What can the industry do to decrease the public transport fare in the real term?

[Starmill]

It is important though.
If you need to be somewhere at 10am and there is an hourly service you might have to arrive before 9am to make sure its not tight. If its every two hours then you might have so much time wasted that its definitely time to get the car out instead of just probably.

Exactly. This is why you can't just run four trains a day with 16 coaches, even if everyone who wants to travel on that route across a full day would potentially fit into that capacity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2024 ==

I like these ideas and the Dutch system is what I'm aspiring for. Clock face scheduling, turn up and go, lots of capacity, good value fare. It's like travelling on a commuter train even on their Intercity service.

Getting thousands of people on a train with each paying a fraction of the fuel cost compared to driving.

The UK is a very, very long way behind the Netherlands on capacity of non-London long-haul and nearly all medium distance routes. Look at the capacity available on Exeter - Bristol, Hull - Sheffield, Birmingham - Leicester, Cambridge - Peterborough and a hundred other examples. It's trivially low capacity compared to the road network.

 

[yorksrob]

This is why when electrification got cut back a decade ago, we missed the chance to start running cheap, long, re-conditioned EMU's in a lot more places.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is why when electrification got cut back a decade ago, we missed the chance to start running cheap, long, re-conditioned EMU's in a lot more places.

Not really. Oxford, and Swansea - Cardiff are the only examples I can think of.

 

[SynthD]

Adapting the timetable for different times of year. So increasing weekend summer specials, reducing business-focused routes during school holidays etc.
- Moving away from the standard hourly pattern and removing ad-hoc services at times where there is much less demand (early-afternoon etc.)

People don’t look up timetables often enough for that. This looks too similar to cancellations from strikes or staffing/trainset problems. That sends people to driving.

 

[Meerkat]

People don’t look up timetables often enough for that. This looks too similar to cancellations from strikes or staffing/trainset problems. That sends people to driving.

They don’t look up timetables. They tell their phone they want to get from A to B at X o’clock and the phone gives them the options.

 

[yorksrob]

Not really. Oxford, and Swansea - Cardiff are the only examples I can think of.

You could have added Bristol to that for starters if they'd finished it.

Can you imagine the crowd busters we'd be able to have on TPE if electrified.

 

[Indigo Soup]

They don’t look up timetables. They tell their phone they want to get from A to B at X o’clock and the phone gives them the options.

Occasional travellers will certainly check specific trains. A regular timetable is useful to the regular traveller where the service isn't frequent enough to be 'turn up and go'.

If I'm in town for work, I look up a specific train to get in - in practice, it's the xx:55ish, with annoying variations - but coming home I just know that the xx:10 service will get me home. If I finish early, I'll jump on the 17:10. If I have a couple of pints with colleagues, I'll get the 19:10 or 20:10. And if there's an evening event finishing at 20:00, I'll curse the person who decided the xx:40 shouldn't stop at my station then get in the car, because the next train after that is the 23:10.

 

[AM9]

Occasional travellers will certainly check specific trains. A regular timetable is useful to the regular traveller where the service isn't frequent enough to be 'turn up and go'.

If I'm in town for work, I look up a specific train to get in - in practice, it's the xx:55ish, with annoying variations - but coming home I just know that the xx:10 service will get me home. If I finish early, I'll jump on the 17:10. If I have a couple of pints with colleagues, I'll get the 19:10 or 20:10. And if there's an evening event finishing at 20:00, I'll curse the person who decided the xx:40 shouldn't stop at my station then get in the car, because the next train after that is the 23:10.

Whenever I'm travelling, over known routes or new pastures, I normally use Real Time Trains, a) it's faster, b) it gives actual times and c) I can look ahead and see potential issues. I also know a few 'normals' who are quite happy with it as a tool.
Maybe the TOCs or even NR (or it's successor) could offer an official RTT style system that gives similar usability. That way, the concept of very frequent trains that turn up and go is feasible may not be needed on routes where the capacity that gives might be better deployed elsewhere.

 

[The exile]

I like these ideas and the Dutch system is what I'm aspiring for. Clock face scheduling, turn up and go, lots of capacity, good value fare. It's like travelling on a commuter train even on their Intercity service.

Getting thousands of people on a train with each paying a fraction of the fuel cost compared to driving.

The Netherlands is, give or take, comparable in size to the former Network Southeast area. With the exception of the fares (which are basically a direct product of government policy), which of those features do not apply?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The railway has learned through long experience that frequency is everything.
Handfuls of trains between randomly selected pairs of destinations are inefficient to operate and not particuarly attractive to customers.

As American transit people say "frequency is freedom".

Frequency is not everything. It is one element that makes rail travel an attractive proposition but it is certainly not the only element. The question posed was how to increase railway passenger revenue and that in turn raises a second question. Is the railway maximising the potential of every large conurbation? If the railway in underperforming commercially in several of those towns, then there is potential to increase the revenue.

Currently Huddersfield Station is being revamped substantially and supporters of the TRU project are asserting confidently that this will bring increased prosperity to the town which presumably involves more people using the station to travel by train. If that argument is valid, it would also apply to a direct service to London. The service from St. Pancras terminates at Sheffield. If it were extended to both Barnsley and Huddersfield, those towns would have their direct service. Does anyone believe there would be only a minimal increase in passengers?

Most Open Access operators run services to London and from towns underestimated by the railway establishment. These OA operators have brought new and increased revenue to an industry desperately in need of additional income. If Sunderland and Hull can generate new revenue, so too can Huddersfield and Barnsley.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Frequency is not everything. It is one element that makes rail travel an attractive proposition but it is certainly not the only element. The question posed was how to increase railway passenger revenue and that in turn raises a second question. Is the railway maximising the potential of every large conurbation? If the railway in underperforming commercially in several of those towns, then there is potential to increase the revenue.

It seems to me quite obvious that CrossCountry has the potential for increased revenue by increasing passenger numbers simply by investing by giving them all the remaining 22x (alongside the planned refurb). Travel on their services is so grim that there must surely be suppressed demand. TPE was also like this, then investment has improved things.

 

[JonathanH]

If that argument is valid, it would also apply to a direct service to London. The service from St. Pancras terminates at Sheffield. If it were extended to both Barnsley and Huddersfield, those towns would have their direct service. Does anyone believe there would be only a minimal increase in passengers?

The trouble with extending London to Sheffield on to Barnsley and Huddersfield is that it doesn't provide an effective journey time. It also ties up expensive rolling stock on a slow secondary route.

The quickest route from London to Huddersfield is via the ECML then Crofton and Wakefield, or via the WCML and Stockport. The compromise was to be an extension of one of the LNER services to Leeds on to Huddersfield.

Grand Central went to Bradford after Mirfield, but could equally have gone to Huddersfield. Presumably some passengers from Huddersfield make their way to Mirfield or Wakefield to use their services.

Not sure how any discussion about Huddersfield and Barnsley reduces the cost of travel though.

These OA operators have brought new and increased revenue to an industry desperately in need of additional income. If Sunderland and Hull can generate new revenue, so too can Huddersfield and Barnsley.

Not sure that is really true. Aren't they just extracting revenue that the railway could have evolved to generate in any case?

 

[HSTEd]

Frequency is not everything. It is one element that makes rail travel an attractive proposition but it is certainly not the only element. The question posed was how to increase railway passenger revenue and that in turn raises a second question. Is the railway maximising the potential of every large conurbation? If the railway in underperforming commercially in several of those towns, then there is potential to increase the revenue.

Ultimately whilst the exam question was phrased simply as increasing revenue, the real question is how to reduce net subsidy such that containment of rail fares becomes politically tenable.

Currently Huddersfield Station is being revamped substantially and supporters of the TRU project are asserting confidently that this will bring increased prosperity to the town which presumably involves more people using the station to travel by train. If that argument is valid, it would also apply to a direct service to London. The service from St. Pancras terminates at Sheffield. If it were extended to both Barnsley and Huddersfield, those towns would have their direct service. Does anyone believe there would be only a minimal increase in passengers?

Well yes, I do. Given that it would be a painfully slow journey.
The Sheffield-London line is far from an attractive railway at the best of times.

And whether or not the TPRU is a sensible upgrade package, rather than a symbol of the dysfunction of the modern railway, is probably a question for another thread!

Most Open Access operators run services to London and from towns underestimated by the railway establishment. These OA operators have brought new and increased revenue to an industry desperately in need of additional income. If Sunderland and Hull can generate new revenue, so too can Huddersfield and Barnsley.

Those open access operators also impose major costs on the raliway industry that, in aggregate, almost certainly exceed the value of the revenue gained.
They are only "commercially attractive" for open access operators because track access fees are set far below cost recovery.

 

[Meerkat]

Occasional travellers will certainly check specific trains. A regular timetable is useful to the regular traveller where the service isn't frequent enough to be 'turn up and go'.

If I'm in town for work, I look up a specific train to get in - in practice, it's the xx:55ish, with annoying variations - but coming home I just know that the xx:10 service will get me home. If I finish early, I'll jump on the 17:10. If I have a couple of pints with colleagues, I'll get the 19:10 or 20:10. And if there's an evening event finishing at 20:00, I'll curse the person who decided the xx:40 shouldn't stop at my station then get in the car, because the next train after that is the 23:10.

Your trains are obviously a lot more reliable!
I will look it up every time - can’t rely on there not being a changed service or delays.

 

[Manutd1999]

I think you are suggesting that by having a worse service, it may be possible to reduce fares to compensate.

I don't think the service would be that much worse for most passengers. To be fair. this approach worked so well for Ryanair/Easyjet that all the "flag carrier" airlines have copied it, so maybe there is something in it....

Exactly. This is why you can't just run four trains a day with 16 coaches, even if everyone who wants to travel on that route across a full day would potentially fit into that capacity.

I'm not proposing anything that radical. We could start by removing the odd diagram at quieter periods, perhaps dropping services which run every 30 mins to 1ph etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

We could start by removing the odd diagram at quieter periods, perhaps dropping services which run every 30 mins to 1ph etc.

diagrams typically run all day…

 

[Bletchleyite]

diagrams typically run all day…

Plenty of lines have peak extras and reduced service at off peak times (e.g. Merseyrail drops to half service after about 7pm).

 

[Bald Rick]

Plenty of lines have peak extras and reduced service at off peak times (e.g. Merseyrail drops to half service after about 7pm).

Yes, but, the poster was suggesting dropping diagrams at ‘quieter periods’.

Typically, diagrams work all day, with some peak extras for busier periods. It is not at all straightforward (or cheap) to cut out odd parts of an all day diagram in the middle of the day.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It seems to me quite obvious that CrossCountry has the potential for increased revenue by increasing passenger numbers simply by investing by giving them all the remaining 22x (alongside the planned refurb). Travel on their services is so grim that there must surely be suppressed demand. TPE was also like this, then investment has improved things.

I agree completely. If all their trains had enough coaches to cater for all passengers and provide a comfortable seat, patronage would undoubtedly increase. Judging from posts on the Hope Valley forum, that point applies there too. There's no reason to doubt that passenger numbers can be increased substantially.

The trouble with extending London to Sheffield on to Barnsley and Huddersfield is that it doesn't provide an effective journey time. It also ties up expensive rolling stock on a slow secondary route.

The quickest route from London to Huddersfield is via the ECML then Crofton and Wakefield, or via the WCML and Stockport. The compromise was to be an extension of one of the LNER services to Leeds on to Huddersfield.

Grand Central went to Bradford after Mirfield, but could equally have gone to Huddersfield. Presumably some passengers from Huddersfield make their way to Mirfield or Wakefield to use their services.

Not sure how any discussion about Huddersfield and Barnsley reduces the cost of travel though.


Not sure that is really true. Aren't they just extracting revenue that the railway could have evolved to generate in any case?

If the ECML route provides a more attractive option, then so be it. Let that be the route used for a Huddersfield to London service. Incidentally, when you say "via Crofton," is that the route via Hare Park Junction?

Sunderland (and Hartlepool) and Hull were being neglected by LNER. Obviously "the railway could have evolved to generate" that same revenue but showed little enthusiasm for doing so: which is why I'm arguing that there is great potential in towns currently underestimated by the railway establishment.