This. Railways on the continent get a larger subsidy from central government than the railway in the UK.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
commuters whinge, where does all that money go?
- Thread starter mailman
- Start date
- Status
This. Railways on the continent get a larger subsidy from central government than the railway in the UK.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Rather they've realised that it's a vote loser.
Or the conseratives have given in, resulting in higher subsidies from the government meaning that we will be stuck in debt for an even longer period. The people who live closer to work have to see increases in their taxes to subsidies the people who wish to live further away from work. Two sides to this!
Although you have to ask yourself why, for example, it costs £6 Million to build a new station, even one of a supposedly low-cost modular design (Mitcham Eastfields). How much are our continental friends paying for a relatively simple project?
Yes, but owning a house in London is simply unaffordable. Whilst some might commute from say Wiltshire, Bath or Leicestershire for work; I wouldn't really say living in Stevenage or Ashford (Kent) is much of a lifestyle choice; more like the only place they can afford to buy!
As someone who spent 18 years growing up there, I concur.
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
I'm not saying the money is always well spent, but it does eventually come down to what proportion of the overall cost is bourne by the state, and how much by the user.
Are you sure? We have covered this off already on this forum and UK rail subsidies paid by the Government are significantly higher than European subsidies.
But anyway...has anyone got any ideas on how prices can be brought down because it seems like TOC's and the Government are taking the **** when fares go up by several hundred pounds every year to supposedly pay for improvements to the system.
Mailman
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that people who live closer to their work place some how magically pay more income taxes than those who live further away from work?
Isnt that a bit like confusing subsidies with tax breaks?
Mailman
People who work in London might get a bit more money (London weighting) but other than that, I can't see how tax would vary.
The reason I moved out of London, and not exactly far away (but enough to pay quite a lot more for travel) was to be able to live in a house with a garage and garden, as against a tiny one bed flat on the third floor - with shared parking and no open space.
I pay more for a mortgage now but have a lot more for my money, and accepted it would cost more to commute to work. However, over the last ten years, the increase has been - in my mind - rather excessive, and that's with me always renewing the year before (so deferring the next big increase by a year), with the exception of the year where the price didn't go up.
It would be nice to see season ticket holders cut some slack with perhaps a freeze for one year (and, ideally, people could put some extra money away into savings) as there are many people priced out of London who have to work. Leisure travel, on the other hand, is mostly optional.
However, I get that other people think the opposite. Sting season ticket holders as they already save loads and chose to commute. I now work from home, but if I hadn't changed job, there was no comparable job that I could do that wasn't based in London. If I remained living in London, I'd have gone stir crazy in the flat (and now with a baby, it would have been impossible).
The reason I moved out of London, and not exactly far away (but enough to pay quite a lot more for travel) was to be able to live in a house with a garage and garden, as against a tiny one bed flat on the third floor - with shared parking and no open space.
I pay more for a mortgage now but have a lot more for my money, and accepted it would cost more to commute to work. However, over the last ten years, the increase has been - in my mind - rather excessive, and that's with me always renewing the year before (so deferring the next big increase by a year), with the exception of the year where the price didn't go up.
It would be nice to see season ticket holders cut some slack with perhaps a freeze for one year (and, ideally, people could put some extra money away into savings) as there are many people priced out of London who have to work. Leisure travel, on the other hand, is mostly optional.
However, I get that other people think the opposite. Sting season ticket holders as they already save loads and chose to commute. I now work from home, but if I hadn't changed job, there was no comparable job that I could do that wasn't based in London. If I remained living in London, I'd have gone stir crazy in the flat (and now with a baby, it would have been impossible).
Perhaps I should rephrase. I meant that the Government's contributions to railways are a higher proportion of the income that railways have on the continent. Over here the Government is moving towards a 75:25 split, with the fare payer providing 75% of the revenue and the Government providing 25% in the form of subsidy. My understanding is that on the continent that split is more equal between the two.
You are paying for improvements to the system, you're just not seeing those improvements as they're not in your area (though what with Thameslink just around the corner you're turn is coming). Also as others have pointed out other prices have risen as well as your fare so it isn't as if the railways costs have remained static and your still paying more. In part you're paying more because the railway is costing more (and due to the change in the revenue split I indicated above).
Finally it's worth bearing in mind that whilst season tickets are expensive upfront, over the course of a year they represent a very good saving compared with buying a ticket everyday (assuming you travel when Off-Peak tickets aren't valid). I'm sorry to say I don't subscribe to the view that season ticket holders are incredibly hard done by. I should however add that I don't think that season ticket holders should be asked to pay more (in terms of bigger increases than other ticket types), just that the current (this year anyway) RPI+1% formula strikes me as being a fair increase on a product that is already good value.
The current system of running the railways costs far more than it did under BR and probably does in Europe.
BR required less subsidy and carried less passengers at lower fares, somewhere along the line ( no pun intended ) costs have risen substantially. Which is not the fault of passengers.
BR required less subsidy and carried less passengers at lower fares, somewhere along the line ( no pun intended ) costs have risen substantially. Which is not the fault of passengers.
I think ideally it should simply increase in line with inflation. There's no need to automatically add a further 1, 2, 3 or 4%.
The problem is that as time goes on, those percentage increases get bigger and bigger and compound themselves.
Oh I quite agree but seeing as it seems to be Government policy to have above inflation increases then +1% is pretty reasonable.
Well, true!
I guess that's the standard Government trick though; talk about something outrageous, then do something that's nowhere near as bad (but still bad, and if people weren't now relieved, they'd ordinarily be rather angry).
I guess that's the standard Government trick though; talk about something outrageous, then do something that's nowhere near as bad (but still bad, and if people weren't now relieved, they'd ordinarily be rather angry).
Annual season tickets certainly do offer a massive saving on normal fares. Assuming our Peterborough commuter paying £5600 works a 5 day week and has 5 weeks holiday a year he/she is paying £23.82 a day. That compares with a standard peak return fare of £50.50 on FCC and £99 on EC.
Don't forget that in order to handle the peak traffic and accommodate our £23.82 a day paying season ticket holder, the railway has to have in place a large amount of rolling stock/staff and track capacity, which in the absence of large numbers of peak hour commuters,would be required to a considerable lesser extent. One could indeed argue that these people should not be subsidised to such an extent.
There's an interesting point. National Coach fares between city centres have not changed nearly as much as train fares.
I came across a National Express timetable leaflet for Leeds 1989 the other day (back when they put the fares in them too). It suggests that an open return from Leeds to London has gone up by 44% in 12 years (£29.50 to £42.50), far less than inflation. However you can get it for less than half the 1989 price with advances valid only on the one coach which were not offered back then.
If you're travelling from Keighley to London, potentially on the same coach which goes via Leeds (And Bradford beforehand!) you won't be able to get advance tickets unless you split at Leeds.
If you go from Keighley to London on the megabusplus (again on advances) you can do it for under a tenner return including train travel between EM Parkway and St Pancakes.
There's been numerous occasions where I've caught NX or Megabus long distance and paid more for the local bus fare at one end of the route or the other.
On the subject of longer distance rail fares, I had a telling conversation with a friend at work who is about the same age as me, and who also goes down South fairly regularly to visit family.
Unlike me, he's car owner and some times goes at reasonably short notice. His point was that years ago when he used to travel, the train always used to be a better deal than the car cost wise, even when travelling with his girlfriend, yet nowadays the train only breaks even when he is travelling alone, whereas for two people, the car wins hands down.
Is the InterCity railway in danger of throwing away its competitive advantage for higher earning travellers - the sort who do own cars and aren't prepared to book three months in advance.
Unlike me, he's car owner and some times goes at reasonably short notice. His point was that years ago when he used to travel, the train always used to be a better deal than the car cost wise, even when travelling with his girlfriend, yet nowadays the train only breaks even when he is travelling alone, whereas for two people, the car wins hands down.
Is the InterCity railway in danger of throwing away its competitive advantage for higher earning travellers - the sort who do own cars and aren't prepared to book three months in advance.
What I've been curious about is how the Germans manage to keep their annual all line season ticket at £3200. You would have thought the network would be overwhelmed by long distance commuters. Or maybe the Germans aren't interested in long distance commuting?
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
I remember in the early 90's (long before I worked on the railway) it was cheaper for my wife and I to hire a car and drive London Wales than pay the trainfare. I'm always a bit dubious of these "In the good old days" stories...
tbtc
Veteran Member
I don't know Germany that well, and don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that the country is a lot less dominated by its capital than the UK is, so there's a lot less need for people to commute distances of 50 miles a day as an unremarkable distance (with many people travelling longer distances each day in the UK because they can't afford a house in/near London).
Likewise.
Such claims need the figures to prove it. And all the figures.
Yes the railway costs more currently, but there's more of it. Is the comparison really like for like? BR carried less passengers - how many staff are there per passenger today and then? If the costs of maintaining the railway have increased, is that the fault of the changed system, or is it increases in commodity costs?
Equally I've seen many claims regarding other Railways, but never have I seen a single figure. I'd want to see all the figures before I could be sure we were talking apples and apples.
It's easy to make such claims; but unless you can explain why they are higher, you can't be sure that the current system is to blame. And you can't explain them can you?
Yeah, they're nowhere near as good as they were in my day...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Are routes protected (and therefore subsidised) in all of Europe, or do they just close down routes that aren't heavily used or profitable?
I think we're pretty well served here, and with franchises forcing operators to run unprofitable routes, you can see why other people pay more for stations to remain open that might be very underused.
Last edited:
We probably run more unprofitable routes than many countries. But you would need to see a lot of data to know where we really stood in relation to others.
It's not all as clear cut as people would like to make out; I know that much.
It's not all as clear cut as people would like to make out; I know that much.
I've never driven, so I can't verify how accurate my friend's story is in that respect (although I do recall there seemed to be some cheaper options on InterCity journeys which were either walk up or as near as). However, that is his perception, and perception can be quite important in terms of marketing.
I don't know whether that is a complaint or an observation but I don't think the OP could use those terms in a derogatory manner. Anyone that chooses to commute over a long distance has to have a very good reason for doing so. My guess is that for most people it is worth doing because the financial rewards are substantially greater. I know they were when I commuted to Manchester. The higher salary compared to equivalent local employers more than compensated for the hundreds of pounds I spent on season tickets.
In simpler terms, if you don't want to pay the extra, get a job locally! (I did
)That's probably true in most cases, but it's not fair to assume everyone moved out to the 'burbs to enjoy the best of both worlds.
I don't know about house prices in other cities, but London is probably priced such that many people have no choice but to move out.. and I'm not talking about commutes from miles away - you only have to look at where I am (Hatfield) which is 20-odd miles out and see that you'll pay well over £3,000 a year.
Now, my salary did go up in my last job - but not everyone will be enjoying pay rises now - but the fares are still going up. This is leaving people stuck. Many may well now think to get a more local job, but how easy is that? And what about - as I said before - where you had a job in a city, moved out to get a nice place to live that's still fairly close, and now you can barely afford to go to your job?
Getting a local job might not be an option, so the other option is to move back to the city.. and that's near impossible. Maybe if house prices stop rising so sharply, or even fall, it might be feasible to move back but I'm pretty certain that now I've moved out of London the only direction I can move in from now on is further still.
There is of course another idea; tax incentives to reduce the impact of travel. Ways for employers to be able to subsidise the travel to encourage public transport usage (I know some do, but that isn't because there's any specific incentive from Government) might work.
However, there's then the other thing to consider. If season tickets became cheaper, more people would opt to use the train to travel, and then the peak services would become even more crowded...
I don't know about house prices in other cities, but London is probably priced such that many people have no choice but to move out.. and I'm not talking about commutes from miles away - you only have to look at where I am (Hatfield) which is 20-odd miles out and see that you'll pay well over £3,000 a year.
Now, my salary did go up in my last job - but not everyone will be enjoying pay rises now - but the fares are still going up. This is leaving people stuck. Many may well now think to get a more local job, but how easy is that? And what about - as I said before - where you had a job in a city, moved out to get a nice place to live that's still fairly close, and now you can barely afford to go to your job?
Getting a local job might not be an option, so the other option is to move back to the city.. and that's near impossible. Maybe if house prices stop rising so sharply, or even fall, it might be feasible to move back but I'm pretty certain that now I've moved out of London the only direction I can move in from now on is further still.
There is of course another idea; tax incentives to reduce the impact of travel. Ways for employers to be able to subsidise the travel to encourage public transport usage (I know some do, but that isn't because there's any specific incentive from Government) might work.
However, there's then the other thing to consider. If season tickets became cheaper, more people would opt to use the train to travel, and then the peak services would become even more crowded...
ChiefPlanner
Established Member
Bit of both - my son commuted for a week from Rosenheim to Munich and the weekly rate ws around £70 standard class - not much difference from UK. Their whole urban and transport structure is so different (with many people renting in fairly densely populated suburbs well served by tram etc) - buying a house out in the "real" suburbs is more expensive than in the UK , so the propensity to commute longer distances may not be there , especially when so much of the population lives in what often are very nice flats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Market forces - though interestingly , selective fares increase to buy more capacity in a Northern city , did not lead to a fall in traffic , and the extra capacity generated more growth. Complex mix of policy , historic issues , wage rates , property prices and cost of driving and especially parking.
The latter is not an option really in London ! - and hasnt been for the last century !
People are truly stuck - property prices in London are out of kilter with the rest of the UK, largely due to the huge amount of foreign ownership. If you moved away from London ten years ago, it would be nigh on impossible to move back now. Your old house has probably risen by 50% more than your new...
The real problem with season ticket prices really does stem from the property market in the UK, which is in itself a product with our obsessions with getting on the property ladder, having a garden, and at least one, but preferably three, spare rooms.
As people have moved out of London in great and greater numbers and to further and furthe rlocations, no doubt helped by the itnroduction of faster rail services, so the fares have risen due to the usual market forces of supply and demand.
The effect on London should be mentione das well. As highlighted in the programem about London streets that was shown earlier this eyar on the BBC, the movement of working people out of certain areas of London has led to some areas where there ar every high ratios of non working people. In contrast, other areas have become more gentrified with an influx of the extremely wealthy.
It's possible that the contrast between the rich and poor in the London area has never been greater as the middle and working classes have chiosen, or been forced into, moving away to places like Didcot.
As people have moved out of London in great and greater numbers and to further and furthe rlocations, no doubt helped by the itnroduction of faster rail services, so the fares have risen due to the usual market forces of supply and demand.
The effect on London should be mentione das well. As highlighted in the programem about London streets that was shown earlier this eyar on the BBC, the movement of working people out of certain areas of London has led to some areas where there ar every high ratios of non working people. In contrast, other areas have become more gentrified with an influx of the extremely wealthy.
It's possible that the contrast between the rich and poor in the London area has never been greater as the middle and working classes have chiosen, or been forced into, moving away to places like Didcot.
- Status