UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[philosopher]

Yesterday I got a few different trains and there were the following issues: stuck waiting in a tunnel outside Birmingham New Street for over 10 minutes which caused me to miss my connection there (the train was already 10 minutes delayed). I then got the train from Birmingham NS to Bristol TM which had been reduced to 4 cars from 8 due to 'staff sickness'. This meant it was rammed full. We were then stuck in a siding outside BTM for nearly 30 minutes waiting for a platform that could connect to the other 4 cars for the return journey. So the reduction of stock not only made the journey unpleasant but extended it by half an hour. This then caused me to miss my final connecting train and I was an hour and a half late on arrival.

Return journey. train 20 minutes late waiting for the train at Bristol to Edinburgh. We were then waiting a while for it to leave as there was loads of trains backed up around Bristol Parkway due to a tresspass incident at Yate. I thus missed my connecting train at New Street. When I got on my last train at New Street there was no working toilets on board so we had an extended stop at Crewe.

I wouldn't even consider that a particularly bad day's travel these days is what's worse, as it ultimately got me there and back and I wasn't too late home. Particularly on a weekend. For the price you pay it's just not a reliable or comfortable journey a lot of the time and can be very stressful and unreliable and unpunctual.

If I was an infrequent or first time traveller on the railways and I had such a journey as the one you described, I don’t think I would return the railways in too much of a hurry.

 

[imagination]

Outside inner London, and the centre of a couple of other big counties, Group 1 is by far the largest group. Of those aged 18-75, I’d suggest it’s over 90%.

Given that the latest census showed that almost everywhere in the country more than 10% of households don't have a car at all and thus fall into group 3 I'd be very surprised if that were the case. It's 23% nationally - excluding London (and that's all London, not just the inner parts, and pretty much all of London drags the average up) that would drop but only to about 20%. In no region is it below 16.8%.

Plus there are plenty of people who live in households with a car but who would still fall into group 3.

And then you've got the group 2 as well, which is a not insignificant proportion of those left.

Group 1 is probably the largest group, but I'd be surprised if it was even a majority on a national level. The idea that it's over 90% in any area of meaningful size is just nonsense.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that the latest census showed that almost everywhere in the country more than 10% of households don't have a car at all and thus fall into group 3 I'd be very surprised if that were the case. It's 23% nationally - excluding London (and that's all London, not just the inner parts, and pretty much all of London drags the average up) that would drop but only to about 20%. In no region is it below 16.8%.

Plus there are plenty of people who live in households with a car but who would still fall into group 3.

And then you've got the group 2 as well, which is a not insignificant proportion of those left.

Group 1 is probably the largest group, but I'd be surprised if it was even a majority on a national level. The idea that it's over 90% in any area of meaningful size is just nonsense.

fair enough.
Maybe it’s just me - but I‘ve had a think for 10 minutes and can’t think of any ‘households’ I know without access to a car, and who don’t prefer to use it in most circumstances. (Unless the train is much easier / quicker). And I work on the railway. I don’t know any ‘households’ in Group 3, ie where nobody drives.

 

[alastair]

The unreliability of the trains doesn't help numbers and the service is getting worse with cutbacks/staffing/maintenance problems.

Yesterday I got a few different trains and there were the following issues: stuck waiting in a tunnel outside Birmingham New Street for over 10 minutes which caused me to miss my connection there (the train was already 10 minutes delayed). I then got the train from Birmingham NS to Bristol TM which had been reduced to 4 cars from 8 due to 'staff sickness'. This meant it was rammed full. We were then stuck in a siding outside BTM for nearly 30 minutes waiting for a platform that could connect to the other 4 cars for the return journey. So the reduction of stock not only made the journey unpleasant but extended it by half an hour. This then caused me to miss my final connecting train and I was an hour and a half late on arrival.

Return journey. train 20 minutes late waiting for the train at Bristol to Edinburgh. We were then waiting a while for it to leave as there was loads of trains backed up around Bristol Parkway due to a tresspass incident at Yate. I thus missed my connecting train at New Street. When I got on my last train at New Street there was no working toilets on board so we had an extended stop at Crewe.

I wouldn't even consider that a particularly bad day's travel these days is what's worse, as it ultimately got me there and back and I wasn't too late home. Particularly on a weekend. For the price you pay it's just not a reliable or comfortable journey a lot of the time and can be very stressful and unreliable and unpunctual.

Sounds like a bad day. I note that you don't mention Delay Repay at all? 30 mins is 50% and 60 mins 100% on XC I think. I hope you have claimed.

 

[Trainbike46]

fair enough.
Maybe it’s just me - but I‘ve had a think for 10 minutes and can’t think of any ‘households’ I know without access to a car, and who don’t prefer to use it in most circumstances. (Unless the train is much easier / quicker). And I work on the railway. I don’t know any ‘households’ in Group 3, ie where nobody drives.

Depending on how you define "households," but here in what I've heard is the most car-dependent city in Europe, I know more group 3 households than group 2 households, and I can't think of a single group 1 household

 

[Killingworth]

fair enough.
Maybe it’s just me - but I‘ve had a think for 10 minutes and can’t think of any ‘households’ I know without access to a car, and who don’t prefer to use it in most circumstances. (Unless the train is much easier / quicker). And I work on the railway. I don’t know any ‘households’ in Group 3, ie where nobody drives.

Within 100 yards of where I'm sitting are two detached houses with garages and drives but no cars - Group 3. I'm not sure what that proves, except both get everything home delivered and the occupiers rarely go very far.

 

[Meerkat]

People have a tendency to moan about how bad everything is and then elect governments who don’t prioritise public services.

I think you just undid a load of your previous argument!

I think some people above have decided that not having a car means you need trains. You might need buses, taxis, hire cars, but the number of people who need to do long journeys and don't therefore get themselves a car must be pretty minimal. If you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to travel far, if you can't physically drive then you probably dont need/want to travel train distances very often, if you live in a city then the train services you require probably aren't under threat.

 

[43066]

Depending on how you define "households," but here in what I've heard is the most car-dependent city in Europe, I know more group 3 households than group 2 households, and I can't think of a single group 1 household

There are a hell of lot of people who go without a car in Greater London. I’m one of them, and I’m in group three (albeit I can drive, and could afford a car, but choose to go without). I can think of a dozen or so households in the same position, off the top of my head.

I think @Bald Rick hails from a rather affluent town in the near-home counties, and presumably also knows quite a few shift workers, so it’s perhaps not surprising he knows more with cars than the average. Albeit many in his part of the world will be typical of those who have cars but also use trains regularly.

I think you just undid a load of your previous argument!

Do you? Oh well, I don’t!

I think some people above have decided that not having a car means you need trains. You might need buses, taxis, hire cars, but the number of people who need to do long journeys and don't therefore get themselves a car must be pretty minimal. If you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to travel far, if you can't physically drive then you probably dont need/want to travel train distances very often, if you live in a city then the train services you require probably aren't under threat.

I think this is just yet more unfounded supposition on your behalf. There are plenty of people in this country, including many who have cars, who use trains for all sorts of journeys which they could not easily replicate by any other mode. You are free to believe whatever you want, of course.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think some people above have decided that not having a car means you need trains. You might need buses, taxis, hire cars, but the number of people who need to do long journeys and don't therefore get themselves a car must be pretty minimal. If you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to travel far, if you can't physically drive then you probably dont need/want to travel train distances very often, if you live in a city then the train services you require probably aren't under threat.

This is incorrect on so many levels, and feels like something you've just made up, but to point out an obvious error:

why would people who can't drive due to age or disability not need or want to travel far? That really doesn't follow!

 

[Bald Rick]

There are a hell of lot of people who go without a car in Greater London. I’m one of them, and I’m in group three (albeit I can drive, and could afford a car, but choose to go without). I can think of a dozen or so households in the same position, off the top of my head.

I think @Bald Rick hails from a rather affluent town in the near-home counties, and presumably also knows quite a few shift workers, so it’s perhaps not surprising he knows more with cars than the average. Albeit many in his part of the world will be typical of those who have cars but also use trains regularly.

You’re in group two old boy - can drive but choose not to. Group three is those that can’t drive.

My “90% in group 1“ was qualified as being 90% of those between 18-75 and not living in inner London or the centre of a couple of other big cities. I know a lot of people all around the country, not just in my city (not town, how dare you!). As I said, I don’t know any household (ie one or more person living at the same property) in group 2 or 3.

 

[philosopher]

Given that the latest census showed that almost everywhere in the country more than 10% of households don't have a car at all and thus fall into group 3 I'd be very surprised if that were the case. It's 23% nationally - excluding London (and that's all London, not just the inner parts, and pretty much all of London drags the average up) that would drop but only to about 20%. In no region is it below 16.8%.

Plus there are plenty of people who live in households with a car but who would still fall into group 3.

And then you've got the group 2 as well, which is a not insignificant proportion of those left.

Group 1 is probably the largest group, but I'd be surprised if it was even a majority on a national level. The idea that it's over 90% in any area of meaningful size is just nonsense.

In London, I think there is large percentage of the population who can drive but choose not to own a car due to the cost of owning a car and higher quality of public transport in London compared to elsewhere in the country. In addition, driving in London tends to be more stressful and slower than elsewhere due to higher congestion. So London I suspect would have a relatively high proportion in the second group, in that they can drive but prefer not too.

If you live in quiet rural area driving would for the most part be relatively stress free and journeys would generally be fairly quick, so you would expect far more in the first group.

 

[43066]

You’re in group two old boy - can drive but choose not to. Group three is those that can’t drive.

I’m not sure.

I think the adult population can broadly be split into three groups. The first group like driving and highly value the car’s convenience and comfort. This group I find will only use railways if it particularly time consuming or costly to drive, such as journeys into Central London where congestion and parking plus congestion charges seem to deter all but the most keen drivers. The second group can drive but don’t like driving, they may find driving stressful or tedious. They may have a car, but will have one out of necessity to undertake trips that are very difficult to undertake by public transport. The third group don’t drive at all, they may have not bothered to learn or can’t due to medical or financial reasons.

I both can drive, but don’t drive. It’s not totally clear from the above whether I’m in two or three. Either way, I can think of quite a few in a similar position.

not just in my city (not town, how dare you!)

I suppose it has an Abbey. It’s bad enough having this argument with people from oop north, I refuse to have it with someone from the Home Counties!

As I said, I don’t know any household (ie one or more person living at the same property) in group 2 or 3.

If you include households with no car, who could afford one but don’t have them, there are many in London. Far fewer in your *ahem* city . Albeit I suspect there will be few car owners living near you who don’t also use the train at least semi regularly.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If I was an infrequent or first time traveller on the railways and I had such a journey as the one you described, I don’t think I would return the railways in too much of a hurry.

Which is exactly what happens when people randomly take the train and then have this experience they wont return for years and they will tell loads more people about that poor journey experience. When they have an average journey they will tell no one if they have a good experience they may tell a few people.

Fortunately despite what was described 85-90% of journeys are delivered as timetabled

 

[Jimini]

Straying further off topic (sorry), but just as a point of interest on the car ownership piece, when I bought my flat in South Woodford in 2011, it was an extra £10k for a dedicated parking spot in the basement. That's a big old number for someone buying a property when you'll likely only use a car once every few months or so, and you have the central line a five minute walk down the road.

 

[43066]

Straying further off topic (sorry), but just as a point of interest on the car ownership piece, when I bought my flat in South Woodford in 2011, it was an extra £10k for a dedicated parking spot in the basement. That's a big old number for someone buying a property when you'll likely only use a car once every few months or so.

Then again you can rent them out. The space where I used to live (zone 3, in an underground secure car park) was worth £100 per month or so. I can’t believe a space in somewhere like South Woodford would be any less, so that would be a pretty decent yield on £10K!

 

[Jimini]

Then again you can rent them out. The space where I used to live (zone 3, in an underground secure car park) was worth £100 per month or so. That would be a pretty decent yield on £10K!

Tricky one, that. They only issue road access fobs to cars registered on the complex long term, so a bit of an administrative nightmare if you try that trick.

All other fobs only open pedestrian gates, and for the underground car park access, just a 30 degree or so ingress (so bikes / peds all ok, but nothing bigger).

 

[Bald Rick]

If you include households with no car, who could afford one but don’t have them, there are many in London.

Hence my “not in inner London…” qualifier!

This has really tested me for the last hour. I’ve been through my contacts list (over 1000) and of those whom I know their ‘driving status’, not one of them (in the age group 18-75 and not living in inner London) lives in a household where driving isn’t the default option unless the train is significantly quicker or easier (Eg, going to central London).

Perhaps I have an unusual group of friends / acquaintances / colleagues.

 

[mrmartin]

Straying further off topic (sorry), but just as a point of interest on the car ownership piece, when I bought my flat in South Woodford in 2011, it was an extra £10k for a dedicated parking spot in the basement. That's a big old number for someone buying a property when you'll likely only use a car once every few months or so, and you have the central line a five minute walk down the road.

Really cheap. My development isn't that far from you and it was £75k for a parking spot.

 

[yorksrob]

Not if a lot of them are only occasional users who could easily use alternatives or just not go - they wont be banging down their MPs door to have their taxes increased to give to the railway.

Is it all that accepted - it whiffs a bit of perpetual motion. And if the principle holds it applies to other competing public spending demands.

I don't think trains into central London are under threat under any scenario. Buses are a very good substitutes for some lines - they go where people live , cover more areas, and are more frequent for a given budget.

Progressive is always important when you are spending taxpayer money.

I have not studied the figures to see how comparable they are, and they are other countries so why is it relevant?

Progressive is important.

Yet it's funny how in these discussions, it's always the regional railway, which will serve a generally more diverse demographic than the London commuter routes that always seems to be under threat.

As for other countries, I'd far rather see what works elsewhere than be perpetually locked into the failed Establishment vested interest that passes for policy over here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

I think you just undid a load of your previous argument!

I think some people above have decided that not having a car means you need trains. You might need buses, taxis, hire cars, but the number of people who need to do long journeys and don't therefore get themselves a car must be pretty minimal. If you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to travel far, if you can't physically drive then you probably dont need/want to travel train distances very often, if you live in a city then the train services you require probably aren't under threat.

I can assure you that unless you have no need to move out of your own county, not running a car absolutely does mean that you need trains.

You're just illustrating that you've had a car for so long, you don't have a clue about the practicalities of not having one.

 

[Meerkat]

why would people who can't drive due to age or disability not need or want to travel far? That really doesn't follow!

Because they have mobility issues so travel is hassle - how do they get to/from the stations at each end etc. Get a coach holiday with a nearer pickup, drops at the door of your hotel and day trips, and a guaranteed seat etc

it's always the regional railway, which will serve a generally more diverse demographic than the London commuter routes that always seems to be under threat.

More diverse than London??! Love to see your stats for that! Inner suburban is incredibly diverse (on all counts), outer suburban doesn't need significant subsidy (and has taken significant cuts in absolute terms)

I can assure you that unless you have no need to move out of your own county, not running a car absolutely does mean that you need trains.

What 'need' is there to move out of your own county? You are into 'wants' and then the justification for subsidies starts to get harder, particularly as those struggling for money are less likely to be travelling as unable to afford the costs of holidays so you are subsidising those who could pay for it.

 

[43066]

Because they have mobility issues so travel is hassle - how do they get to/from the stations at each end etc. Get a coach holiday with a nearer pickup, drops at the door of your hotel and day trips, and a guaranteed seat etc

Seriously?

What 'need' is there to move out of your own county? You are into 'wants' and then the justification for subsidies starts to get harder, particularly as those struggling for money are less likely to be travelling as unable to afford the costs of holidays so you are subsidising those who could pay for it.

Again missing the point that tourism is a tad important to the UK economy…

 

[WelshBluebird]

fair enough.
Maybe it’s just me - but I‘ve had a think for 10 minutes and can’t think of any ‘households’ I know without access to a car, and who don’t prefer to use it in most circumstances. (Unless the train is much easier / quicker). And I work on the railway. I don’t know any ‘households’ in Group 3, ie where nobody drives.

I think a lot of it is just the people you know.
In terms of households that don't have a car, most of the people I know fall into that category!
Certainly myself and my fiancé (one household) do. As do my parents. As do most of my friends. As do some of my coworkers.
But I am of a slightly younger age where less people own a car (or even learn to drive in the first place), I live in in a city where I don't have the need to drive, and most of my friends live in a nearby smaller city where driving is even less of a necessity. Most of the people I know who drive are either older or live in a less accessible place.

if you can't physically drive then you probably dont need/want to travel train distances very often

I honestly have zero idea how you get that conclusion from the premise of the scenario. You realise "can't physically drive" includes conditions and illnesses where you can live a pretty normal life right?

Because they have mobility issues so travel is hassle

Well for a start we aren't just talking about mobility issues. We are also talking about things like epilepsy etc, conditions that for the most part are perfectly under control and have little impact day to day but mean the person isn't allowed to drive.

how do they get to/from the stations at each end etc

Buses, a friend giving them a lift, taxi, etc etc.

 

[Tezza1978]

Outside inner London, and the centre of a couple of other big counties, Group 1 is by far the largest group. Of those aged 18-75, I’d suggest it’s over 90%.

That figure must be some way off even for some parts of the South East/a lot of the South West/the largely rural North East (maybe only 70% max?) Id question the assertion even more for the North West/Greater Manchester/Merseyside/ parts of Yorkshire /parts of other major cities, particularly for the under 30s. As a student and then graduate in Manchester - only a fairly small % of my friends and wider acquaintances (and then work colleagues under 30) owned a car, despite having passed their test. While that may not be entirely representative of the whole population, I'd wager for that age group its only around 50% in category 1 at best, then maybe another 10 or 15% in category 2 (infrequent users who own cars). Once people reach their 30s and other factors come into play (moving away from city centres /starting families/changing jobs) then car use naturally ratchets up, but I still dont think in those areas the" I love my car" category 1 brigade reaches more than 60% with another 15-20% in the "use my car when I have to" category

 

[railfan99]

Stewartby station on the Bletchley to Bedford ('Varsity?' 'Marston Vale?') line had total boarding and alighting passengers of 61,572 in pre-COVID 2018-19, rising pleasingly to 76,872 in 2021-22. Did frequency improve on this line, or was there more housing built and occupied?

Yet patronage at all other stations on this short line declined. Was this due to East-West rail line works meaning trains were replaced by buses?

 

[Trainbike46]

Because they have mobility issues so travel is hassle - how do they get to/from the stations at each end etc. Get a coach holiday with a nearer pickup, drops at the door of your hotel and day trips, and a guaranteed seat etc

Do you not see how ableist the bit in bold is?

 

[al78]

I can assure you that unless you have no need to move out of your own county, not running a car absolutely does mean that you need trains.

Not necessarily. If you only need to do long distance journeys very occasionally you can join a car club if one is available in your area or hire a car. I went for several years without a car and used a bicycle to do the daily intercounty 10 mile journey between home and my workplace. I have even cycled 15+ miles in preference to using a train because getting trains on a Sunday where a connection is needed can be slower than cycling the full distance, and much more hassle if there is engineering work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

What 'need' is there to move out of your own county?

If your workplace is in a different county to your home.
If you have dependant family who live in a different county and need your assistance occasionally.

 

[Dr Day]

I can assure you that unless you have no need to move out of your own county, not running a car absolutely does mean that you need trains.

For me and my neighbours in south Glos (99% of which fall into category 1), despite living about a mile from a railway station. first and foremost not running a car absolutely does mean we need buses. Don't get me wrong - I much prefer train travel over bus/coach and I like a scenic train ride as much as anyone- but if there was a choice between a fixed public transport subsidy being spent on increasing my train service from hourly to half hourly, or spending the equivalent per annum on better bus coverage and frequency/more express buses I'm confident the latter would have a bigger impact on reducing car use in this part of the world. Trains are great for travel into cities, particularly if the main station is well located for where you actually want to go (which in Bristol isn't generally), but for more day-to-day needs buses still have to be a big part of the transport mix.

 

[squizzler]

This may be a generalisation, but I think the adult population can broadly be split into three groups. The first group like driving and highly value the car’s convenience and comfort. This group I find will only use railways if it particularly time consuming or costly to drive, such as journeys into Central London where congestion and parking plus congestion charges seem to deter all but the most keen drivers. The second group can drive but don’t like driving, they may find driving stressful or tedious. They may have a car, but will have one out of necessity to undertake trips that are very difficult to undertake by public transport. The third group don’t drive at all, they may have not bothered to learn or can’t due to medical or financial reasons.

I agree it is a generalisation, but certainly may be of merit in a discussion of motoring habits as things stand. However - at the risk of being provocative - this is a rail forum, and motoring is but one alternative to trains in some instances. Is your fixation on motoring specifically an implication that motoring is the lowest hanging fruit we should be focussing rather than other modes which presumably have a more secure case? Talking of the other modes:

Many adults like cycling, are invested in performance bikes and kit and will take the bike everywhere they can
Some people don't have nice bikes or specialist cycling kit and only use them for commuting and groceries
Some people don't even own a bike, think it is too hard or lack confidence they can do it safely, and never ride.

Many adults are plane nuts and will take the plane everywhere they can
Some people don't like flying but will fly to destinations impractical to reach on the train
Some people find the idea terrifying and unnatural and would never set foot on a plane.

Etc, etc.

As motoring gets eaten into at the high end by rail and air travel, and at the lower end by bicycles and micro mobility we see habits are not set in stone, and trying to categorise people into neat, tidy categories will be eroded by circumstances.

 

[yorksrob]

More diverse than London??! Love to see your stats for that! Inner suburban is incredibly diverse (on all counts), outer suburban doesn't need significant subsidy (and has taken significant cuts in absolute terms)

What 'need' is there to move out of your own county? You are into 'wants' and then the justification for subsidies starts to get harder, particularly as those struggling for money are less likely to be travelling as unable to afford the costs of holidays so you are subsidising those who could pay for it.

I dare say that the inner suburban area is incredibly diverse, just as the regional railway (and some South Eastern services such as the Coastway) are. The fact is though that one has to be on a reasonable salary to afford the longer commutes into London. If you're going to have a passenger railway, you need to make available to the regions as well.

And of course, there's no reason to ever leave one's county - if you're a medieval serf !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

Not necessarily. If you only need to do long distance journeys very occasionally you can join a car club if one is available in your area or hire a car. I went for several years without a car and used a bicycle to do the daily intercounty 10 mile journey between home and my workplace. I have even cycled 15+ miles in preference to using a train because getting trains on a Sunday where a connection is needed can be slower than cycling the full distance, and much more hassle if there is engineering work.

That does pre-suppose you knowing how to drive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

For me and my neighbours in south Glos (99% of which fall into category 1), despite living about a mile from a railway station. first and foremost not running a car absolutely does mean we need buses. Don't get me wrong - I much prefer train travel over bus/coach and I like a scenic train ride as much as anyone- but if there was a choice between a fixed public transport subsidy being spent on increasing my train service from hourly to half hourly, or spending the equivalent per annum on better bus coverage and frequency/more express buses I'm confident the latter would have a bigger impact on reducing car use in this part of the world. Trains are great for travel into cities, particularly if the main station is well located for where you actually want to go (which in Bristol isn't generally), but for more day-to-day needs buses still have to be a big part of the transport mix.

Buses are very important, but tend to only be practical up to a certain distance. (This was re-emphasised to me during the recent industrial action).

I think publicsubsidy of the bus system is good, but not in place of the railway network.

 

[Krokodil]

If I was an infrequent or first time traveller on the railways and I had such a journey as the one you described, I don’t think I would return the railways in too much of a hurry.

I wouldn't blame you. This is why we need to invest in our railways to ensure a more reliable service.

I think you just undid a load of your previous argument!

I think some people above have decided that not having a car means you need trains. You might need buses, taxis, hire cars, but the number of people who need to do long journeys and don't therefore get themselves a car must be pretty minimal. If you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to travel far, if you can't physically drive then you probably dont need/want to travel train distances very often, if you live in a city then the train services you require probably aren't under threat.

What 'need' is there to move out of your own county?

A fairly common commute here is about 15 miles. 30 minutes by train, 75 minutes by bus. Funnily enough, of those who want to do the full journey, the bus is only used by those for whom cost is far more paramount than time. Of course you "need" to move out of your own county if that's where your work is, you're sounding like those zealots on Oxford City Council who want to penalise anyone who wants to travel between different parts of the city. Why would you buy a car specifically because you travel long distances? The average car journey is less than a third of the distance of the average train journey.

You’re in group two old boy - can drive but choose not to. Group three is those that can’t drive.

My “90% in group 1“ was qualified as being 90% of those between 18-75 and not living in inner London or the centre of a couple of other big cities. I know a lot of people all around the country, not just in my city (not town, how dare you!). As I said, I don’t know any household (ie one or more person living at the same property) in group 2 or 3.

Group 1 are the ones whose car keys will be prised out of their cold, dead hands. Even if public transport was free and got you to your destination before you'd even left, they'd still be wedded to their gas guzzlers. The only time you'd see them on a train is if they are going to the races or on a night out where they would be prohibited from driving home. Buses? Only the bendy bus that shuttles them between an airport gate and the aircraft.

Group 2 were the ones who do own cars but consider driving to be a chore rather than a pleasure, so if they can use the train they will, possibly using the car to drive to the station. If they get there and discover that the train has been cancelled they'll drive on.

43066 and myself don't even own cars so don't fall into this category, we'd need a different category between 2 and 3 but are closer to the latter. If public transport isn't running and it's too far to walk/cycle then we'll have to rearrange our plans or (if desperate) shell out for a taxi. With prior notice we can hire cars because we do have licences. We'll call this group 2B.

Group 3 couldn't drive a car even if they wanted to. Hiring cars isn't an option.

Most of the country will be in group 2 (even if they don't use the train regularly, they would if they could), with city-dwellers leaning towards group 2B.

For me and my neighbours in south Glos (99% of which fall into category 1), despite living about a mile from a railway station. first and foremost not running a car absolutely does mean we need buses. Don't get me wrong - I much prefer train travel over bus/coach and I like a scenic train ride as much as anyone- but if there was a choice between a fixed public transport subsidy being spent on increasing my train service from hourly to half hourly, or spending the equivalent per annum on better bus coverage and frequency/more express buses I'm confident the latter would have a bigger impact on reducing car use in this part of the world. Trains are great for travel into cities, particularly if the main station is well located for where you actually want to go (which in Bristol isn't generally), but for more day-to-day needs buses still have to be a big part of the transport mix.

One of the main reasons that I moved out of Bristol was the fact that it was utterly gridlocked and seemed incapable of sorting out proper public transport. How many times was the Bristol Supertram talked about and shelved? Metrobus sounds like a better system but is still a poor substitute (mainline electrification and the Portishead line might be sorted by the time that I'm an OAP).