UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[The Ham]

And numbers for passenger miles. Maybe passengers are not travelling as far now.
or maybe they are able to buy cheaper tickets because of more flexible time at work with hybrid working.
So while numbers are recovering, revenue isnt.

Less spent per person (due to hybrid working) but carrying the same number of km as before could actually mean a higher level of revenue. In that 2 days a week working may cost 65% of the cost of the annual equivalent, however if you've now got 8 people (8*65=520) using those part time tickets tickets rather than 5 (5*100=500) before using fully time tickets (assuming each are for the same journey length, which is obviously highly unlikely) your income has increased by 4% (520/500= 104%) even though you're passenger km's (8*2=16 Vs 5*5=25) have fallen by 36%.

However, the other side of the coin is if there's been a reduction in services (and therefore costs) you don't have to have the same revenue as there was before to cover all your costs.

It's complex, however the overall picture is likely to be, whilst we may not be at 100% of pre Covid levels of use or income there's ongoing growth compared to last year and likely ongoing growth compared to the last quarter. As such whilst there's ongoing growth there needs to be very careful monitoring when it comes to cuts and what impact that may have.

Therefore, ongoing growth compared to last year is essential at this time, growth compared to last quarter would be ideal - however isn't a disaster as long as it's fairly close as the annual rolling total would still improve compared to the end of the last quarter.

The ongoing strikes are an issue with regards to getting more rail use, whilst the government would like the unions to back down it maybe better economically for a bit of flex on both sides so things get sorted so we can see a clearer picture of actual rail use without the strikes impacting the numbers. There's certainly less of a strong argument for making cuts (that's not to rule out the need for some, nor does it mean that - where there's a reasonable plan, although so far most of the talk has been "we'd like to make changes" without providing clear details of what sort of changes are planned and costed - there shouldn't be changes to practices).

With hybrid working it's likely the overall picture may not change that much (i.e. a strike Monday and Tuesday, so go to the office Thursday and Friday), where it will make a difference is the reliability and so people using the service.

Although it should be noted that Hybrid working across much of the country is only even an option for 50% of the workforce (in London it's circa 70%, whilst the Southeast and the East are between the two), so no strikes would still see some improvements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Up to 15% isn't much of a saving, especially when it comes with restrictions

I think that depends on availability. My usual practice going to London these days is to buy an Anytime Day Single in (or First Class if I know it'll be a 319*) and to buy the return ticket while walking back to Euston depending on whether a super off peak or off peak would be valid for the train I'm going for - with a Network Railcard this is cheaper than buying an Anytime Day Return by, if I recall, about a fiver. If one of these was available right up to departure I might partake, as I occasionally have for the Northern ones. I certainly wouldn't be booking short distance journeys actually in advance.

* Bletchley gateline seems to be open more often than not these days, in which case I go to the platform and buy it once I see the train coming in from the sidings to be double sure, as there are occasional 350 substitutions and 350 1st is in my view not worth the money.

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s good, but likely happening in spite of the timetable, rather than because of it!

Maybe, but the modelling did show that the new timetable would increase passenger numbers and revenue. And it has happened much as predicted.

 

[dk1]

I'd be moving 166s to Paddington to Penzance services and using the IETs on Portsmouth to Cardiff.

That comment will go down as one of the most crazy I’ve ever read on this forum.

 

[Richardr]

Don't forget how the stats are compiled:

Data labelled ‘National Rail’ is calculated by summing the number of journeys for the last seven days and expressing this as a percentage of the equivalent pre-Covid-19 week in 2019 or 2020.

The number of journeys is calculated from LENNON by taking earnings and estimating the likely number of journeys that would have been taken, using an industry-agreed methodology. For season products of more than a week’s duration, journeys are apportioned out across the duration of the product’s validity.

 

[JamesT]

Less spent per person (due to hybrid working) but carrying the same number of km as before could actually mean a higher level of revenue. In that 2 days a week working may cost 65% of the cost of the annual equivalent, however if you've now got 8 people (8*65=520) using those part time tickets tickets rather than 5 (5*100=500) before using fully time tickets (assuming each are for the same journey length, which is obviously highly unlikely) your income has increased by 4% (520/500= 104%) even though you're passenger km's (8*2=16 Vs 5*5=25) have fallen by 36%.

However, the other side of the coin is if there's been a reduction in services (and therefore costs) you don't have to have the same revenue as there was before to cover all your costs.

It's complex, however the overall picture is likely to be, whilst we may not be at 100% of pre Covid levels of use or income there's ongoing growth compared to last year and likely ongoing growth compared to the last quarter. As such whilst there's ongoing growth there needs to be very careful monitoring when it comes to cuts and what impact that may have.

Therefore, ongoing growth compared to last year is essential at this time, growth compared to last quarter would be ideal - however isn't a disaster as long as it's fairly close as the annual rolling total would still improve compared to the end of the last quarter.

The ongoing strikes are an issue with regards to getting more rail use, whilst the government would like the unions to back down it maybe better economically for a bit of flex on both sides so things get sorted so we can see a clearer picture of actual rail use without the strikes impacting the numbers. There's certainly less of a strong argument for making cuts (that's not to rule out the need for some, nor does it mean that - where there's a reasonable plan, although so far most of the talk has been "we'd like to make changes" without providing clear details of what sort of changes are planned and costed - there shouldn't be changes to practices).

With hybrid working it's likely the overall picture may not change that much (i.e. a strike Monday and Tuesday, so go to the office Thursday and Friday), where it will make a difference is the reliability and so people using the service.

Although it should be noted that Hybrid working across much of the country is only even an option for 50% of the workforce (in London it's circa 70%, whilst the Southeast and the East are between the two), so no strikes would still see some improvements.

But we know from the published numbers that revenue is lagging passenger numbers, not the other way round. So your hypothetical about more revenue from fewer passenger-km isn't the case.
The unknown from outside of the industry is the elasticity of demand. For those operators running a reduced service, would increasing services bring in enough additional revenue to justify doing it? Or conversely, can you cut some services and lose a smaller amount of revenue than it costs you to put them on?

 

[The Ham]

But we know from the published numbers that revenue is lagging passenger numbers, not the other way round. So your hypothetical about more revenue from fewer passenger-km isn't the case.
The unknown from outside of the industry is the elasticity of demand. For those operators running a reduced service, would increasing services bring in enough additional revenue to justify doing it? Or conversely, can you cut some services and lose a smaller amount of revenue than it costs you to put them on?

The point wasn't that is what is happening now, but rather that hybrid working doesn't mean that the railways are doomed to forever have lower revenue.

It's one of the reasons why the strikes need to be resolved, as by making them more attractive hybrid working could actually result in more people having fewer cars (in that households could reduce from 2+ cars, rather than necessarily many going to zero cars) if it meant that some of the time a reduced number of cars could be shared between people with some occasional rail travel being undertaken.

For example a couple working in different office locations previously had to go in 5 days a week and so two cars was essential, if they now go in 2 days a week but sometimes (say twice a month) have to go in on the same day is it really worth the extra cost of car ownership if there a viable way for one of them to use rail? (Obviously that varies depending on circumstances and for some a car would be worth it at ours used at other times, for others rail would win out - the issue is that the strikes and reduced timetables means that for far more people the car wins).

On your second point, I've always said we need to assess cuts in a similar way to the way we assess reopenings, so that we know the cost/benefits. As not all cuts would save money (I suspect few cuts would, especially given the NR costs linked to their debt).

 

[RPI]

That comment will go down as one of the most crazy I’ve ever read on this forum.

Likewise, at first I thought it was trolling

 

[The Ham]

I used GWR down to Plymouth from Paddington on Saturday morning returning on Saturday evening. It was a 9 car train all the way through to Penzance in both directions. On the way down passenger numbers were so low wed have comfortably fitted in a 153 except maybe between Exeter and Newton Abbot, on the return I don't think the train would have exceeded 25% and only reached that between Reading and Paddington. Pewsey actually had a surprising amount of passengers for me. I think personal snapshots are too subjective, certainly on my personal experience I'd be moving 166s to Paddington to Penzance services and using the IETs on Portsmouth to Cardiff.

Likewise, at first I thought it was trolling

It clearly was using an example to make a point about how just one off services shouldn't be used as a baseline as to how the whole industry is doing.

There's many reasons why that service was lightly loaded (and therefore how it could be argued that the rotation of rolling stock to more suitable routes should be undertaken).

 

[Xavi]

I used GWR down to Plymouth from Paddington on Saturday morning returning on Saturday evening. It was a 9 car train all the way through to Penzance in both directions. On the way down passenger numbers were so low wed have comfortably fitted in a 153 except maybe between Exeter and Newton Abbot, on the return I don't think the train would have exceeded 25% and only reached that between Reading and Paddington. Pewsey actually had a surprising amount of passengers for me. I think personal snapshots are too subjective, certainly on my personal experience I'd be moving 166s to Paddington to Penzance services and using the IETs on Portsmouth to Cardiff.

Travel in those directions at those times are known to be some of the lightest used services and always will be. You’ll never have busy all of the time, just like roads.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2023 ==

Up to 15% isn't much of a saving, especially when it comes with restrictions

Probably all DfT is willing to allow but at least it’s a start.

 

[stuu]

That comment will go down as one of the most crazy I’ve ever read on this forum.

Only if you deliberately took it out of context, or didn't read it properly, as he was quite clearly making the point that personal experience is not the same as data

 

[dk1]

Only if you deliberately took it out of context, or didn't read it properly, as he was quite clearly making the point that personal experience is not the same as data

Just read it again & see no reason to doubt my comment.

 

[The Ham]

Just read it again & see no reason to doubt my comment.

I drive along the M40 on two trips (at a quiet time of day, but I've not said that) from those two trips I decided that we could rewild one of the carriageways and have one lane in each direction.

Clearly my experience is going to differ from a lot of other people.

For those who only use it when traffic is bad, they would be using their experience to justify an extra lane.

However that would also likely be different from what most people experience.

Both are equally valid experiences, and both come to reasonable conclusions based on those experiences. However both are in the minority and wouldn't really show the likely government policy for that section of road.

 

[43096]

The figures make it more and more difficult for the Government to justify its damaging agenda of cuts.

They’re actually pretty irrelevant in terms of the Government’s issue. The problem is revenue.

It seems many still can’t get it into their heads that there is a difference!!!

 

[stuu]

Just read it again & see no reason to doubt my comment.

Even the key bit where he wrote "personal snapshots are too subjective"? Pretty clear to me that what follows is not a serious suggestion

 

[dk1]

Even the key bit where he wrote "personal snapshots are too subjective"? Pretty clear to me that what follows is not a serious suggestion

We all read things in a different way.

 

[yorksrob]

They’re actually pretty irrelevant in terms of the Government’s issue. The problem is revenue.

It seems many still can’t get it into their heads that there is a difference!!!

No, it's this Government that still can't get it into their heads that you can't grow revenue by trashing the product.

 

[The Ham]

They’re actually pretty irrelevant in terms of the Government’s issue. The problem is revenue.

It seems many still can’t get it into their heads that there is a difference!!!

The problem is revenue, however the problem comes when you try and square the circle of making cuts to reach the point where you've made enough cuts to balance against the revenue.

As the more you cut the more you need to cut as fewer people will find the service useful.

That's before you consider some of the fixed costs (like the Network Rail debt payments), which would exist even if there was no railways.

Likewise on the other side of coin your lease income is likely to fall if not many people use the railways.

It's therefore not as easy as cuts are good/bad, when it comes to revenue.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is there a similar reporting for rail revenue?

 

[ScotGG]

That’s good, but likely happening in spite of the timetable, rather than because of it!

Absolutely. Southeastern serve areas with some of the highest population and housing growth in London and beyond.

That's what made their/the DFT decision to cut so parochial as it didn't factor in a myriad of large-scale housing developments around stations. We've got Ebbsfleet, lots of others around Dartford, Lewisham, Kidbrooke and many more hotspots of growth with people moving in all the time right now.

 

[Killingworth]

I was speaking to an older couple this morning when they told me how wonderful the modern railway is. They've discovered split ticketing and are really pleased with themselves to find how much they can save.

First stage today was a bit of a worry in case they wouldn't connect with stage 2. I've just checked, they'll have done it with 10 minutes to spare. Stages 2 and 3 were on the same train but they'd have to move 3 coaches.

Every week more are discovering this and tentatively starting to try it, then they're hooked. Split ticketing is skewing statistics in ways we may find hard to evaluate.

In the case above the couple had bought 6 tickets for their 2 journeys. That means a loss of revenue for the total mileage travelled and a reduced average journey length.

Result is revenue can well go down as apparent numbers of journeys are up. There are dangers in getting too optimistic about passenger numbers calculated by tickets sold alone. It's the revenue bottom line that's most important.

I have a few journeys booked in the next fortnight. I may try Seatfrog to upgrade to First and add a few pounds into that revenue pot. Seeing all those empty seats I can see the advantage of trying to fill them at a discount.

 

[Krokodil]

Split ticketing is skewing statistics in ways we may find hard to evaluate.

I've noticed that the station usage statistics for Llanfairfechan have absolutely ballooned this year. Almost certainly because there's a common split involving the station.

 

[modernrail]

I used GWR down to Plymouth from Paddington on Saturday morning returning on Saturday evening. It was a 9 car train all the way through to Penzance in both directions. On the way down passenger numbers were so low wed have comfortably fitted in a 153 except maybe between Exeter and Newton Abbot, on the return I don't think the train would have exceeded 25% and only reached that between Reading and Paddington. Pewsey actually had a surprising amount of passengers for me. I think personal snapshots are too subjective, certainly on my personal experience I'd be moving 166s to Paddington to Penzance services and using the IETs on Portsmouth to Cardiff.

I was on an Avanti service Crewe to London on Saturday that was pretty lightly loaded. It could have been the fact that nobody really believes an Avanti services will turn up any more and so passenger numbers are just down but I also noted there were no advance fares available for any service that day that I could see. I very nearly caught a LNWR service because of that and I wonder how many actually did.

GWR and Avanti seem to have the worst availability of well priced Advance fares over the last few months and that must be putting completely discretionary users off.

Meanwhile LNER is being very intelligent and giving people a deal finder option to fill up all the gaps. DfT should be mandating that innovation across the industry in my view. There must be many who would consider a last minute day out or rail rather than road if they knew there was a good tool to find the cheap seats on lightly loaded services.

 

[al78]

I drive along the M40 on two trips (at a quiet time of day, but I've not said that) from those two trips I decided that we could rewild one of the carriageways and have one lane in each direction.

Clearly my experience is going to differ from a lot of other people.

For those who only use it when traffic is bad, they would be using their experience to justify an extra lane.

However that would also likely be different from what most people experience.

Both are equally valid experiences, and both come to reasonable conclusions based on those experiences. However both are in the minority and wouldn't really show the likely government policy for that section of road.

They are not reasonable conclusions if their experiences do not represent the overall distribution because the sample size is too small or biased, regardless of what their personal experience is. Anecdote =/ data, and poor application of statistical analysis leads to poor decision making.

 

[The Ham]

I was speaking to an older couple this morning when they told me how wonderful the modern railway is. They've discovered split ticketing and are really pleased with themselves to find how much they can save.

First stage today was a bit of a worry in case they wouldn't connect with stage 2. I've just checked, they'll have done it with 10 minutes to spare. Stages 2 and 3 were on the same train but they'd have to move 3 coaches.

Every week more are discovering this and tentatively starting to try it, then they're hooked. Split ticketing is skewing statistics in ways we may find hard to evaluate.

In the case above the couple had bought 6 tickets for their 2 journeys. That means a loss of revenue for the total mileage travelled and a reduced average journey length.

Result is revenue can well go down as apparent numbers of journeys are up. There are dangers in getting too optimistic about passenger numbers calculated by tickets sold alone. It's the revenue bottom line that's most important.

I have a few journeys booked in the next fortnight. I may try Seatfrog to upgrade to First and add a few pounds into that revenue pot. Seeing all those empty seats I can see the advantage of trying to fill them at a discount.

Whilst this is an issue, the rate of growth using either passengers or km compared to the corresponding previous quarter is quite significant

As an example on the km usage rates for the country as a whole (excluding the Elizabeth Line) the differences between Q2 2021/22 and Q2 2022/23 was an increase of about +29% (by being km data it excludes double counting split tickets) this then compared to the circa +32% for passenger numbers.

That may be in part due to a lot of the growth being shorter trips rather than necessarily people splitting tickets, although of course splitting tickets would be some of that increase.

However, it does indicate that the increase is limited (variation of no more than 10%).

They are not reasonable conclusions if their experiences do not represent the overall distribution because the sample size is too small or biased, regardless of what their personal experience is. Anecdote =/ data, and poor application of statistical analysis leads to poor decision making.

That's exactly the point that I'm making, just because one person experiences the busiest time and one experiences the quietest time based on their view they will come to vastly different answers - both of which are wrong.

 

[squizzler]

By far the biggest increase in passenger numbers compared to three years ago is the Elizabeth line. That line, alone, is responsible for around 15% of all national rail passengers.

As an example on the km usage rates for the country as a whole (excluding the Elizabeth Line) the differences between Q2 2021/22 and Q2 2022/23 was an increase of about +29% (by being km data it excludes double counting split tickets) this then compared to the circa +32% for passenger numbers.

I do not believe that we should separate out the Elizabeth line for the purposes of measuring the ridership recovery. Are we arguing that opening a new line represents moving the goalposts, and is somehow cheating?

Yet there are new bicycle lanes opened all the time and we don’t regard it as cheating to include riders who use the new infrastructure in national travel statistics. Similarly we don’t measure air travel in the absence of Heathrow’s terminal 5 just because it’s comparatively big and new and it’s inclusion in passenger figures would thus be unsporting.

 

[Bald Rick]

I do not believe that we should separate out the Elizabeth line for the purposes of measuring the ridership recovery. Are we arguing that opening a new line represents moving the goalposts, and is somehow cheating?

I agree. But we must also remember that opening a new line, or running new services (eg EMR) also comes with running costs.

And we must also remember that these additional passengers were assumed to happen in the Pre Covid forecasts. Whilst we have flatlined at about 85% of 2019 passengers, and 82% of 2019 revenue this year so far (taking out the effect of the strikes), we should have been at about 110% and 120% respectively.

 

[JonathanH]

Whilst we have flatlined at about 85% of 2019 passengers, and 82% of 2019 revenue this year so far (taking out the effect of the strikes), we should have been at about 110% and 120% respectively.

And costs?

Are they in the region of 110% of 2019? More?

A figure that high would really illustrate the predicament the railway is in. Even worse if they aren't flatlining or falling.

 

[Meerkat]

I do not believe that we should separate out the Elizabeth line for the purposes of measuring the ridership recovery. Are we arguing that opening a new line represents moving the goalposts, and is somehow cheating?

Depends what you are using the stats for. If you are arguing that ridership has recovered from pre Covid then of course it is correct to remove the Elizabeth Line, so that you are comparing like with like.

 

[Krokodil]

I do not believe that we should separate out the Elizabeth line for the purposes of measuring the ridership recovery. Are we arguing that opening a new line represents moving the goalposts, and is somehow cheating?

On the contrary, I believe that we should be separating out different operations for analysis. I fail to see why trains being quiet on an NSE operator should mean that packed services in the regions should be cut.