be subsidised, whether you agree with that or not.

 

[HSTEd]

Its always going to be subsidised, whether you agree with that or not.

Yes, but the subsidy situation has deteriorated significantly since before coronavirus.

Given the political mood, this cannot help have an impact on political willingness to provide additional money, either for day-to-day expenses or capital.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, but the subsidy situation has deteriorated significantly since before coronavirus.

Given the political mood, this cannot help have an impact on political willingness to provide additional money, either for day-to-day expenses or capital.

Any Government will pay the price if it decides to chop services when passenger numbers are increasing.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I hadn't realised that passengers contributed so much more revenue than freight. Suggests to me that freight companies calling for passenger services on routes such as Felixtowe to be restricted (to path more freight trains), are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The comparison here is between only toll charges income from rail freight and toll charges plus revenue income from passenger. To be absolutely clear, it doesn't include freight revenue from customers.
Not so simple.
For a period in the privatised railway passenger income was retained by the (obviously private) Train Operating Companies.
It's more an argument that the freight companies, as well as the passenger ones, should be nationalised, then the income from their customers would go into GBR accounts and be counted as well.
There's also the point that freight on rail rather than road saves money on road maintenance; the legal maximum weight of a lorry is 45 tons (excluding special types) and dynamic forces (road surface damage) is proportional to the square or the cube of the weight (mass), making lorries much more damaging than cars.

 

[yorksrob]

The comparison here is between only toll charges income from rail freight and toll charges plus revenue income from passenger. To be absolutely clear, it doesn't include freight revenue from customers.
Not so simple.
For a period in the privatised railway passenger income was retained by the (obviously private) Train Operating Companies.
It's more an argument that the freight companies, as well as the passenger ones, should be nationalised, then the income from their customers would go into GBR accounts and be counted as well.
There's also the point that freight on rail rather than road saves money on road maintenance; the legal maximum weight of a lorry is 45 tons (excluding special types) and dynamic forces (road surface damage) is proportional to the square or the cube of the weight (mass), making lorries much more damaging than cars.

I absolutely agree that rail freight's benefit against road ware should be accounted for. Is that accounted for in the Government cost for railway subsidy ?

If not, it seems the passenger railway is being blamed for expenditure that benefits the wider community.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I absolutely agree that rail freight's benefit against road ware should be accounted for. Is that accounted for in the Government cost for railway subsidy ?

If not, it seems the passenger railway is being blamed for expenditure that benefits the wider community.

The BRB actively promoted the 'Public Service Obligation Grant' idea around 1985 (date from memory - my former boss was involved). It's a commonly used term throughout transport now, but the BRB invented it (I think).
It was at a time when the Government seemed to have an intense dislike for B.R. and it was a defence against the criticism of losses and clear intention to close lines. The concept that there were benefits that didn't appear on the profit and loss account.
Initially for what became Provincial Services (I think) rather than commuter lines (which became LSE)
Maybe others here will have been directly involved.
The concept seems to have been included in the franchising process but I'm not convinced that it's even taken into account now.
Neither main party saw any benefit in treating rail freight more fairly - presumably because it would reduce road transport activity and they each had a (different, but self-evident) interest in sustaining its level.

 

[JonathanH]

Any Government will pay the price if it decides to chop services when passenger numbers are increasing.

Will it? People vote on a whole range of issues. Some people want to pay a lot less tax than they currently do, and others want to see tax used wisely.

We have seen sensible restructuring of services on various parts of the network, where more efficient use is made of available rolling stock and traincrew.

 

[yorksrob]

The BRB actively promoted the 'Public Service Obligation Grant' idea around 1985 (date from memory - my former boss was involved). It's a commonly used term throughout transport now, but the BRB invented it (I think).
It was at a time when the Government seemed to have an intense dislike for B.R. and it was a defence against the criticism of losses and clear intention to close lines. The concept that there were benefits that didn't appear on the profit and loss account.
Initially for what became Provincial Services (I think) rather than commuter lines (which became LSE)
Maybe others here will have been directly involved.
The concept seems to have been included in the franchising process but I'm not convinced that it's even taken into account now.
Neither main party saw any benefit in treating rail freight more fairly - presumably because it would reduce road transport activity and they each had a (different, but self-evident) interest in sustaining its level.

Indeed. Those days were the product of those days.

These days though, railfreight still deserves subsidy for all the reasons it has done in the past. Just let it be accounted for, and not have the regional railway sneeringly damned by subsidy for ever more.

 

[urbophile]

Pre coronavirus the railway was being propped up by a lot of very high paying commuters that have, to a large extent, drained away with the rise of flexible working. See how revenue is down whilst traffic has largely recovered.

We are now in a position where farebox recovery is not much more than 50%. There is unlikely to be more money to spend on service expansions in the absence of major cost cuts.

I think the contractual paralysis of the railway and the comparative weakness of the government (in terms of pushing through unpopular policies) makes it unlikely that such cuts will be forthcoming.

So we are left with trying to raise traffic without requiring subsidy increases and without substantial capital spending.
Not sure how tenable that is, especially given the premise of this thread is specifically about increasing traffic outside London and South East. If I was trying to boost traffic in this environment I'd put any resources available into L&SE to "reinforce success".

But it's not (or shouldn't be) about building a successful business, rather about providing an effective system of public transport to benefit the whole country. The past few decades have shown how capitalism and serving the public (at least in this respect) are incompatible.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hadn't realised that passengers contributed so much more revenue than freight. Suggests to me that freight companies calling for passenger services on routes such as Felixtowe to be restricted (to path more freight trains), are living in cloud cuckoo land.

There’s about 2,500 freight trains a week, compared to about 137,000 passenger trains a week.

Specifically on the Felixstowe line, freight brings in an oerder of magnitude more revenue than passenger services. And in terms of benefot to society it’s almost certsinly a bigger multiplier.

Bear in mind that the freight revenue from that line effectively helps to subsidise the passenger service.

 

[TravelDream]

Rail usage is severely biased towards London. The number of people who use rail travel daily is significantly higher in London compared to the rest of the country. While this is understandable in e.g. rural areas, what about the UK's other major cities and their rail networks means usage is so much lower, and how could usage in those cities be increased?

There are lots of possible things that could be done, but with the restrictions of the Treasury, it is quite difficult to see many things without significant investment

Though there's one big thing we're doing wrong IMO.
An easy win on many fronts would be easing planning restrictions on building housing/ offices/ workplaces within a 10-15 minute walk of a train station. Especially high-density housing. It's madness the amount of restrictions we have on planning and sometimes nonsensical decisions being made.
It kills many birds with one stone so to speak. It would help with the housing crisis, encourage people to use public transport rather than drive,increase public transport usage lowering the required subsidy. Might allow additional services to operate making public transport more attractive as an option.
Yet, for whatever reasons, we are very strongly attached to the Town and Country Planning Act and of green belt. Some of which makes sense, but some of which doesn't in 2026.
Instead we seem to prefer to build too few homes, on isolated sites that are public transport deserts. Makes no sense at all.

Replace the Network Railcard with an equivalent valid across the whole country.

Cheaper rail travel is obviously going to spur demand.

But isn't one of the current problems that peak commuter traffic is down, but off-peak/ leisure related travel, which generates less revenue, is up?
The Network Railcard was brought in for the SE because the market dynamics of the time (high peak demand/ high peak fares/ high capacity combined with low off-peak demand). That dynamic doesn't really exist now on the regional network so I am not sure how a National Network Railcard would help with that.

And that's without the whole cost issue.

 

[Magdalia]

Though there's one big thing we're doing wrong IMO.
An easy win on many fronts would be easing planning restrictions on building housing/ offices/ workplaces within a 10-15 minute walk of a train station. Especially high-density housing. It's madness the amount of restrictions we have on planning and sometimes nonsensical decisions being made.
It kills many birds with one stone so to speak. It would help with the housing crisis, encourage people to use public transport rather than drive,increase public transport usage lowering the required subsidy. Might allow additional services to operate making public transport more attractive as an option.
Yet, for whatever reasons, we are very strongly attached to the Town and Country Planning Act and of green belt. Some of which makes sense, but some of which doesn't in 2026.

This is already happening through changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, see here, starting at #671.

Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections

The MK one will probably just be building on surface car parks (there's basically a ring of them around CMK, this will be the periphery it's talking about). The "rapid transit system" proposed is a sham, just involving bodykitted bendybuses like Liverpool's nonsensical scheme on a limited set...

www.railforums.co.uk

My understanding of it is a presumption in favour of development within 800 metres of stations with a 2tph service.

 

[Sonic1234]

Instead we seem to prefer to build too few homes, on isolated sites that are public transport deserts. Makes no sense at all.

People want a detached home with a spare room, garden and parking, not a leasehold box on the 30th floor with a crippling service charge.

 

[TravelDream]

People want a detached home with a spare room, garden and parking, not a leasehold box on the 30th floor with a crippling service charge.

There are ways to build houses with garages, spare rooms and gardens (though not detached to be fair) which are suitably dense.

And apartments needn't be 'boxes'. I've been house hunting recently and seen some very decently sized and equipped ones. Though the crippling service charge thing is real and is going to become a bigger issue than ground rent in the coming years IMO.

Though that's somewhat fair point which shows a mix is needed. I am not saying that isolated sites should be stopped, but places within 5-10 ish minutes walk to a train station need suitable density.

This is already happening through changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, see here, starting at #671.

That's real tinkering around the edges stuff to be fair. I mean wholesale reform (i.e. getting rid of) the T&C Planning Act and various regulations which increase the cost and complexity of housebuilding massively.

With Labour's 1.5 million target, I was really hoping to see a sea change in planning which is very far from what is actually happening.

 

[HSTEd]

But it's not (or shouldn't be) about building a successful business, rather about providing an effective system of public transport to benefit the whole country. The past few decades have shown how capitalism and serving the public (at least in this respect) are incompatible.

Money is an expression of industrial capacity and societal effort.

Resources are fundamentally finite and we must consider how to most efficiently utilise them to achieve our social and economic objectives.

Part of that is accepting that throwing resources at ineffective things reduces societal benefits for everyone.

 

[RT4038]

People want a detached home with a spare room, garden and parking, not a leasehold box on the 30th floor with a crippling service charge.

And a Rangerover outside, plus another couple of vehicles; and no doubt lots of other expensive goodies. However, most of us have to put up with having what we can afford. Detached houses and private gardens is not affordable for everyone, nor desirable from an environmental point of view.

 

[Magdalia]

That's real tinkering around the edges stuff to be fair. I mean wholesale reform (i.e. getting rid of) the T&C Planning Act and various regulations which increase the cost and complexity of housebuilding massively.

With Labour's 1.5 million target, I was really hoping to see a sea change in planning which is very far from what is actually happening.

Sea change is a good analogy, it takes time for the tide to turn, and I'm also not convinced that it is turning quickly enough.

The changes to the National Planning Policy Framework are not all that's happening. We have recently had the New Towns announcement, and local authorities are back with having housebuilding targets and local plans for how to deliver them.

But I don't see that deregulation is going to be the answer after what happened in the 2010s.

Though that's somewhat fair point which shows a mix is needed. I am not saying that isolated sites should be stopped, but places within 5-10 ish minutes walk to a train station need suitable density.

The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework address that too.

 

[HSTEd]

Any Government will pay the price if it decides to chop services when passenger numbers are increasing.

The alternative is to find a way to cut costs without cutting services. But that is itself fraught with political and other challenges.

 

[Sonic1234]

They just require huge fights with the industry and staff, which the government does not have the stomach for.

With GBR formed and a future right-wing government, this is likely. The unions haven't thought through the consequences of monopsony power.

Don't like it? Well we've got the only train set in town.

 

[yorksrob]

There’s about 2,500 freight trains a week, compared to about 137,000 passenger trains a week.

Specifically on the Felixstowe line, freight brings in an oerder of magnitude more revenue than passenger services. And in terms of benefot to society it’s almost certsinly a bigger multiplier.

Bear in mind that the freight revenue from that line effectively helps to subsidise the passenger service.

It can pay for its own goods loops.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2026 ==

The alternative is to find a way to cut costs without cutting services. But that is itself fraught with political and other challenges.

The Holy Grail.