When did the railways turn the corner?

[tbtc]

We know there's going to be growth on railways in the future (hence HS2, hence longer IEPs replacing HSTs, hence sorting out bottlenecks around the UK, hence longer EMUs replacing DMUs etc).

But when did the railways start to take assume that future passenger numbers would be higher than they currently were (and not lower)?

Passenger numbers were rising from the mid 1980s, well before privatisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif), but British Rail were still replacing longer loco-hauled services with two coach DMUs at that time.

Other than a temporary slump due to recession, passenger numbers continued to grow after privatisation, but we still saw the orders for new trains that were generally shorter than the ones that they replaced (or, when not directly replacing something else, still short, like the two coach 170s from Barnsley/ Matlock/ Nottingham/ Burton to London).

We all know what happened when Virgin ordered shorter DMUs to replace longer trains - no point going over old ground there...

Seems crazy now to think that there was a chance of the nine coach 222s being diverted to Ireland because we couldn't find a use for them in the UK.

Justification for shorter trains could be down to increased frequencies, it could be the hope that modern trains could be used more efficiently (so the reduction in number of coaches wouldn't impact upon the actual number in daily service), but I think that the real reason was the pessimism that passenger numbers could well go down soon, and we didn't want to risk building too many new trains (getting lumbered with stock that wouldn't get used).

Even ten years ago, there was the assumption that passenger numbers wouldn't grow further - hence the "no growth" franchises for the W&B and Northern franchises - they weren't expected to grow.

Passenger numbers continued to rise (impressive, considering how bad the recent recession has been), but its only in the past few years that the industry has started to believe that numbers are going to go up further (and therefore we can justify all of this investment in more/ longer trains).

Was it when Lord Adonis got involved that the optimism began? Can you trace the optimism back to that proposed order for 200 DMU coaches? Was it when HS2 became Government policy? The CP5 announcement of investment? When do you reckon the penny dropped and "the powers that be" finally accepted that the railways are growing and will continue to grow?

 

[edwin_m]

There was a lot of optimism on the railways in the 90s. Certain people put that down soley to privatisation but I think other factors also contributed such as coming out of a recession, the increasing cost of motoring (we had a fuel duty escalator at the time) increasing traffic congestion. The so-called private entrepreneurial attitude was accompanied by a big increase in subsidy, and I've no doubt BR would have brought in many of the same service improvements as well as many others, if they'd been given the same amount of money.

The railway then dipped badly after Hatfield but has since recovered strongly. I see this as resuming the previous trend rather than anything really new.

I'm pretty sure the replacement of a few long trains by many shorter ones gave a big boost to patronage on the routes where it happened, though these were a small part of the railway so can't account for much of the growth on a national basis. Overcrowding on these routes was due to a combination of underestimating the passenger growth and deliberately not providing for the peak flows because to do so would have increased the costs enough to kill the proposals.

As to the 170s on the Midland, these were entirely additional to the existing service so it's not surprising that the operator went for something relatively cheap and simple like a 2-car 170. When these also generated more passengers than expected, they were first extended to 3-car and then replaced by Meridians. At the time new DMUs were available almost off the shelf - certainly something that has changed today!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Andrew Adonis became Minister of State in 2008 and Secretary of State in 2009.
He saw off the 2006 Eddington Transport Study, which was not favourable to rail, when electrification and HS2 were still off the agenda.
He saw the futility of buying expensive diesels and used the opportunity of Great Western renewal to start the big electrification programme with rolling stock changes to match.
Another factor was the completion of the WCRM programme and big growth on the WCML after 2008.
Network Rail also began to be trusted after the shambles of Railtrack collapse, managed expertly by John Armitt and now David Higgins.
The bickering SRA had been folded into the DfT - nobody else to blame now.
Franchise renewals were generally going well (except for NatEx).

I'd say Andrew Adonis was pretty much key to the new optimism, because he had great influence in government and persuaded the arch-sceptics at the Treasury to invest long-term.
The Coalition has built on that and we have had a decent run of competent ministers, with a supportive cabinet.
It's intriguing that rail investment has continued to grow during the financial crisis. It appears to have benefitted from the cutbacks elsewhere.
It remains to be seen what happens when growth in the general economy resumes and the Treasury wants its money back.

 

[Moonshot]

Id pretty much agree with the above from the supply side......on the demand side, the average passenger today is a lot more " green aware ", and also has less disposable income. Car ownership is linked to disposable income as opposed to GDP, and this has had a noticable effect on under 25s driving....

 

[WatcherZero]

Thing is the 80's growth looked like a blip, it fell away again in the early 90's such that at privatisation ridership was no larger than it had been at the relatively stable point 25 years earlier. 1965-1995 you could describe as a long period of stagnation averaging a gradual decline. But the effects of privatisation in reconnecting with the customer and persuading them to travel by rail again are undispituable.

I dont think politicans actually recognised that the network was growing again until around about 2005, until then they were still planning and agreeing franchises based on long term decline. Was the 2004 Northern Rail franchising the last franchise let on the basis of declining revenues?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Interesting topic, particularly the graph you linked to. It seems the main fall was from 1945 to the low point in 1980. It might be even more interesting for those with poor cronological knowlage like me if there were a few vertical lines on the graph marking things like the Beeching report, openning dates of some of the more major motorways etc.

Given the graph only refers to passenger traffic, it might be interesting to have a more lines on there showing bus passenger numbers (which seem to be very much on the down at the moment, not nearly such a bright picture as rail) and perhaps a comparable metric for car use (though that's probably much harder to measure).

 

[yorksrob]

Thing is the 80's growth looked like a blip, it fell away again in the early 90's such that at privatisation ridership was no larger than it had been at the relatively stable point 25 years earlier. 1965-1995 you could describe as a long period of stagnation averaging a gradual decline. But the effects of privatisation in reconnecting with the customer and persuading them to travel by rail again are undispituable.

I dont think politicans actually recognised that the network was growing again until around about 2005, until then they were still planning and agreeing franchises based on long term decline. Was the 2004 Northern Rail franchising the last franchise let on the basis of declining revenues?

If you look at your graph, the recessionary blip after 1990 is actually rather less pronounced than similar set-backs during the 1920‘s and 1930‘s, so in many ways, it seems to be the length of the post 1990 boom and how railway use has held up during the latest recession that is the real game changer for me. I suspect that the reasons for this are that franchise agreements mean that Governments can‘t force TOC‘s to cut services to respond to recession, which could have been a problem but for the further development of yield management, which has also made it easier for the railway to continue getting bums on seats.

Whilst I would put the recovery in passenger numbers as beginning in the mid 1980‘s, I would say that Governments only really started planning for this growthwhen they started giving the go ahead to big schemes such as Thameslink 2000 and NW electrification, which are releasing large quantities of non life expired stock to cope with growth.

 

[edwin_m]

Interesting topic, particularly the graph you linked to. It seems the main fall was from 1945 to the low point in 1980. It might be even more interesting for those with poor cronological knowlage like me if there were a few vertical lines on the graph marking things like the Beeching report, openning dates of some of the more major motorways etc.

I agree this is an interesting graph - do you have a source please?

While there was a big drop in 1945 this was probably to do with the end of wartime traffic but the continuation of austerity. Ridership is actually fairly flat for a decade or so then picks up in the mid-50s, which probably coincides with economic recovery. The big decline starts in the late 50s so pre-dates Beeching and I suggest would be to do with increase in car ownership plus motorway building that made long-distance car travel much quicker. Similarly the rise in the late 70s may be a consequence of the oil crisis and increasing motoring costs.

The rise from 1985 onwards I have already discussed above. In my view the distraction of privatisation, along with a recession, were responsible for the decline in the early 90s and the trend from 1995 onwards simply picks up the line from 5-10 years earlier.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

One point from that graph; on the trend rate it looks like this year possibly or next year for sure will see the railway reach the important milestone of the highest volume ever.

 

[Moonshot]

Peter - if we included ticketless travel in that , we probably already have!!

 

[deltic]

Very interesting graph taken I assume from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif

If you look at passenger miles rather than journeys the picture is slightly different - see ATOC document http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/publicationsdocuments/npsA67D_tmp.pdf

During BR days average length per trip increased, and it appears to have continued to do so in recent years, as speed of intercity rail journeys rapidly improved with electrification of the WCML and introduction of high speed trains elsewhere. You only have to look at a 1960s timetable to see just a handful of day time services between London and Scotland that took all day to get there compared to now hourly services on both WCML and ECML.

 

[12CSVT]

One possible factor which would eventually lead to the railways 'turning the corner' when they did was the appointment of Peter Parker as British Rail chairman in 1976.

 

[Eagle]

One point from that graph; on the trend rate it looks like this year possibly or next year for sure will see the railway reach the important milestone of the highest volume ever.

I think we already have; that graph ends at 2011.

And bear in mind how many miles of railways there are now compared to 90 years ago.

 

[WatcherZero]

2012/13 was just under, we should pass the record (WW1) next year.

Also bear in mind privatisation reforms began a couple of years earlier, in 1993 and it was already operating in shadow form divided up into 100 companies from 1st April 1994.

 

[yorksrob]

2012/13 was just under, we should pass the record (WW1) next year.

Also bear in mind privatisation reforms began a couple of years earlier, in 1993 and it was already operating in shadow form divided up into 100 companies from 1st April 1994.

To be fair, there wasn‘t a lot except for uncertainty and hiatus going on in the "shadow" privatisation period. Lots of the most important reforms such as InterCity style services, clock face timetables, innovative ticketing, such as the advent of railcards and the beginnings of yield management were the products of the sectorised railway.

 

[Zoe]

Also bear in mind privatisation reforms began a couple of years earlier, in 1993

Which privatization reforms? I'm not sure that the 1992 restructuring where the regions were abolished and the sectors took full responsibility for infrastructure and opreations could be counted as a privatization reform, it actually took the railway in a different direction to that which was chosen for privatization and with hindsight a bit pointless. It's odd that BR went in this direction in 1992 when it would have been quite clear at the time that separation would be required by the EU directive at least for accounts. If BR was to stay then I'd have thought retainining the regions and having the sectors paying for track access (along with any open access companies) would have been a more suitable structure.

 

[edwin_m]

Either way, during the years up to and through privatisation very little changed on the railway. Take your pick from one or more of the following reasons:

- Services for the private operator had been specified based on a previous timetable
- Rolling stock had been allocated to operators and changing this would be difficult/impossible
- Management was preoccupied with restructuring rather than making improvementsd to the service
- General view that it was just too difficult to do anything different in this period
- Managers may have been saving their "wizard wheezes" to go into their management buyout bid for the franchise

 

[Bevan Price]

There are numerous reasons why passenger numbers rise and fall, and not everybody will agree on these.

Falling passenger numbers:-
1. Development of electric trams, followed by reliable motor buses. These abstracted a lot of short distance suburban traffic from the railways, mainly due to higher frequencies, and being located closer to residential areas than many stations. (Early 1900s onwards)
2. WW1 & WW2. Millions of soldiers were overseas, so unable to use rail services except when on leave in UK. "Unnecessary" leisure travel was discouraged by the government, especially in WW2.
3. Poor state of national economy. Slow recovery from WW1 & WW2; economic depression, 1930s; less severe recessions on several other occasions.
4. Much wider car ownership frpm 1950s onwards. Probably aided by rail commuters looking for alternatives after the 1955 ASLEF strike - although it took a few years for many of them to become able to afford a car.
5. Marples-Beeching closures. Beeching apparently thought many passengers from closed lines would go to nearest railhead by bus or car, and then continue to travel by rail for the rest of their trip. They didn't - they drove for the entire journey and were lost to the railway.
6. Above inflation fare increases.
7. Poorly planned timetables, making some lines almost useless for travel to/from work or school. Just look at some old branch line timetables, and consider how you would have got to / from work.

Passenger growth.
1. Better / faster services following electrification, introduction of HSTs, etc.
2. Car driving / parking becoming increasingly expensive - sometimes exceeding the cost of rail travel despite high fare increases.
3. More frequent rail services.

 

[WatcherZero]

Passengers and freight traffic rose during WW1 and WW2 as they were transporting soldiers around the country.

 

[Eagle]

Would that be reflected in the official totals though? A lot of military train details were kept classified at the time. For instance, the public barely even heard about the Quintinshill crash until years later.

 

[daccer]

Political will was always going to be the key to the railways being turned around. During the long years of decline the lack of political interest in maintaining a national asset became apparent to the public at large who then became apathetic to the network. This lack of interest allowed much of the run down to happen with little regard for the future.

Ironically privatisation forced the Govt to take more of an interest in the railways. For the sake of dogma they needed the process to appear to succeed and so higher levels of funding became available. Almost by default this led to improvements and a virtuous circle coming into play where improvements led to higher demand so leading to further improvements. This also more importantly led to a change in the public perception of the railways and some additional social and economic circumstances have now given an extended period of growth. The key thing for the railways now is to take advantage of this to provide long term gains which will not disappear if growth stops for a period.

 

[edwin_m]

Would that be reflected in the official totals though? A lot of military train details were kept classified at the time. For instance, the public barely even heard about the Quintinshill crash until years later.

I note the linked graph doesn't include WW1 figures, so perhaps either they were an official secret or people had better things to do than count passengers on trains. The WW2 figures are on the graph but it is possible that special troop trains weren't included.

 

[DT611]

Seems crazy now to think that there was a chance of the nine coach 222s being diverted to Ireland because we couldn't find a use for them in the UK.

thats interesting, tell me more, if they had then in theory irish rail would have had enough carriges to allow much earlier the removal of the commuter stock from long distance services after the retirement of much of our loco hauled stock, however i suspect they would end up using some on short hall commuter routes while commuter stock runs the odd long distance service as currently happening

 

[Johnny_w]

Probably a stupid question. But I wonder if increases in domestic fuel costs are linked too the change in travel. (I don't want too rehash the whole cost debate here).

But personally the railway is often slightly cheaper than the car *Just* taking in account the hit too the disposable income (fuel and parking).

Even if it's a Tad more expensive then it will often outweigh in terms of relaxation and,mostly, guaranteed seating via prebooking.

JW

 

[Taunton]

But when did the railways start to take assume that future passenger numbers would be higher than they currently were (and not lower)?

10 June 1986, when Chris Green rebadged the ponderous London & South East Sector (dreary brown livery) as Network South-East (bright striped livery), and everything that went with it.

Many of the promotions that followed were all about increased, not reduced, numbers. Inter-City then caught the bug, and then even the other services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if it's a Tad more expensive then it will often outweigh in terms of relaxation and,mostly, guaranteed seating via prebooking.

JW

There are so many journeys suitable to rail where prebooking just isn't appropriate, which really, if sorted out, would increase usage considerably.

Having to go for a specific departure on a near-metro frequency service, such as Euston to Birmingham, is just silly. People are arriving whenever and want to take the next one without being hit for costs 200%, sometimes more, compared to pre-booking.

Joining a reserved seat service (eg Cross Country) mid-journey and finding elderly pensioners sat in your seat, none vacant, and more pensioners actually standing, what is the approach meant to be? Throw old granny out? Many of us have more social skills than that.

Expecting people to turn up at precise times when the services are running mostly empty (even the early morning departing from London) and very frequently just comes over as a nonsense. And, of course, for the majority of passengers, there are no reservations.

Compare with going by car. If the kids throw up as you are leaving the house and you're delayed 15 minutes, you're probably 15 minutes late at destination with no extra cost, rather than being gleefully and sarcastically told you'll have to pay a huge extra amount, let alone some staff who want to pretend you are a fare-evading criminal in such circumstances. What a way to treat fare-paying customers, and a sure-fire way to ensure they won't come back if they don't have to. As, in my experience, arrival by car is nowadays MORE reliable for time than by train, this is what rail is competing against, instead of the ever-shrinking proportion of the population for whom there is no option.

 

[jon0844]

I guess as usage has increased, services have had to become more frequent - and once you have a train every 30 minutes or even more frequent than that, you suddenly start to see rail travel in a totally different light. I can't remember the last time I drove into London (actually I can, it was when I was taking my stuff home after leaving my last job - and that was on a Sunday, and it was still a pain to drive around east London and find suitable parking).

And besides it being more convenient to use the car, I still think that the cost of fuel sets in the minds of most people that a car is expensive, even if the car, insurance and other costs have fallen in real terms.

I also think a lot of people now enjoy the relative comfort of being on a train where you can do nothing, read a book, play on your smartphone, surf the net on a laptop, watch a movie or have a drink. Or be in a car and not knowing exactly how long it will take given congestion, the need for rest breaks etc.

Sometimes a car is always going to win - if there are a lot of you and lots of luggage. You need to travel at an awkward time, or to/from places that might require multiple trains or other modes of transport (buses, taxis etc) but for more and more things, the train is a viable and comfortable choice that is probably on a level playing field for many when deciding.

I can honestly say that after being a total petrolhead for 10+ years, I wouldn't look upon rail travel as second best, and in many cases it's the preferred option.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Lots of good comments - the growth after the glorious Railways Act of 1994 was partly due to the constraints of "do nothing - by Order" being unleashed ,and planning staff being able to do some innovative things. (till RT went pear- shaped and costs sky-rocketed)

What is really interesting is how growth survived (and grew) after 2008 - despite the Bank meltdowns , de-stocking and so on. An increasing urban population has a lot to do with - not just in the London and South East area , but also in the regions. Note a weekly season into Cardiff for example is cheaper than a weeks parking in the (diminishing) central city car parks as they were recycled for building , plus fuel cost etc and a host of other almost unquantifiable factors like RPI-1 for tran fares for a few years after 1996...