Transparency in the rail industry

[deltic]

Over years the rail industry has become more transparent publishing more data on performance, usage of the network, financial performance by TOC and its working timetable.

However there is a lot of information which is not revealed. So while station usage data is published no data is provided on passenger flows or revenues and accept at a TOC level we have no idea which routes are profitable or not.

The CAA on the other hand requires airlines to produce data by origin and destination in a sector which is arguably subject to far more competition.

Given the level of taxpayers support to the rail industry should it be required to provide more information on exactly what we get for those taxes?

 

[dviner]

Cost may be a factor.

Even if the raw data exists, making it available for consumption will have a certain cost - which is why one of the reasons for refusing a Freedom of Information request is because the cost of carrying out the work required to provide the information would exceed a certain cost cap.

 

[najaB]

Given the level of taxpayers support to the rail industry should it be required to provide more information on exactly what we get for those taxes?

If 100 people board a flight from London to Edinburgh then you know 100 people flew from London to Edinburgh. If 100 people board at Waverley and 100 people alight at Kings Cross, how many people traveled from Edinburgh to London? Therein lies the problem.

 

[deltic]

If 100 people board a flight from London to Edinburgh then you know 100 people flew from London to Edinburgh. If 100 people board at Waverley and 100 people alight at Kings Cross, how many people traveled from Edinburgh to London? Therein lies the problem.

Both can be based on ticket sale data which provides a reasonable indication of demand

 

[Simon11]

Over years the rail industry has become more transparent publishing more data on performance, usage of the network, financial performance by TOC and its working timetable.

However there is a lot of information which is not revealed. So while station usage data is published no data is provided on passenger flows or revenues and accept at a TOC level we have no idea which routes are profitable or not.

The CAA on the other hand requires airlines to produce data by origin and destination in a sector which is arguably subject to far more competition.

Given the level of taxpayers support to the rail industry should it be required to provide more information on exactly what we get for those taxes?

To provide the sales data by flow would be really easy, however there are issues with what origin/ destinations you group together, for example to calculate the number of journeys between Edinburgh to London. Also, once you start releasing this data, I could see everyone asking and it would turn into a full time position just to release this information for which there is little benefit for people outside of the industry.

Another challenge is that the 'Lennon' sales data database is huge, as it literally contains all tickets sold by transaction across the whole network over the last year etc. With smaller less datasets going back far longer by week, period and year.

Note that that CAA only provide data by origin and destination, it doesn't split it by airline.

 

[najaB]

Both can be based on ticket sale data which provides a reasonable indication of demand

Seasons, period returns, split tickets, multiple valid routes - it gets very complicated very quickly.

 

[Bertie the bus]

However there is a lot of information which is not revealed. So while station usage data is published no data is provided on passenger flows or revenues and accept at a TOC level we have no idea which routes are profitable or not.

Why do we need to know that? The only possible uses of such data, other than general nosiness, are:

1. People on specific routes arguing their route is profitable and therefore they should get a larger share of the cake, similar to the London generates a disproportionate amount of tax revenue and therefore London should get all the major infrastructure project spend argument.

2. Non-rail users and various lobbying groups calling for closure of the most unprofitable routes.

Neither of the above is going to result in positive outcomes.

 

[deltic]

Why do we need to know that? The only possible uses of such data, other than general nosiness, are:

1. People on specific routes arguing their route is profitable and therefore they should get a larger share of the cake, similar to the London generates a disproportionate amount of tax revenue and therefore London should get all the major infrastructure project spend argument.

2. Non-rail users and various lobbying groups calling for closure of the most unprofitable routes.

Neither of the above is going to result in positive outcomes.

Transparency generally leads to improved or better informed decision making. People might be surprised at the differing degrees of profit/subsidy required on various commuter routes into London. Part of the reason TfL rail provides a better service than some other TOCs is due to its larger subsidy per passenger mile. People may take a different approach to DOO if they realised their route was actually highly profitable or loss making.

Insiders generally have access to the information, outsiders dont making it more difficult for new entrants to bid for franchises.

Its not a question of nosiness but ensuring people know what their taxes are spent on and decision makers make sensible decisions. I know we seem to be living in a fact free world at the moment but facts and evidence are vitally important.

 

[Simon11]

Information on TOCs and the amount of profit and subsidy is already published.

 

[deltic]

Information on TOCs and the amount of profit and subsidy is already published.

Not on a route or line by line basis

 

[najaB]

Not on a route or line by line basis

My guess is because it's quite difficult to actually break it down that granular a level.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Transparency generally leads to improved or better informed decision making. People might be surprised at the differing degrees of profit/subsidy required on various commuter routes into London. Part of the reason TfL rail provides a better service than some other TOCs is due to its larger subsidy per passenger mile.

Yes, and? How is you or I knowing that the GOBLIN in London receives a higher subsidy than the Skipton line going to improve services or bring about a more level playing field?

People may take a different approach to DOO if they realised their route was actually highly profitable or loss making.

What relevance does the public's attitude to DOO have? The government wants to extend it and the unions don't. What John Wilson on Twitter thinks of it is totally unimportant.

Insiders generally have access to the information, outsiders dont making it more difficult for new entrants to bid for franchises.

I seriously doubt that is true. Abellio were a late entrant but have been rather successful in winning franchises.

Its not a question of nosiness but ensuring people know what their taxes are spent on and decision makers make sensible decisions. I know we seem to be living in a fact free world at the moment but facts and evidence are vitally important.

What you are asking for wouldn't provide that. There is more to public transport than profit/loss and how much subsidy a particular line requires.

 

[jzw95]

Actually, these data are already calculated by the ORR, in the form of the Origin Destination Matrix (ODM). They use it in their statistical releases on regional rail usage. See the sidebar on page 3 for information about the ODM, including a link to the paper on the calculation method.

However, they don't release the full ODM or specific information on passenger journeys for specific station pairs. So, for instance, figures for passenger journeys Scotland-London are published (2,263,120 in 2014), but you can't find out how many passenger journeys Edinburgh-London there were.

It's not a question of being nosey, this inhibits useful research on travel demand, climate change impact, mode share, etc. I also agree the data should be released. I can't see that there's additional cost, the data are already calculated, there is a rail data portal where they could be distributed, it's just a question of making the full ODM available.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Both can be based on ticket sale data which provides a reasonable indication of demand

Assuming of course every punter buys a ticket every time and doesnt "chance it" or reuses a standard open, or ticket barriers are non-operational.

OHOH a cheap day return from, say Newcastle to Darlington, how does the exact journey by which operator get logged when there can be up to 4 operators within 10 minutes of each other?