UK Rail Passenger Numbers Discussion

[DC1989]

Interesting to hear the different perspectives on what how many people they know that fit into the different 'groups'. I recall some protests against a Hackney LTN where the protestor was saying Hackneys figures were wrong -that the vast majority in the borough don't own a vehicle. Look around they said - there's cars everywhere, no chance that 80% of adults in Hackney don't have a car. Just goes to show much much cars dominant public street space even in an area of the country with the lowest amount of cars.

I also remember some NIMBY objecting to a new development where I live - a car free development next to a tube station. This is ridiculous she said, everyone I know in the borough has at least two cars

Cars per household is a poor measure I think. Especially with the combination of younger adults living at home longer due to the housing crisis and lower car driving rates - you could have a married couple with their 3 adult children where only the parents drive and that would count as a 'car owning household' despite the majority of the house not driving. This example applied to me and my siblings until we moved out and most of my friends too actually.

The other aspect of course is that once you have paid for a car (either up front, monthly payments or whatever) you are going to want to use it, even for journeys that may be quicker, cheaper, easier by train.

 

[L+Y]

The #1 mode for convincing residents to not use their car is rail.

Trams #2 and buses #3 (illogical as the latter may seem), but rail is #1 by many lengths in horseracing parlance.

Anecdotally, I think this is true. Growing up in Rufford in Lancashire, the hourly Ormskirk-Preston train, whilst hardly packed, would always have a good handful of passengers compared to the hourly Ormskirk-Preston bus, which really did cart around fresh air.

Why is this? A discussion for another thread?

 

[Krokodil]

I wonder how many of the people outside city/town centres who exist 'without a car' exist without access to a car?
Ie those older folk who have friends/relatives who drive them for anything outside their walking distance, or get taxis everywhere.

I remember your sort of judgmental attitude when I sold my car. "You'll just be asking everyone for lifts..." my response was unprintable but suffice it to say that the second word was "off".

None of the people I mentioned rely on the goodwill of others, they use varying mixes of cycling and public transport (my neighbour is in her fifties so not exactly young but still uses her electric bike to get to work). I would sooner cycle 12 miles each way, up and down the Welsh hills to a friend's garden railway (complete with live steam loco in panniers) than ask for a lift.

The #1 mode for convincing residents to not use their car is rail.

Trams #2 and buses #3 (illogical as the latter may seem), but rail is #1 by many lengths in horseracing parlance.

Agreed. There are a lot of people who wouldn't be seen dead in a bus, whereas trains cater to all levels of wealth - even the late Queen used scheduled services to get to Norfolk.

 

[tomuk]

Say someone wanted to travel to London. Group 1 would drive all the way and just stomach all of the different charges that you end up paying as a consequence. Group 2 would use public transport for at least part of the journey, whether they drove to their nearest railway station and drove from there, or drove as far as the outer reaches of the Tube and used it as a park-and-ride. The balance of convenience is very much in group 2's mind whereas group 1 are a lost cause.

Would they? Even a hardened petrolhead as you put it isn't daft and would potentially railhead even if they are in your redefined Group 1 as opposed to that defined by the original poster.

Perhaps you can find a survey which supports your hypothesis of "most people enjoy driving for its own sake rather than regarding it as a minor chore". I'm willing to bet that there aren't as many die-hard petrol heads as you seem to think. Most drive because it's convenient for them, not because they enjoy driving in itself. Make public transport more convenient (or make driving less convenient with LTNs/ULEZs/CCZs/parking restrictions) and you will get modal shift.

That isn't what I said. I'm all for making public transport more convenient if that is appropriate, but in a lot of cases it isn't. Making driving less convenient just for sake of modal shift is is complete waste of time and resources. If there is a particular problem with pollution or accidents then fine but not if doing it just to force change.

Do you think that most people enjoy flying? Some enjoy it for its own sake (and yes, it's fun to watch down on the world from above and I've even flown light aircraft in my time, not to mention a memorable trip in the back of a Lynx); but if you're getting up at 3am to put up with poor leg room, silly luggage restrictions, and onerous security rules then you're not doing it because you enjoy sleep deprivation, you're doing it because it's the cheapest and quickest way of getting to your destination. This is why as Eurostar services sped up over gradually improving infrastructure, trains decimated the airlines' share of London-Paris traffic. HS2 will do similar for London-Scotland - though Lumo have achieved some modal shift already by competing on price.

What relevance has flying got? The structured, controlled and poor quality exercise of taking a regular scheduled flight is the opposite of the freedom provided by a car. As regards Eurostar, Lumo and hopefully HS2 your not telling me anything I don't know but I don't see the relevance.

And yes, it's perfectly possible to live in Wales without a car, even a long way away from the South Wales Metro that's getting all of the investment. I only have to walk five minutes to get to a bus stop with six buses per hour in each direction. I manage it, my neighbour manages it, my ex manages it (neither of the above ever learned). My girlfriend lives just inside the National Park which is a little more challenging to get to for me but not impossible by any means - Sherpa buses run every hour, albeit the last one back is just after 7pm. Lots of people up here manage to "exist" without a car.

I guess you live in Wrexham then as that's the only place in North Wales that should justify a bus every ten minutes. Living nearby to a bus route running every ten minutes means your very fortunate there are swathes of the country outside the metropolitan areas where the buses are infrequent, run reduced hours or don't exist at all. Wouldn't it just be easier to have a ca rather than having to manage it, just existing or putting up with the 'not impossible'?

 

[railfan99]

Anecdotally, I think this is true. Growing up in Rufford in Lancashire, the hourly Ormskirk-Preston train, whilst hardly packed, would always have a good handful of passengers compared to the hourly Ormskirk-Preston bus, which really did cart around fresh air.

Why is this? A discussion for another thread?

Passengers in Western countries, if using or thinking of using mass transit, prefer railed transport i.e. trains #1 and trams some distance behind at #2. Is it because many bus routes in Western nations are indirect and may be higgeldy-piggedly? In my country, often they'll serve housing estates, and some routes even travel in different streets in each direction. Non-users find the latter creates brain fog, and indirect routes add to travel time.

It's illogical, perhaps. My city of Melbourne has the largest tram network worldwide now that Moscow has closed some routes. When trams are replaced (or part replaced on a route) by buses due to trackwork or a community festival taking over a street, patronage hugely drops.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm all for making public transport more convenient if that is appropriate, but in a lot of cases it isn't.

When isn't it appropriate to make public transport more convenient? No one is suggesting a metro service over the West Highland Line, mind, I want to know where you draw the line.

Would they? Even a hardened petrolhead as you put it isn't daft and would potentially railhead even if they are in your redefined Group 1 as opposed to that defined by the original poster.

There are a lot of private cars crawling around Central London's traffic jams, most of whose journeys would undoubtedly be quicker and cheaper by public transport. Stands to reason then that there is a minority of people who would use the car under any circumstances.

I guess you live in Wrexham then as that's the only place in North Wales that should justify a bus every ten minutes.

Wrong, though the combined population of the three main towns served by the route exceed Wrexham's. Just to clarify, The six buses consist of two routes, one running every fifteen minutes over a distance of 16 miles, the other running every 30 minutes over 13 miles, 9 miles of which shadow the first route. That's on top of the hourly direct rail service over the same route, with a second train per hour covering most of it too.

Wouldn't it just be easier to have a car rather than having to manage it, just existing or putting up with the 'not impossible'?

No. I had a car, I sold it, my life is much easier without it. It's not an asset, it's a liability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2023 ==

Passengers in Western countries, if using or thinking of using mass transit, prefer railed transport i.e. trains #1 and trams some distance behind at #2. Is it because many bus routes in Western nations are indirect and may be higgeldy-piggedly? In my country, often they'll serve housing estates, and some routes even travel in different streets in each direction. Non-users find the latter creates brain fog, and indirect routes add to travel time.

It's illogical, perhaps. My city of Melbourne has the largest tram network worldwide now that Moscow has closed some routes. When trams are replaced (or part replaced on a route) by buses due to trackwork or a community festival taking over a street, patronage hugely drops.

Snobbishness is quite a big factor. Buses are seen as the transport for people who can't afford to drive (or who are too old). There is also the issue of how long it takes to get from A to B. Rail on the other hand is fast, modern, and comfortable. I must admit that I cycle rather than take the bus where practical.

 

[miklcct]

albeit the last one back is just after 7pm

That's a deal breaker than. It means that any evening activities are out of question.

The #1 mode for convincing residents to not use their car is rail.

Trams #2 and buses #3 (illogical as the latter may seem), but rail is #1 by many lengths in horseracing parlance.

My ranking is #1 rail, #2 express bus and #3 tram. Both #1 and #2 are lengths ahead of #3 as I consider a tram just a substitute to walking.

None of the people I mentioned rely on the goodwill of others, they use varying mixes of cycling and public transport (my neighbour is in her fifties so not exactly young but still uses her electric bike to get to work). I would sooner cycle 12 miles each way, up and down the Welsh hills to a friend's garden railway (complete with live steam loco in panniers) than ask for a lift.

I have tried cycling 7 miles each way, up and down Shoot-Up Hill for my commute and it wears my body out too much if done 4 to 5 days per week, and I have reverted to using trains instead, only cycling to the nearest appropriate station.

Passengers in Western countries, if using or thinking of using mass transit, prefer railed transport i.e. trains #1 and trams some distance behind at #2. Is it because many bus routes in Western nations are indirect and may be higgeldy-piggedly? In my country, often they'll serve housing estates, and some routes even travel in different streets in each direction. Non-users find the latter creates brain fog, and indirect routes add to travel time.

It's illogical, perhaps. My city of Melbourne has the largest tram network worldwide now that Moscow has closed some routes. When trams are replaced (or part replaced on a route) by buses due to trackwork or a community festival taking over a street, patronage hugely drops.

On Hong Kong Island, trams are still a form of minority transport as they are slow and have limited coverage. There was plan to remove it when the Underground opened but it didn't take place, as the tram is frequent and convenient for short trips compared to the Underground.

There are a lot of private cars crawling around Central London's traffic jams, most of whose journeys would undoubtedly be quicker and cheaper by public transport. Stands to reason then that there is a minority of people who would use the car under any circumstances.

Some people have to drive anyway due to business needs, which makes up most of the private car traffic in Central London, for example, engineers who need to carry heavy tools to visit multiple clients as part of the business. There is also a possibility they someone needs the car to access other places and with no appropriate place to park the car outside Central London, for example, living in the North, working in the centre, and going to the South after work.

Snobbishness is quite a big factor. Buses are seen as the transport for people who can't afford to drive (or who are too old). There is also the issue of how long it takes to get from A to B. Rail on the other hand is fast, modern, and comfortable. I must admit that I cycle rather than take the bus where practical.

If the bus is a direct express bus which runs on the motorway or other high-speed roads (e.g. the North Circular), I will prefer the bus over any other forms of transport.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, before @The Ham comes and explains better than I could do, I'll give it a go The railways carry 10% of all person miles, because they focus on long distance markets. It we start attracting short distance traffic to light rail then a relatively modest operation can carry a large number of trips, as we see with things like the Docklands Light Railway.

Whilst HS2 and NPR will also generate a massive number of trips, the high speed programme will release loads of capacity on the classic network for short hops between adjacent towns. Rather than carrying one trainload of passengers between Birmingham and Euston after HS2 is built, the same train on the WCML might carry one load of passengers between Birmingham and Coventry, another load between Coventry and Milton Keynes, and a third load between Milton Keynes and London. That triples the amount of trips by rail on the classic network, in addition to high speed capacity on the new line. Obviously this is a caricature of what will actually happen, gives an illustration of how the same seat can be occupied by more passengers if the long distance traffic is abstracted onto a new line.

Indeed, however the other factor to consider is that the HS2 trains would be able to carry about twice the number of passengers as the existing rolling stock. As such there's even more scope for further growth.

Irrelevant since planes are also not that close to people but they've been targeted to discourage the use of fossil fuels. The rest of your post ignores the point I was making that the additional costs were to discourage the use of fossils fuels. I merely enquired whether rail was subject to such additional charges for fossil fuels and it does seem that effectively that is not the case. Whether or not rail should be charged rather more is another matter altogether.

Not only do aircraft tend to produce larger amounts of carbon, there's concerns that the production of carbon high within the atmosphere means that it's harder for it breakdown, be locked into the oceans or otherwise be dealt with (for example the lack of plant life up there makes it hard for plants to have easy access to our) and so is "worse" than if it was created at ground level.

Also whilst rail uses about 550 million litres per year, aviation in the UK uses about 12,300 million litres. Whilst a lot of that will be used for international travel, given the carbon emissions for domestic flights are about 4% of the total for flights the use of fuel for domestic flights is likely to be similar to the use by rail.

However, in the last quarter of 2022 there were 369 million rail passengers, this compares with domestic passenger numbers in 2017 of 229 million. Now whilst there's a lot of rail use which electric and a lot of diesel trains (which includes freight as well as passenger trains) are going to be fairly lightly loaded (at least compared to the majority of domestic flights between London and the Central Belt or the mainland and Northern Ireland - which is where the majority of domestic flights occur) rail still is likely to carry more people on diesel rail services than aviation does.

Also domestic flights are used by less than 10% of the population in any given year, this is quite a lot less than 10% of the total miles which people undertake (which is the case for rail). Within the wider aviation use, 15% of the population account for 70% of all flights. Meaning that a disproportionate small number of people are responsible for a lot of carbon emissions.

Clearly there's areas where aviation is needed (mainland to Northern Ireland), however there's still scope (especially with HS2) to encourage a lot of people to swap from flying to using rail (most of that swap would likely to be electric rail).

 

[Bald Rick]

However, in the last quarter of 2022 there were 369 million rail passengers, this compares with domestic passenger numbers in 2017 of 229 million.

U.K. Domestic air passenger numbers in 2017 was just over 21m. (42m domestic terminal passengers, but obvs each domestic passenger uses two terminals on their journey).

Source: CAA

https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/3959/b32abdb1-d9f3-4eb9-9d52-1c2aedbf0f03/824

 

[The Ham]

U.K. Domestic air passenger numbers in 2017 was just over 21m. (42m domestic terminal passengers, but obvs each domestic passenger uses two terminals on their journey).

Source: CAA

https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Download/3959/b32abdb1-d9f3-4eb9-9d52-1c2aedbf0f03/824

I must have miss understood the aviation numbers, however that just highlights how much worse it is.

 

[Bald Rick]

I must have miss understood the aviation numbers, however that just highlights how much worse it is.

Unquestionably.

There is a ‘but’. Most domestic aviation aircraft movements (not passengers) are relatively short hops, being flights around the islands of Scotland or to/from Belfast from the north of England / Scotland. By far the most efficient domestic flights in terms of fuel are those from London to Scotland, which have longer distance and larger aircraft - often the most efficient A32xneos. Around 25% of U.K. domestic passengers fly from London to Glasgow / Edinburgh, but that involves only about 10% of the aircraft movements.

Domestic aviation is also on a bit of a downer, especially London to the central belt. Overall, the number of aircraft movements in domestic aviation has fallen by about a third, on top of which increasingly more efficient aircraft are being used (Specifically the A320neo by BA and EZY on many domestic routes). A complete guess, but my educated guess is that carbon emissions due to domestic aviation are perhaps only 50-60% of what they were 6-7 years ago.

so, whilst domestic aviation is, without question, producing much much more in terms of average carbon emissions per passenger than the British diesel rail network, the gap is not as big as it was. And there will be some diesel routes where the gap is rather small.

 

[Krokodil]

That's a deal breaker than. It means that any evening activities are out of question.

Not really. Meet in a town a few miles short of her (which brings up the option of a rather cosy Italian restaurant I haven't been to in a while) and there's a better evening service - believe it or not, Sundays actually have a later last service both by bus and by train than weekdays. And that's if the evening activities don't continue until the next morning . Worst comes to the worst, I can always cycle back, it's only 30 miles.

I have tried cycling 7 miles each way, up and down Shoot-Up Hill for my commute and it wears my body out too much if done 4 to 5 days per week, and I have reverted to using trains instead, only cycling to the nearest appropriate station.

I used to manage 5 miles each way, six days a week. When I did 10 miles each way on a five day week, that was tiring and I often took a train home. 12 miles each way on a Saturday? Easy on a good breakfast. Though I discovered at lunchtime that the train service on the adjacent branch line had restarted that day so I took that back.

That's quite a dramatic difference, and shows that we could decarbonise a significant amount if the just got the fundamentals right.

How often has that line been closed of late? Signalboxes with no relief staff, cable theft, you name it. Then there's TfW skipping Wellington and Telford because the 2-car 158 is rammed.

Unquestionably.

There is a ‘but’. Most domestic aviation aircraft movements (not passengers) are relatively short hops, being flights around the islands of Scotland or to/from Belfast from the north of England / Scotland. By far the most efficient domestic flights in terms of fuel are those from London to Scotland, which have longer distance and larger aircraft - often the most efficient A32xneos. Around 25% of U.K. domestic passengers fly from London to Glasgow / Edinburgh, but that involves only about 10% of the aircraft movements.

London - Central Belt flights are easier cherries to pick though. Hops between Scottish islands are essential for connecting isolated communities (no chance of a fixed link in almost all cases), and the government has shelved the idea of a fixed link between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Lumo however is already making inroads into Anglo-Scottish flights, while HS2 should absolutely decimate the aviation market on that route, just as the successive openings of LGV Nord, the Channel Tunnel and (eventually) HS1 did to London - Paris flights.

Domestic aviation is also on a bit of a downer, especially London to the central belt. Overall, the number of aircraft movements in domestic aviation has fallen by about a third, on top of which increasingly more efficient aircraft are being used (Specifically the A320neo by BA and EZY on many domestic routes). A complete guess, but my educated guess is that carbon emissions due to domestic aviation are perhaps only 50-60% of what they were 6-7 years ago.

so, whilst domestic aviation is, without question, producing much much more in terms of average carbon emissions per passenger than the British diesel rail network, the gap is not as big as it was. And there will be some diesel routes where the gap is rather small.

This is all progress in the right direction. To keep it up, we need the government to commit to HS2 in full, plus electrify more routes.

 

[railfan99]

Bamber Bridge is another station where patronage (entries and exits counted together) is within a hair's breath of pre-COVID times.

In 2018-19, 68,764 was the figure. In 2021-22: 67,978.
Strangely though in 2019-20 it was higher, perhaps an aberration.

 

[Snow1964]

DfT have just updated the journeys va pre-pandemic spreadsheet, data from column G (rail)

Wed 5 April 91%
6 April 92%
Good Friday7 April 101%
8 April102%
9 April 101%
Bank hol 10 April 105%
11 April 105%
12 April 106%
13 April 106%
14 April 102%
Sat 15 April 103%
16 April 104%
17 April 102%
18 April 104%
19 April 97%
20 April 94%
21 April 96%
Sat 22 April 96%
23 April 97%
24 April 96%
25 April 95%
26 April 104%
27 April 104%
28 April 98%
Sat 29 April 99%
30 Apr 98%
Bank hol Mon 1 May 98%

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain.

www.gov.uk

First time multiple days over 100%
Think 106% is highest vs pre pandemic

 

[YorkshireBear]

Be interesting to see the corresponding revenue figures compare before making my usual bold statements around the planned service cuts. I must say the network is starting to feel busier with noticeable change since start of year in Leeds area.

 

[Snow1964]

Be interesting to see the corresponding revenue figures compare before making my usual bold statements around the planned service cuts. I must say the network is starting to feel busier with noticeable change since start of year in Leeds area.

I too was wondering, if average usage on some days has risen to 106%, good chance some areas are higher still.

Possibly revenue is over 100% vs pre-pandemic in some local areas too.

How DfT will react if revenue is higher and an Operator says we need at least 106% of pre-pandemic rolling stock is anyone's guess. In a rational world would be saying to the busy operators you can increase, but it's at expense of the operators with low recovery rates who now need to cut back nearer 20% than 10%. I suspect an across the board 10% cut is proving bonkers if some lines are up about 15% and others down 25% (I am guessing, don't have a split by Operator)

 

[railfan99]

DfT have just updated the journeys va pre-pandemic spreadsheet, data from column G (rail)

First time multiple days over 100%
Think 106% is highest vs pre pandemic

Your Treasury and DfT will be concerned about the drop in revenue due to fewer annual or monthly tickets being sold, but even though there's been a shift to leisure as opposed to commuter passenger traffic, it's very encouraging.

I especially enjoyed the National Rail graph in Figure 1 showing an uptrend since April 2022.

I'd have thought the numerous strike days would have permanently turned many off rail travel. Some may have abandoned the mode but to see usage above pre-COVID passenger numbers overall is outstanding.

It'll be even better if later in the year, we observe "paid" individual station usage figures in many cases exceeding the last 'pre-COVID' financial year of 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 IIRC.

A huge thank you to all users of the fora who 'protect the revenue' by timely, diligent on-train checking, enforcement or manning the barriers.

As in my distant country, most politicians may not use railways (although sadly in Oz this would be even more true than for UK/The Continent) but increasing usage by travellers who importantly pay a fare and don't just freeload will make it easier for rail advocates to garner public support for fewer or (unrealistically?) no cuts to frequencies or days of operation.

 

[Llandudno]

DfT have just updated the journeys va pre-pandemic spreadsheet, data from column G (rail)

Wed 5 April 91%
6 April 92%
Good Friday7 April 101%
8 April102%
9 April 101%
Bank hol 10 April 105%
11 April 105%
12 April 106%
13 April 106%
14 April 102%
Sat 15 April 103%
16 April 104%
17 April 102%
18 April 104%
19 April 97%
20 April 94%
21 April 96%
Sat 22 April 96%
23 April 97%
24 April 96%
25 April 95%
26 April 104%
27 April 104%
28 April 98%
Sat 29 April 99%
30 Apr 98%
Bank hol Mon 1 May 98%

Daily domestic transport use by mode

Daily usage of selected domestic transport by mode for Great Britain.

www.gov.uk

First time multiple days over 100%
Think 106% is highest vs pre pandemic

Imagine what the figures would be if:
TransPennine, Northern and TfW ran a reliable service….
XC restored their pre Covid timetable
Nuneham viaduct hadn’t been deemed unsafe
£2 bus tickets competing on some very local journeys
Trains reported full - so can’t book
Can’t book certain tickets more than a couple of weeks in advance, especially at weekends
Not to mention all the strikes and threat of strikes

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I imagine Crossrail accounts for 80% of that and the other trains are still carting around mostly fresh air.

 

[HSTEd]

First time multiple days over 100%
Think 106% is highest vs pre pandemic

Has this been adjusted for Crossrail?

 

[12LDA28C]

the other trains are still carting around mostly fresh air.

I don't know what trains you're travelling on but that certainly isn't my experience. Many trains are absolutely rammed, especially off-peak and at weekends.

 

[3RDGEN]

Has this been adjusted for Crossrail?

No, they include Crossrail core journeys which they didn't include pre Covid so the figures are apples and pears. They even include Note 1 to that effect "A like-for-like comparison of rail demand would therefore show a lower recovery than stated in this publication" on this page https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...-19-pandemic/domestic-transport-usage-by-mode. The give away is that TfL is at 75-80% but National Rail is at 100-105% levels, that doesn't add up.

The quarterly individual TOC figures will give a better picture. Also passenger numbers don't pay the bills, revenue does.

 

[yorksrob]

But the passenger railway exists to move passengers as a service to the country. It is not a business which operates to generate revenue.

If passenger numbers are up, there needs to be a political decision to maintain the service.

 

[railfan99]

I imagine Crossrail accounts for 80% of that and the other trains are still carting around mostly fresh air.

Last September when I visited UK that was not true. Many trains in rural areas well patronised, and main lines extremely busy.

I assume despite ongoing strikes it's even better now.

 

[yorksrob]

It certainly seems that way, although we have had a couple of months of relative calm, in terms of industrial action.

 

[fgwrich]

I imagine Crossrail accounts for 80% of that and the other trains are still carting around mostly fresh air.

You keep believing that if you want to, but having spent a fair bit of time back in the South West lately, using both SWR and GWR, both were showing strong signs of growth on both weekdays and weekends. Devon Metro, Cornish branch lines and the West of England mainline all being very busy.

 

[Snow1964]

I imagine Crossrail accounts for 80% of that and the other trains are still carting around mostly fresh air.

It's only the Paddington -Abbey Wood section that has been added.
The other parts had trains, even if they were branded differently.
I suspect many fromAbbey Wood and possibly Woolwich used trains before, but to Charing Cross etc.

Many trains here in Wiltshire and South West are well loaded, and some are even leaving passengers on platform because they can't all fit in, so I think you are wrong about all others carting fresh air.

GWR seems to have cut its fleet, it is not providing anything like 106% of pre-Covid fleet size in South West, which is why so many keep struggling to get on local trains.

 

[Killingworth]

Lots of potential anomalies to skew overall figures. The one I usually highlight is the effect of split ticketing

How much Crossrail traffic has been abstracted from the older Underground ines?

In my part of the north absence of so many reliable TPE trains has turned off a lot of regular commuting travellers. On the other hand the arrival of 3 car Northern 195s in place of 2 car Pacers is doing wonders for leisure use.

Anecdotally I can report that yesterday every litter bin at Edale was fulll and overflowing, as they were at Dore & Totley. Signs of a busy weekend or just proof that we're producing more litter?

Statistics need cautious interpretation.

 

[cuccir]

I'd have thought the numerous strike days would have permanently turned many off rail travel. Some may have abandoned the mode but to see usage above pre-COVID passenger numbers overall is outstanding.

I think people have come to view strikes as a feature of daily life, at least for the 22-23 winter. When lots of sectors are disrupted, people think less badly of any particular sector for having that disruption. Sure the trains are cancelled on some days, but on others the schools are closed, the hospitals are turning people away... so it's hardly rail's fault.

I'm sure the strikes may have had some impact on commuter numbers though. My morning commute (Durham - Newcastle) remains less busy than it was pre-Covid, despite there being 1 less train before 09:00, and at least 1 if not all 3 of the TPE services being cancelled most days. Certainly pre-Covid standing was normal, but the need to stand on the commute has not yet returned, even on the days I get the smaller Northern Rail services.

 

[Trainbike46]

Lots of potential anomalies to skew overall figures. The one I usually highlight is the effect of split ticketing

How much Crossrail traffic has been abstracted from the older Underground ines?

In my part of the north absence of so many reliable TPE trains has turned off a lot of regular commuting travellers. On the other hand the arrival of 3 car Northern 195s in place of 2 car Pacers is doing wonders for leisure use.

Anecdotally I can report that yesterday every litter bin at Edale was fulll and overflowing, as they were at Dore & Totley. Signs of a busy weekend or just proof that we're producing more litter?

Statistics need cautious interpretation.

Or maybe even that the litter bins were emptied less frequently?

slightly back on topic - this is why I prefer passenger-km as a measure rather than passenger numbers: it is more robust to things like split ticketing, and gives an idea of how far passengers are travelling as well