Ticket sales ... starting counting again.

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Another (financial) year starts ... and the base data for the Office of Road and Rail's ticket sales statistics for the 2016 - 2017 year is complete.  Taking a look at my own local station of Melksham, I would expect to see a further rise from the 60,676 recorded ticketed journeys of the 2015/16 year when the figures are published towards the end of this year. 

This year just completed, with trains approaching capacity (and, yes, "capacity" and not just "every seat taken"), we may not see as big a rise in percentage terms as we've seen in past years as some potential passengers - hard to quantify - are being put off.  We really need significantly more capacity and soon.

The figures are for ticketed journeys, and there have been significant improvements in the number of fares collected; whether that's kept up with passenger growth I wouldn't be so sure.  Ticket sales facilities are such that there are too many circumstances where passengers are unable to purchase before joining, and the short runs between our stations mean that quite often the conductor is unable to reach everyone travelling when they join and before the next station.   Unlike many other lines, we have a lot of "one stop hop" traffic, and to ungated stations too ...

OK - I have struck my neck out and suggested what we'll see for Melksham when the figures come out in December.   Would anyone else like to make any (similarly vague) comments about their lines / stations?

[Tim]

This last year whilst waiting for London-bound HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), I have noticed trains leaving Bath in the direction of Bradford in the after work peak that were so full that people were left behind.  This surprised me.  I knew those trains are too short and sometimes a crush, but I hadn't realised people were being left behind.  My travels on the same route is usually Cardiff-Bath where everyone is able to get on even in the peak.  In contrast my Bath-London peak time journeys are possibly less busy than they were 5 years ago (I know there has been train lengthening since then but still)

The conclusions I draw is that lack of capacity must surely be suppressing demand and that even on trains which are not too badly crowded overall, there can be acute capacity problems on short stretches of the route, and that those problems are perhaps not where you might first assume (I would have guessed that the worst problems were towards London and perhaps out of Bristol whereas it can be the smaller towns and cities that have the most challenges).

My predictions are that my local station - BTH^» (Bath Spa - next trains)- will see a reversal of last year's slight fall in exits and entries but that the increase will be mainly driven by local journeys rather than long distance travel to/from London; and that when we finally get some extra capacity on those routes (the Turbos, I assume) passenger numbers will leap forward with the release of suppressed demand.

The challenge for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) is that local journeys are perhaps less profitable than long distance routes.   

[simonw]

Looking at BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains)/BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) the overcrowding issue is not on London GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) trains, but on local GWR and CrossCountry trains.

If BPW/BTM are to see more passengers, longer CrossCountry and local GWR trains are needed, as well as more frequent.

With regards to Melksham, I am not convinced a larger train is needed, but probably adding another train to the TransWilts pool to improve frequency would be a better solution.



 

[grahame]

With regards to Melksham, I am not convinced a larger train is needed, but probably adding another train to the TransWilts pool to improve frequency would be a better solution.

An increase from every 2 hours to every hour (with the trains passing at Chippenham) would cure the immediate problem, yes ... some people currently taking the 15:29 or 17:53 from Chippenham would move to the new 16:53, and some people using the 07:49 or 10:04 from Melksham would move to the 08:49.

And you would build up new markets.  The 08:49 from Melksham would bring shop staff into Chippenham to do their 09:30 to 17:30 day's work and those shop staff would then head off home on the 17:53 which - err - would rapidly become full and squashed again if it was only as long as it currently is.

Work we've done indicates that both longer trains and more of them are needed.   I suppose you're right that a second train would be a "better" very short term step than lengthening the current one as it would probably lead to quicker growth and recurring overcrowding much more quickly!

[Tim]

Looking at BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains)/BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) the overcrowding issue is not on London GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) trains, but on local GWR and CrossCountry trains.

If BPW/BTM are to see more passengers, longer CrossCountry and local GWR trains are needed, as well as more frequent.

Interesting.  I get the feeling generally (nationally) that we are seeing a bit of a renaissance of local rail journeys.  This is a reversal of longer term historic trends whereby as households gained cars they used them for local trips and only used trains for longer journeys or trips to the big smoke where no one would want to drive to.

In the 15 years I have been doing a semi regular peak time commute from Bath to Paddington I've seen a big change in travel patterns.  The train used to arrive in Bath half full, fill up a bit more at Bath, a little more at Chippenham, a little more at Swindon and quite a bit more at Reading.  The last 30 minutes would be the busiest.  Everyone was going to London and the train picked more up as it got closer to the capital

More recently, plenty of people get off and on at all stops.   Bath-Chippenham, Swindon-Chippenham, Swindon-Reading are all significant flows. and the train is often busier before Reading than after it.  I get the feeling that regular 5 day a week peak time commuters to London are fewer with more people in professional "city jobs" becoming part time commuters (or their firms moving staff out of London to places like Reading), whereas a lot of younger people (who I assume are students or retail/service industry workers) are doing shorter commutes by train perhaps because car insurance for young people is stupidly expensive or because they prefer to be able to use their devices on their journey to work.  15 years ago the Bristolian would be 80% male and 80% tie-wearing.  The demographic has shifted a bit from that (I'm still male but no longer wear a tie everyday).

[Tim]

And you would build up new markets. 

I am sure you would.  I am not convinced that increasing frequencies is going to be much of a relief to overcrowding for short local journeys.  For a long distance cross country trip absolutely people will shift their travel times for an hour or so (and pricing of advance tickets can incentivise people to do that). 

I am impressed at what you have achieved on the Melksham trains with what is (if I may speak plainly) is objectively still a pretty lousy timetable.  Plenty of people will still dismiss the train option simply on the basis that a two-hour gap between trains is too long.  I have myself discounted travelling by train to Frome on several occasion because of the two-hourly service.  A once per hour service would be a game changer.  Suddenly the train starts to compete with the bus and the car much more successfully.  So whilst there is sensible discussion about what Melksham should get first - longer trains or more trains I don't think that the latter is a long term substitute for the former.

[simonw]

With all the new trains arriving in the next 6 months, is it possible to deploy an extra train for TransWilt to make the service even more viable.

[grahame]

With all the new trains arriving in the next 6 months, is it possible to deploy an extra train for TransWilt to make the service even more viable.

Profit or loss (viability) are somewhat different to maximising passengers carries.  Adding a second one coach train to the line double costs (staff etc) and paths taken, and you need to double your passengers to retain the same viability.   Stepping up to 2 coach train(s) means a change in the viability factors ... if you carry 1.5 x the number of passengers at 1.25 x the cost, you have made it more viable (and far more comfortable too!)

Interesting to note the comment from Brian Freemantle, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s rolling stock guru, at the ACoRP^▸ (Association of Community Rail Partnerships) meeting at Lincoln the other week where he talked of a desire to phase out all 153 (i.e. all 1 coach trains) as they're not economic.  For some light used lines, perhaps he was flying a yellow kite?

[grahame]

And you would build up new markets. 

I am sure you would.  I am not convinced that increasing frequencies is going to be much of a relief to overcrowding for short local journeys.  For a long distance cross country trip absolutely people will shift their travel times for an hour or so (and pricing of advance tickets can incentivise people to do that). 

Our research suggests that doubling the frequency to hourly would significantly more than double the number of passengers at the end of a relatively short build up period.

I am impressed at what you have achieved on the Melksham trains with what is (if I may speak plainly) is objectively still a pretty lousy timetable.

Thank you, and I agree. The timetable we have on Monday to Friday was just about the best that could be made from a single 153 and without any changes to other trains in December 2013.  But "best" doesn't mean "good" and we evaluated and supported it as being something that was good enough to get the ball rolling and reach a critical mass, which previous suggestions made on 2 or 3 extra trains during the day and no extra peak services wouldn't have done.

Plenty of people will still dismiss the train option simply on the basis that a two-hour gap between trains is too long.  I have myself discounted travelling by train to Frome on several occasion because of the two-hourly service.  A once per hour service would be a game changer. 

Yep!

In other words ... add in another 153 ... an hour ahead of the existing one for simplicity (and note that adjustments are needed to avoid other trains and the other 153) ... so that's

ex Westbury: 06:34, 08:48, 10:48, 13:14, 15:21, 17:32, plus 20:48
ex Swindon: 07:49, 09:47, 11:47, 14:12, 16:36, 19:06 plus 22:36

and some of those are truly moth watering ... you might just get away with a 153 for a year or two but frankly the 08:48 and 17:32 ex Westbury and the 07:49 and 16:36 ex Swindon would get pretty tight ...

[TaplowGreen]

And you would build up new markets. 

I am sure you would.  I am not convinced that increasing frequencies is going to be much of a relief to overcrowding for short local journeys.  For a long distance cross country trip absolutely people will shift their travel times for an hour or so (and pricing of advance tickets can incentivise people to do that). 

Our research suggests that doubling the frequency to hourly would significantly more than double the number of passengers at the end of a relatively short build up period.

I am impressed at what you have achieved on the Melksham trains with what is (if I may speak plainly) is objectively still a pretty lousy timetable.

Thank you, and I agree. The timetable we have on Monday to Friday was just about the best that could be made from a single 153 and without any changes to other trains in December 2013.  But "best" doesn't mean "good" and we evaluated and supported it as being something that was good enough to get the ball rolling and reach a critical mass, which previous suggestions made on 2 or 3 extra trains during the day and no extra peak services wouldn't have done.

Plenty of people will still dismiss the train option simply on the basis that a two-hour gap between trains is too long.  I have myself discounted travelling by train to Frome on several occasion because of the two-hourly service.  A once per hour service would be a game changer. 

Yep!

In other words ... add in another 153 ... an hour ahead of the existing one for simplicity (and note that adjustments are needed to avoid other trains and the other 153) ... so that's

ex Westbury: 06:34, 08:48, 10:48, 13:14, 15:21, 17:32, plus 20:48
ex Swindon: 07:49, 09:47, 11:47, 14:12, 16:36, 19:06 plus 22:36

and some of those are truly moth watering ... you might just get away with a 153 for a year or two but frankly the 08:48 and 17:32 ex Westbury and the 07:49 and 16:36 ex Swindon would get pretty tight ...

........can you water moths? Doesn't it make flying difficult?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Interesting.  I get the feeling generally (nationally) that we are seeing a bit of a renaissance of local rail journeys.  This is a reversal of longer term historic trends whereby as households gained cars they used them for local trips and only used trains for longer journeys or trips to the big smoke where no one would want to drive to.

It is indeed interesting.

In my household, we have recently dispensed with our second car, on the basis that I can easily get the train into Bristol (or to wherever) as the occasional need arises, and Mrs CfN can get a train down to Devon to see her family, also as the occasional need arises.  Our one car is now used mainly for all of our respective 'travel to work and home again' requirements.