Network Rail bets on mindfulness (and err...Greggs) to lure commuters back

[Bletchleyite]

The issue of later services needs to be addressed too. We live just outside Aberdeen on a commuter route but the last service is 22.50. My son now works in hospitality and has an 11pm finish so the train is no use to him. He's now bought a car and never ever uses the train, where he would have kept buying his monthly pass and just not bothered with a car had he been able to use it to get home.

Ironically the viability of late services was harmed by the removal of 11pm pub closing. Now people go home in dribs and drabs which makes taxis more viable.

 

[Deltic1961]

Pubs have closed at 12am weekdays and 1am at weekends in Scotland for years and years now.

May be different in Englandshire of course.

 

[Annetts key]

It's not just comfort, fare etc though is it? How about tackling the lack of Sunday and late night trains? Yes, I know that maintenance needs to be done, but surely it would be better to close/reduce just when work is being done, rather than a blanket reduction/closure even when there's no work being done?

One problem is that as more trains run during the daytime, and as Network Rail moves to only allowing staff to work when there are no trains (meaning no booked trains), more work has to be done at night and at weekends.

Lots of routine maintenance work is done during the no booked service gaps at weekends. Most of which is not advertised to the public. And most of this is unseen by passengers.

Believe me, the railway does understand the problem. It’s just, there is no easy solution.

Pre-COVID19, nights and weekends were seen as the obvious time to carry out infrastructure work, as this is when the number of people travelling was the lowest number. Yes, the amount of leisure travel has bounced back. But the weekday daytime service is still too frequent on most lines for any significant maintenance work to be carried out under the current Network Rail rules.

The railway unions don’t particularly want more staff to be forced to work more nights and more weekends. If people want to travel on Sunday mornings (and/or later weekday/weekend trains), and the income would cover running the extra services, that would be great. But I don’t see it happening while Network Rail keeps itself ’boxed in’.

 

[yorksrob]

The 23:00 last Hallam stopper of the night from Leeds is always busy IMO.

Except on Saturdays when an eleven o clock service would be most useful, it doesn't actually run and everyone has to cram on the 22:32 (this being the passenger focused railway).

 

[Bikeman78]

The whole business of the daily commute was madness anyway if we can reduce it both on Public Transport and Private Transport it will be a benefit in a number of respects.

Unfortunately the roads seem to be as congested as they were in 2019 so people are clearly still travelling in and out of Cardiff but not by train. The buses are heading the same way although standing is still banned in Wales.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2022 ==

They're not going to attract many passengers worried about infection, if they appear to be casual abut the use of face coverings.

People don't seem to be worried at the weekend, or when the sun is out in Rhyl or Barry Island.

 

[Deltic1961]

But conversely they're not going to attract passengers who feel masks are unnecessary. It works both ways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But conversely they're not going to attract passengers who feel masks are unnecessary. It works both ways.

I think this now comes down to a commercial decision of whether there are more potential customers who wish masks to be worn or more who wish them not to be worn (though most people who wish them not to be worn don't care a jot if others wear an FFP2 or FFP3 to protect themselves if they so desire; "full-on" anti-mask zealots who would ban their being worn are in a very small number). I have no idea which is bigger, though my observations would suggest that it's probably the latter, given how few people I've seen wearing them today.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think this now comes down to a commercial decision of whether there are more potential customers who wish masks to be worn or more who wish them not to be worn (though most people who wish them not to be worn don't care a jot if others wear an FFP2 or FFP3 to protect themselves if they so desire; "full-on" anti-mask zealots who would ban their being worn are in a very small number). I have no idea which is bigger, though my observations would suggest that it's probably the latter, given how few people I've seen wearing them today.

I don't believe that there is a large untapped pool of nervous people. The few people I know who are still worried about Covid are avoiding all public areas that are likely to be crowded. There is little that the railway can do to tempt such people to travel.

 

[urbophile]

I don't believe that there is a large untapped pool of nervous people. The few people I know who are still worried about Covid are avoiding all public areas that are likely to be crowded. There is little that the railway can do to tempt such people to travel.

I am not particularly 'worried about Covid' for myself. I'm fully vaccinated and take sensible precautions. But I do find the relaxation of the rules on mask-wearing inconsistent and illogical. Masks are proven to reduce the risk of a (maybe unwittingly) infected person passing on the virus to others, possibly more than protecting the wearer. Making face coverings no longer mandatory in crowded areas such as public transport, with the implication that 'if you feel safe you don't need to bother', suggests that people should be relaxed about spreading infection to others. A rather anti-social policy in my view, and one that TfL rightly resists. A pity that national rail and bus companies don't take the same attitude.

There are many people who are reluctant to travel in such circumstances but who need to, for one reason or another. A sense that the organisation was on their side would be helpful and encouraging.

Having said that, on both the bus and the train I took in Liverpool yesterday the vast majority were wearing face coverings. Most of those not doing were in the under 30 age group which is where Omicron is mostly spreading.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not particularly 'worried about Covid' for myself. I'm fully vaccinated and take sensible precautions. But I do find the relaxation of the rules on mask-wearing inconsistent and illogical. Masks are proven to reduce the risk of a (maybe unwittingly) infected person passing on the virus to others, possibly more than protecting the wearer.

FFP3 masks protect the wearer. If fitted properly, they can provide almost 100% protection. They were discouraged at the start so as to not result in the NHS having a shortage, but now they are widely available.

FFP2 also provide good protection.

It therefore strikes me that the best plan is for those who are concerned to wear one of those higher grade masks, then they don't have to stress about what others are or aren't doing.

 

[43096]

I am not particularly 'worried about Covid' for myself. I'm fully vaccinated and take sensible precautions. But I do find the relaxation of the rules on mask-wearing inconsistent and illogical. Masks are proven to reduce the risk of a (maybe unwittingly) infected person passing on the virus to others, possibly more than protecting the wearer. Making face coverings no longer mandatory in crowded areas such as public transport, with the implication that 'if you feel safe you don't need to bother', suggests that people should be relaxed about spreading infection to others. A rather anti-social policy in my view, and one that TfL rightly resists. A pity that national rail and bus companies don't take the same attitude.

There are many people who are reluctant to travel in such circumstances but who need to, for one reason or another. A sense that the organisation was on their side would be helpful and encouraging.

Having said that, on both the bus and the train I took in Liverpool yesterday the vast majority were wearing face coverings. Most of those not doing were in the under 30 age group which is where Omicron is mostly spreading.

There is nothing illogical about relaxing the rules on masks. The illogical bit is that they were ever implemented in the first place: the initial WHO guidance was against them but that was changed under political pressure. It's an entirely political reason, all part of controlling us during the pandemic. A far better approach would have been for those classed as clinically vulnerable to use FFP3 masks as a) they are much more effect than anything else (i.e. they actually work) and b) it would have much reduced the environmental damage from all the disposable masks that have been manufactured and discarded. If you think wearing any old mask is protecting anyone, you're wrong.

 

[Deltic1961]

Lots of talk about cost cutting and reducing fares. Scotrail have spent money on gaelic name plaques for every station, painted an entire train in rainbow colours and even painted a face mask on a HST .... but still our fares went up this week. Believe it when I see it.

 

[ar10642]

So many "reasons" being found. Other than a few exceptions, walk up fares are simply too expensive. Even the off peak ones.

That's it.

People are talking about loss of revenue if we do this, but an empty seat because someone can't justify the cost is earning £0.

 

[Deltic1961]

Well Scotrail have introduced saver off peak fares, only problem is they are Monday to Friday only and at times nobody wants to travel.

 

[43066]

Masks are proven to reduce the risk of a (maybe unwittingly) infected person passing on the virus to others, possibly more than protecting the wearer.

Only high grade FFP2 and 3 type masks (when worn correctly) have any benefit. There’s absolutely no proof that surgical masks/cloth splash guards worn in supermarkets, on public transport etc. do anything useful. This has been done to death on other threads.

FFP3 masks protect the wearer. If fitted properly, they can provide almost 100% protection. They were discouraged at the start so as to not result in the NHS having a shortage, but now they are widely available.

FFP2 also provide good protection.

It therefore strikes me that the best plan is for those who are concerned to wear one of those higher grade masks, then they don't have to stress about what others are or aren't doing.

If only the government’s approach had been to simply make that recommendation from the start, just think how much heartache would have been saved.

It’s probably better to keep any further discussion on this to the Covid section!

 

[skyhigh]

Well Scotrail have introduced saver off peak fares, only problem is they are Monday to Friday only and at times nobody wants to travel.

Surely that's the point? Cheap fares when nobody's travelling to encourage people to travel when there's capacity?

 

[Deltic1961]

I get that but reducing the fares when absolutely nobody wants to travel isn't really the answer.

Not many people want to go in to town at 3pm and come back at 10pm

 

[farleigh]

I am not particularly 'worried about Covid' for myself. I'm fully vaccinated and take sensible precautions. But I do find the relaxation of the rules on mask-wearing inconsistent and illogical. Masks are proven to reduce the risk of a (maybe unwittingly) infected person passing on the virus to others, possibly more than protecting the wearer. Making face coverings no longer mandatory in crowded areas such as public transport, with the implication that 'if you feel safe you don't need to bother', suggests that people should be relaxed about spreading infection to others. A rather anti-social policy in my view, and one that TfL rightly resists. A pity that national rail and bus companies don't take the same attitude.

There are many people who are reluctant to travel in such circumstances but who need to, for one reason or another. A sense that the organisation was on their side would be helpful and encouraging.

Having said that, on both the bus and the train I took in Liverpool yesterday the vast majority were wearing face coverings. Most of those not doing were in the under 30 age group which is where Omicron is mostly spreading.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2022 ==

I would be interested to see the proof.

 

[Annetts key]

No, please, no more talk about masks. There is enough discussion on this issue on these forums elsewhere…

 

[XAM2175]

... painted an entire train in rainbow colours ...

One end of one car of one train, and with adhesive vinyl rather than paint. At the rate you keep criticising it I can only presume that you're more offended by the cause than you are the cost.

 

[JonathanH]

So many "reasons" being found. Other than a few exceptions, walk up fares are simply too expensive. Even the off peak ones.

People get used to a view of what something costs. When it gets more expensive than that they complain but to believe that train fares will not increase year on year is folly as the costs of the operation don't get cheaper.

 

[Cowley]

No, please, no more talk about masks. There is enough discussion on this issue on these forums elsewhere…

Yes indeed. Let’s dispose of the mask comments from here on please.

 

[Goldfish62]

People get used to a view of what something costs. When it gets more expensive than that they complain but to believe that train fares will not increase year on year is folly as the costs of the operation don't get cheaper.

It's a lot more nuanced than that and you have to consider the overall revenue that the railways receive. In that mix are government subsidy and the elasticity of demand for train travel. In the latter case if there is high elasticity then increasing fares can result in less revenue because people go elsewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

It's a lot more nuanced than that and you have to consider the overall revenue that the railways receive. In that mix are government subsidy and the elasticity of demand for train travel. In the latter case if there is high elasticity then increasing fares can result in less revenue because people go elsewhere.

While that is true, a wholesale rebalancing of fares isn't going to make enough of a difference to revenue (or passenger perception of value). It is not clear that the London experiment with fare freezes has worked (prior to March 2020). The railway probably has examples where fares have been reduced where revenue hasn't been maintained otherwise there would be more examples.

 

[Phil56]

People get used to a view of what something costs. When it gets more expensive than that they complain but to believe that train fares will not increase year on year is folly as the costs of the operation don't get cheaper.

Prices don't automatically have to rise, though. If you increase passenger numbers, then revenue increases without price rises. In fact, depending upon elasticity of demand, you could increase revenue by reducing prices if passenger numbers increase high enough.

It's like our local council's car parks. They put up prices and a year later discovered total revenue fell because people didn't use them. Instead of reducing prices, they put prices up again, and even fewer people used them, so total revenue fell for the second year running.

 

[Deltic1961]

One end of one car of one train, and with adhesive vinyl rather than paint. At the rate you keep criticising it I can only presume that you're more offended by the cause than you are the cost.

Not at all, I just see it as a waste of money. Train companies should just run trains and not get involved in social issues. But that's just my personal opinion. I'm sure many customers love the rainbow branding just as some others don't.

 

[ar10642]

People get used to a view of what something costs. When it gets more expensive than that they complain but to believe that train fares will not increase year on year is folly as the costs of the operation don't get cheaper.

Well the railway should expect to lose customers then. If people can drive for cheaper, they will. If they can work from home and avoid paying at all, they will. The railway is not somehow immune from the forces of supply and demand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2022 ==

Prices don't automatically have to rise, though. If you increase passenger numbers, then revenue increases without price rises. In fact, depending upon elasticity of demand, you could increase revenue by reducing prices if passenger numbers increase high enough.

It's like our local council's car parks. They put up prices and a year later discovered total revenue fell because people didn't use them. Instead of reducing prices, they put prices up again, and even fewer people used them, so total revenue fell for the second year running.

This is the point I'm making. If prices are too high then many seats will remain empty. Surely it's better to reduce prices to a level that competes better with road transport and have those seats full.

With electric cars now becoming more popular the cost difference is becoming more stark, and the railway's "green" credentials at least *appear* to be less advantageous with many lines still running diesel trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2022 ==

While that is true, a wholesale rebalancing of fares isn't going to make enough of a difference to revenue (or passenger perception of value). It is not clear that the London experiment with fare freezes has worked (prior to March 2020). The railway probably has examples where fares have been reduced where revenue hasn't been maintained otherwise there would be more examples.

Fare freezes are not enough, it needs to be substantial reductions and no peak time fares at all. Work from home is not going away now.

 

[JonathanH]

This is the point I'm making. If prices are too high then many seats will remain empty. Surely it's better to reduce prices to a level that competes better with road transport and have those seats full.

With electric cars now becoming more popular the cost difference is becoming more stark, and the railway's "green" credentials at least *appear* to be less advantageous with many lines still running diesel trains.

That creates a funding gap which the treasury is not going to fill. The number of people wanting to travel by train is affected by price but is by no means exactly inverse proportional. The railway will need to reduce costs to be able to reduce fares.

 

[tbwbear]

That creates a funding gap which the treasury is not going to fill. The number of people wanting to travel by train is affected by price but is by no means exactly inverse proportional. The railway will need to reduce costs to be able to reduce fares.

That is true.

But surely the funding gap itself has always been there in some form or other since the 1950s hasn't it ?

The level of the funding gap and how exactly it is decided is the political hot potato.

Edited to add -

Are there not two separate government decisions here, they related but not directly connected ?

First, it is the government that decides the level of fare increases each year - theoretically, they could decide on freezes and decreases. There is nothing to stop them reducing the level of fares to "Italian levels" if they thought it would be popular. In the future the government will be keeping the revenue.

Separetely, there is the level of the funding gap - also a government decision, but not 100% related to fares. You could even have a government target to reduce the funding gap alongside another to dramatically reduce fares.

That would obviously put pressure on the "railway system" itself, how to either reduce costs or increase revenue or both. It is quite messy and it is easy to see that it could go wrong quite quickly. Eventually you get even more government interference in the whole thing.

Back in British Rail days, I think the government set the defecit targets but the fare policy was left to BR itself - more or less, wasn't it ?

 

[ar10642]

That creates a funding gap which the treasury is not going to fill. The number of people wanting to travel by train is affected by price but is by no means exactly inverse proportional. The railway will need to reduce costs to be able to reduce fares.

Sounds like a death spiral leading to closures and service cuts then