Rail usage

[Starmill]

I’m not sure I follow. Every transport system is predicated on current or predicted demand. Thats what the railway is doing.

That's not the case. Your opinion may well be that predict and provide is a good way to run a train service and it's an honourable one. But it's not the only option. I believe that London Trains is permitted to disagree with you if they wish?

In any case it maps poorly to what we actually do. If we subscribed to that idea, places like Whitehaven, Whitby and Stranraer would never get any trains at all, for example.

 

[NCT]

If demand truly followed supply we wouldn't be having so many basket case urban metros and trams.

 

[Starmill]

If demand truly followed supply we wouldn't be having so many basket case urban metros and trams.

No doubt that's why that isn't something that exists in this country. It's also not supply that creates demand, it's economic activity.

 

[NCT]

No doubt that's why that isn't something that exists in this country. It's also not supply that creates demand, it's economic activity.

So there. By and large, the railway supply matches the demand created by the underlying economic activity.

 

[Krokodil]

So despite Cross Countrys mediocre performance it still manages to put on a decent showing along with Avanti.

Makes you wonder what it could do if it was given the resources it so dearly needs.

 

[Starmill]

So there. By and large, the railway supply matches the demand created by the underlying economic activity.

I'd suggest that if your view were that some urban rail services needed to be shut down, or partially shut down, you could create a new thread to explain to us in detail a few examples and why you believe that. I'd say on what you've suggested above that it's a completely meritless claim, but of course I'd be prepared to hear details.

 

[The Ham]

GWR total passenger numbers are still at 95% of 2019 Q1 figures so why would they need more trains? Your also assuming the trains were all full in 2019 which is clearly not the case and that GWR, or any operator, is aiming to avoid any standing/overcrowding which their not. GWR may yet get some exTfW 158's but beyond that there's no tender out for GWR stock unless they pick up on the back of the Northern tender.

GWR have lost a LOT of passengers to the Elizabeth Line, only thing is they were mostly shorter distance passengers and so would have a tiny impact on the passenger km figures.

They would also be paying fairly limited ticket prices, so their loss isn't necessary as significant as the numbers imply.

 

[dk1]

GWR have lost a LOT of passengers to the Elizabeth Line, only thing is they were mostly shorter distance passengers and so would have a tiny impact on the passenger km figures.

They would also be paying fairly limited ticket prices, so their loss isn't necessary as significant as the numbers imply.

Same applied with GA when the Metro services where handed over to TfL several years ago. It was all however expected and planned for in the franchise agreement.

 

[Snow1964]

GWR total passenger numbers are still at 95% of 2019 Q1 figures so why would they need more trains? Your also assuming the trains were all full in 2019 which is clearly not the case and that GWR, or any operator, is aiming to avoid any standing/overcrowding which their not. GWR may yet get some exTfW 158's but beyond that there's no tender out for GWR stock unless they pick up on the back of the Northern tender.

GWR have lost a LOT of passengers to the Elizabeth Line, only thing is they were mostly shorter distance passengers and so would have a tiny impact on the passenger km figures.

GWR passenger km is 105% of 2019 (pre-Covid), they have lost passengers to Elizabeth line, but gained more elsewhere. GWRs problem is the gains are places like Bristol suburban and Devon which needs the limited number of diesel units. They also have too many stations that can't take 6car sets but usage really needs them.

They have lost London commuters (probably similar to Chiltern, South Eastern etc with passenger km nearer 80% of 2019), but they have gained it elsewhere. Just look at the black dots on Tim Jupp map on link (black is highest usage in last 20-30 years), where majority of stations in Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Gloucestershire are have grown, can click on stations for log growth chart

leaflet

 

[The Ham]

GWR passenger km is 105% of 2019 (pre-Covid), they have lost passengers to Elizabeth line, but gained more elsewhere. GWRs problem is the gains are places like Bristol suburban and Devon which needs the limited number of diesel units. They also have too many stations that can't take 6car sets but usage really needs them.

They have lost London commuters (probably similar to Chiltern, South Eastern etc with passenger km nearer 80% of 2019), but they have gained it elsewhere. Just look at the black dots on Tim Jupp map on link (black is highest usage in last 20-30 years), where majority of stations in Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Gloucestershire are have grown, can click on stations for log growth chart

leaflet

Indeed, and my point was to highlight that just looking at the passenger numbers (given the changes due to EL) wouldn't give the whole picture.

As such it's possible for the passenger numbers to fall (due to EL) but also to have more overcrowding across the wider GWR network.

 

[NCT]

I'd suggest that if your view were that some urban rail services needed to be shut down, or partially shut down

Er, where did I say that?

 

[Starmill]

Er, where did I say that?

You used the expression "basket case" which means something which is a lost cause or irretrievably broken.

 

[NCT]

You used the expression "basket case" which means something which is a lost case or irretrievably broken.

That's a rather literal interpretation of what was a (slight) exaggeration for effect.

There are many parts of the network where capacity provided is generous compared with the demand carried by that capacity.

Even the busiest of commuter lines in the North, the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, with 4tph peak services, carry relatively few standees.

The 'predict and provide' model is already delivering a generous level of supply - in many instances if not universally.

 

[Starmill]

That's a rather literal interpretation of what was a (slight) exaggeration for effect.

There are many parts of the network where capacity provided is generous compared with the demand carried by that capacity.

Even the busiest of commuter lines in the North, the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, with 4tph peak services, carry relatively few standees.

The 'predict and provide' model is already delivering a generous level of supply - in many instances if not universally.

I don't see any other interpretation of what the expression 'basket case' could mean. As I say if your suggestion is that the Ilkley service is such a thing, on the basis of your understanding that it doesn't carry enough standees, I'd reccomended a proper discussion of it in its own thread, as it's quite a way off topic here.

 

[NCT]

I don't see any other interpretation of what the expression 'basket case' could mean. As I say if your suggestion is that the Ilkley service is such a thing, on the basis of your understanding that it doesn't carry enough standees, I'd reccomended a proper discussion of it in its own thread, as it's quite a way off topic here.

I was merely following up on the 'predict and provide' debate, which you introduced. From what I am able to observe and infer from publicly available sources, and triangulating with other people's accounts and assertions, I find the general point that - the railway has been, to the extent possible, targeting capacity according where demand is, in the context of now vs 2019 - to be broadly reasonable and credible.

 

[3RDGEN]

GWR passenger km is 105% of 2019 (pre-Covid), they have lost passengers to Elizabeth line, but gained more elsewhere. GWRs problem is the gains are places like Bristol suburban and Devon which needs the limited number of diesel units. They also have too many stations that can't take 6car sets but usage really needs them.

They have lost London commuters (probably similar to Chiltern, South Eastern etc with passenger km nearer 80% of 2019), but they have gained it elsewhere. Just look at the black dots on Tim Jupp map on link (black is highest usage in last 20-30 years), where majority of stations in Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Gloucestershire are have grown, can click on stations for log growth chart

leaflet

They lost passengers to Elizabeth Line but kept the 16x units released by the 345's which went West, perhaps GWR shouldn't be wasting 80x's on the extended London - Swansea - Carmarthen services if they are short of units.

 

[Starmill]

I was merely following up on the 'predict and provide' debate, which you introduced. From what I am able to observe and infer from publicly available sources, and triangulating with other people's accounts and assertions, I find the general point that - the railway has been, to the extent possible, targeting capacity according where demand is, in the context of now vs 2019 - to be broadly reasonable and credible.

You weren't. You described service groups as basket cases quite unprompted, which you're now backtracking on because you know what you said was wrong.

 

[absolutelymilk]

You weren't. You described service groups as basket cases quite unprompted, which you're now backtracking on because you know what you said was wrong.

They can be a basket case financially but still be worth funding if they provide a social good, particularly in more deprived areas

 

[NCT]

You weren't. You described service groups as basket cases quite unprompted, which you're now backtracking on because you know what you said was wrong.

No. You are over-interpreting what was a literary device well out of context.

A simple logical point is that, the existence of lightly loaded trains disproves the assertion that demand will always follow supply.

While there are plausibly several cases of rolling stock / staffing decisions/events placing a current cap on the available capacity (SWR and Southern not physically having the resources to run a 2019 timetable even if they wanted to, in contrast with say, Anglia), the c2c experience suggests there is a threshold beyond which passengers will no longer fill the capacity you throw at the network.

 

[Krokodil]

A simple logical point is that, the existence of lightly loaded trains disproves the assertion that demand will always follow supply.

If you put a 20 coach train on between Dunrobin Castle and Wick, departing at 2am you may indeed find few takers.

In most cases though, if you improve the service ridership will rise. "Improve" will be some combination of speed, frequency, capacity and comfort.

 

[Starmill]

No. You are over-interpreting what was a literary device well out of context.

You're still backtracking. As I've said several times if you wish to discuss that further my suggestion would be to create a new thread to do so.

A simple logical point is that, the existence of lightly loaded trains disproves the assertion that demand will always follow supply.

While there are plausibly several cases of rolling stock / staffing decisions/events placing a current cap on the available capacity (SWR and Southern not physically having the resources to run a 2019 timetable even if they wanted to, in contrast with say, Anglia), the c2c experience suggests there is a threshold beyond which passengers will no longer fill the capacity you throw at the network.

A high frequency service running with many trains with 'under utilised' seats is a desirable outcome in a densely populated area. Without this it's effectively impossible for people to use public transport to meet their everyday needs. You don't want very high utilastion on average because such services are unappealing, either in convenience of times or because they're uncomfortably full, or both. People need to be able to swap to a wide choice of other trains a few hours either side which still have free seats. The supply itself isn't why people travel. People travel overwhelmingly for economic reasons. It's not a logical point at all that the existence of the lightly loaded trains is in itself undesirable, let alone anything approaching your argument that it makes the service a basket case.

 

[NCT]

You're still backtracking. As I've said several times if you wish to discuss that further my suggestion would be to create a new thread to do so.

I have clarified my point, twice. Instead of responding to the point I'm actually making, you repeatedly choose to respond to the point you want to accuse me of having made. I have no desire to go over the definition or interpretation of 'basket case'. If anyone is taking the discussion off-topic, that person is not me.

A high frequency service running with many trains with 'under utilised' seats is a desirable outcome in a densely populated area. Without this it's effectively impossible for people to use public transport to meet their everyday needs. You don't want very high utilastion on average because such services are unappealing, either in convenience of times or because they're uncomfortably full, or both. People need to be able to swap to a wide choice of other trains a few hours either side which still have free seats. The supply itself isn't why people travel. People travel overwhelmingly for economic reasons. It's not a logical point at all that the existence of the lightly loaded trains is in itself undesirable, let alone anything approaching your argument that it makes the service a basket case.

Look around the world and you'll find the more economically successful cities (many European cities, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore) are more likely to have higher load factor transit systems. Every transport system operates under a fiscal constraint. Experience around the world is that highly agglomerated economies supporting high value-added jobs produce high-volume, inelastic demand that utilise transit capacity efficiently (i.e. high load factors) with the accompanying willingness to pay (either through fares or through high tax receipts) that make the best case for capacity expansion. Every jurisdiction has a fiscal equilibrium that determines the appropriate supply to serve their forecast demand.

Covid induced changes to work patterns has shifted that equilibrium - there's a permanent haircut in trip rates for a given level of economic activity. It's not a huge haircut (certainly smaller than some of the more pessimistic predictions back in 2020), but a haircut nonetheless. When demand shifts supply has to shift accordingly.

While we compare 2026 vs 2019 passenger km and vs vehicle km, DfT and Treasury are comparing 2026 rail subsidy vs 2019 rail subsidy. In terms of targeting available supply at where the demand is, within the fiscal framework we have to operate within, the industry gets it more right than wrong.

 

[Starmill]

I have clarified my point, twice. Instead of responding to the point I'm actually making, you repeatedly choose to respond to the point you want to accuse me of having made. I have no desire to go over the definition or interpretation of 'basket case'. If anyone is taking the discussion off-topic, that person is not me.

My suggestion would be to not to deploy an argument based on such a phrase as that one if you're unprepared to actually explain what you mean by them. I'm very confident that what you said wasn't correct anyway.

Look around the world and you'll find the more economically successful cities (many European cities, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore) are more likely to have higher load factor transit systems. Every transport system operates under a fiscal constraint. Experience around the world is that highly agglomerated economies supporting high value-added jobs produce high-volume, inelastic demand that utilise transit capacity efficiently (i.e. high load factors) with the accompanying willingness to pay (either through fares or through high tax receipts) that make the best case for capacity expansion. Every jurisdiction has a fiscal equilibrium that determines the appropriate supply to serve their forecast demand.

Load factors are regularly very low in those places. They have to be when frequencies are so high. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with your approach, but it's based on your opinion about what success looks like. My point was that your opinion isn't necessarily correct.