Great Western Coffee Shop

From Rail Technology Magazine (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/lower-prices-could-lure-40-of-non-rail-users-into-trains-study-finds)


We need to be very careful what the report's saying.  It is NOT saying "lower fares would push passenger numbers up 40%" - indeed, if fares were slashed numbers could go up by much more than that.   I don't know what proportion of the UK population would regard themselves as "rail users" as all the commonly published stats are about journeys made per head of population per annum ... and to get an average of 20 journeys from a sample of of 20 people, you could be looking at everyone making some journeys, or you could be looking at one daily commuter and 19 none-users.

Having exercised due care in looking at the data, and guessing that a third of the population are "train users", the report suggests that 40% of the rest could be lured into trains - that's an 80% increase in passenger numbers.  What proposition of those new users would reach the average 20 journeys per annum is another place I'm guessing, and I also wonder whether the trains (and infrastructure such as car parks) would have enough capacity, how much fares would have to drop to get that uptake, and what the overall balance sheet would look like - would it make economic sense, either for the rail industry or for the wider economy?

Common sense suggests that lower fares would encourage greater use of trains, though I would be reluctant to put a figure on it.
Rail fares are generally perceived as being either very expensive or very complex, or both.

Advocates of trains would point out that fares can in fact compare favourably with the TOTAL cost of driving. Unfortunately most potential passengers regard a car as an essential part of modern life. Having already obtained a car and paid the fixed costs thereof, the MARGINAL cost of using it is little more than the petrol cost.

Even those who commute regularly by train still need a car so as to get to work in case of rain, low temperatures, wind, signalling failures, heatwaves, and strikes. Having paid the fixed costs of motoring, driving all the time may become more attractive.

In recent years driving has got cheaper in real terms and rail fares increased. Cars have also become more comfortable and better specified, whilst many consider that trains are now worse.

Under present and reasonably foreseeable circumstances I cant realistically see any chance of  a general reduction in fares in order to attract more passengers. Most TOCS are suffering from severe overcrowding at peak times and clearly cant properly cope with present numbers, let alone an increase.

I have previously suggested a great simplification of rail fares, with only three different fares for the same journey instead of the present complexity.
This would not reduce peak time fares, some would increase.
Off peak fares might become cheaper, and extreme off peak would be cheaper. I see no merit whatsoever in charging a punitively high fare for last minute travel on a near empty train.

A simpler fare system, with last minute off peak fares being reduced would encourage more use of local trains for impulsive leisure trips.

Personally I think there is a lot more scope to publicise the fare deals that are already available and particularly to do this in an easy to understand, very targeted way. 

The report mentions that in a previous study, some non-users who went on a trip as part of the research found that the rail trip was cheaper than they thought it would be (and cheaper than the way they were usually making the journey).  I remember some old BR research that said people thought rail was twice as expensive as it actually was.  Yes, as we all know, rail can be very expensive but there are also some great deals out there, including for walk up travel.  For local journeys in the far South West, we have mostly very good value Off Peak Day Returns, the Devon & Cornwall Railcard, Groupsave and the various Day etc Rangers.   Targeted marketing of the journey opportunities and fares available is a big part of our work in the Devon & Cornwall Rail Partnership.

Whilst publicising offers could help, I feel that part of the problem is the need "to search around for the best deal" rather than simply buying an affordable off peak ticket.

This.

I agree with that, particularly for longer distance travel, but I was particularly talking about the walk up, mainly local fares that are available.  There's lots of scope.

I don’t believe there is capacity in many places to accommodate a 40% increase.
Today I took the 1115 to Looe, in term time albeit a nice day and all seats were taken, with several standees.
Seeing standing room only is common, and regularly mentioned on here, so why do something to attract more passengers that won’t fit?

People will generally pay higher prices for a quality product or service, in the case of the railway they are currently paying high prices for a pretty poor service on unreliable, overcrowded trains.

Perhaps the best solution is to provide a frequent, reliable service with sufficient capacity, if not for everyone to sit down, then at least to remove the cattle car syndrome.

Were that to be the case, passenger numbers would probably steadily rise without the need for cutting fares (in LTV they will rise anyway due to demographics.

Even a 10% rise in passenger numbers just now would raise overcrowding from appalling to something approaching catastrophic, but as well all know (from GWR) there is no safety risk attached to this  ::)

Plenty of capacity - just at the wrong times of day.

Liskeard to Looe today:
0605 0714 0850 1012 1115 1216 1320 1424 1541 1641 1806 1920

Bet there was room for 40% more on 06:05, 07:14, 13:20 and 19:20 for starters.   ;D

Hard, I appreciate, for the railways to engineer social change to the extent it would be needed

How about a prove rise to deter and reduce numbers.
I was talking with a railway employee (off duty over a pint, not a First Group employee) recently about the poor service TOCs supply and should they do more to encourage repeat travel. His response astonished me, “I can give bad service as we are still overcrowded so it doesn’t matter to my TOC, and in fact may help reduce passenger numbers below overcrowding!”

I caught the 1352 back, roughly 75% of seats taken at a quick look.

Single 153.

Yep, nice day ... down in the morning back through the afternoon.  Did the train arrive at Looe as busy as when it left??

That's a truly bizarre way to run a Business................was it just the one pint?  :)

Good to hear the Looe Valley Line is busy today.  Kids are back at school so it wouldn't necessarily follow that lovely day = full trains.   Richard's basic point is right and that's why we hold back from heavily promoting day trips on the line in the school Summer holidays but, as Graham says, even then, there is space on many non-day trip trains so we don't stop entirely and our promotion tends to be more underlying - walks, a new Foodie Guide about to come out and wider, more general promotion rather than "Plymouth people, why not take a day trip to Looe" which we do a fair bit in different ways outside the very peak times. 

I am very much looking forward to having a Cl150 on the line all year before very long now.  There is also a "cunning plan" bubbling away to lengthen the platform at Looe to allow four coach trains to run in peak Summer. 

More generally, yes, you need to be careful.  Putting on a lovely cheap fare which leads to completely wedged trains means no-one has a good journey, if they even get on the train but, away from the busy trains, there is still much to go at and, here in the far South West, much more from next January.   

A lot of people piled off the incoming service that makes the 1352, didn’t pay attention to numbers.
The 1352 had a lot of mums with toddlers, presumably making the dash back for the school run for older kids.