Boycott of the railways

[transmanche]

That's like saying; because huge numbers of people are clearly 'willing' to pay the prices charged by gas and electricity suppliers in winter, they're not allowed to regard them as a rip-off?

[...]

But then there are many people that 'trade up' and move somewhere that they can buy a bigger property for the same money.
I'd lay money that many of the people that commute from Brighton, or Oxford, or Maidenhead, or Woking could easily afford to live nearer work, and I don't mean in a crummy flat.
But because they want four bedrooms, a double garage and room for a pony, they subject themselves to three hours travelling a day.

In the same vein, people only choose to keep warm by heating their house with gas or electricity. They could just wear thick jumpers instead. Again; just because it sells well, it doesn't mean it's not a rip-off.

 

[tbtc]

For many people, it's pretty much Hobson's choice though. They live where they can afford to, they work where the jobs are and there is only one practical option for commuting between the two.

The point is made though. Just because something is sells well, it doesn't mean it's not a rip-off.

Some people seem to manage to live and work in small towns.

Some people seem to manage to live and work in big cities.

So if people decide to live in towns and commute to cities then they are presumably getting some benefit from this (higher wages, lower cost of living).

 

[Goatboy]

Some of the prices on the railway are absolutely fantastic value for money. Some of the prices on the railway are reasonable. Some of the prices on the railway are unreasonable. Some of the prices on the railway are frankly outrageous.

Which is why this sort of argument goes round in circles, for every expensive ticket somebody can find a cheap one to argue the railways are good value.

Sometimes travelling by train is so much cheaper than fuelling my car it's a no brainer and I leave it at home. Sometimes I could drive my car to my destination and back multiple times for the same cost as using the train.

 

[transmanche]

Some of the prices on the railway are absolutely fantastic value for money. Some of the prices on the railway are reasonable. Some of the prices on the railway are unreasonable. Some of the prices on the railway are frankly outrageous.

Exactly, I recently travelled from Newcastle to London (and back) for just £30 with an advance fare. That's probably the cheapest ticket I've ever bought in over 20 years of travelling on that route. It's fantastic value; OK, I had to get the last train, arriving back in Newcastle past 2am, in order to get that price. (Even in BR days, I'm fairly sure that the lowest I paid was £20 for an Apex fare.)

But an off-peak return for the same journeys is £190.50. And that's definitely unreasonable.

 

[yorksrob]

There are always a core of people who never use the train anyway, so I suppose one might say that they're already "boycotting" it.

 

[dstrat]

Some of the prices on the railway are absolutely fantastic value for money. Some of the prices on the railway are reasonable. Some of the prices on the railway are unreasonable. Some of the prices on the railway are frankly outrageous.

Which is why this sort of argument goes round in circles, for every expensive ticket somebody can find a cheap one to argue the railways are good value.

Sometimes travelling by train is so much cheaper than fuelling my car it's a no brainer and I leave it at home. Sometimes I could drive my car to my destination and back multiple times for the same cost as using the train.

I'd suggest most fares are 'outrageous' or be it just marginally less than 'outrageous'.

For the most, 'peak' fares are a rip-off. Public transport is not meant to be comparable to the car, it should be substantially cheaper...because its public transport. The pleasantness or whatever of travelling by train aside, it should be cheaper. The fares you see to the big cities clearly only allow the deep-pocketed business traveller to use - perhaps those with the expenses account to charge to.

If you got a cheapish fares, chances are its from one small place to another, with a fairly poor hourly service.

 

[maniacmartin]

I don't understand the argument that a route with infrequent services should be cheaper. Surely a route with lots of services should be cheaper, by virtue of the economy of scale. There are more services and passengers travelling through each station and past each signal etc, and the costs of maintaining these don't go up proportionally with passenger numbers.

It seems to me that the railway knows it can get away with charging more if services are more frequent, despite it costing them less per passenger to run. Of course some of it is down to pricing certain routes/times at capacity high to persuade people to travel at different times

 

[GearJammer]

Coach = 1 vehicle, 1 driver
Rail = driver + conductor, signalers, station staff, catering staff, track maintenance staff.
All the people that make your train journey possible earn and deserve a living wage

Are you serious?????? I can't believe how bias that comment is....

Going on your theory then the coach driver.....
Instals traffic lights and programmes there sequences.
Mans the coach/bus stations.
Supplies refreshments
AND builds and maintains the roads he drives on?????????

Yes i accept that theres a whole bunch of people that contribute towards running a train but to think that just one person runs a coach is a joke!

In fact you say 'Coach = 1 Vehicle + 1 Driver' then you say ''Rail' = driver plus conductor etc etc', again not a fair comparisom, it only takes 1 person to drive a train, the same as a coach!

 

[Wath Yard]

Public transport is not meant to be comparable to the car, it should be substantially cheaper...because its public transport.

What? Public transport means it transports the public, as opposed to private transport which doesn't. The fact it transports the public doesn't mean it should be substantially cheaper than private transport.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't understand the argument that a route with infrequent services should be cheaper. Surely a route with lots of services should be cheaper, by virtue of the economy of scale. There are more services and passengers travelling through each station and past each signal etc, and the costs of maintaining these don't go up proportionally with passenger numbers.

It seems to me that the railway knows it can get away with charging more if services are more frequent, despite it costing them less per passenger to run. Of course some of it is down to pricing certain routes/times at capacity high to persuade people to travel at different times

Still more staff and wear and tear. Routes with a high peak time frequency also tend to have relatively frequent services at off-peak times, which may make services more lightly loaded at some times of day than less frequent regional services.

Also, frequent commuter services often have lightly loaded trains running counter to the peak flow, which isn't always always the case with less frequent services.

 

[notadriver]

Are you serious?????? I can't believe how bias that comment is....

Going on your theory then the coach driver.....
Instals traffic lights and programmes there sequences.
Mans the coach/bus stations.
Supplies refreshments
AND builds and maintains the roads he drives on?????????

Yes i accept that theres a whole bunch of people that contribute towards running a train but to think that just one person runs a coach is a joke!

In fact you say 'Coach = 1 Vehicle + 1 Driver' then you say ''Rail' = driver plus conductor etc etc', again not a fair comparisom, it only takes 1 person to drive a train, the same as a coach!

Roads don't have to be maintained and checked as intensely as rails. Traffic lights once installed tend to be automatic. Railway signals require someone to operate them. And a coach driver could have had just 7 days intense tuition and passed their test allowing them to drive passengers around.

 

[Ze Random One]

It must be remembered that public transport pricing policies are first and foremost a political decision.

It has been decided for many years that "public transport must pay its way". In order for that to happen, farebox income has to rise to meet the cost of infrastructure, staff, rolling stock, fuel and operations. This applies equally to buses as to trains, with the exception that road infastructure is shared with private motorists.

The way of doing this is twofold -

Pare the service back to the bare minimum which can continue to attract a steady (or preferably increasing) stream of revenue. This means running as-short-as-possible trains, dropping frequencies, limiting services over quieter times, etc.

The other way is to look at your captive markets and seek to increase fares to ensure the maximum return, while providing attractive discounts to entice new or occasional customers.

In the case of the rail network, additional complications arise. The highly political nature of the network makes changing service patterns, or fares, to meet demand difficult. You also have the issue of the high purchase costs of the stock, making it more appropriate to see if you can get any return during the slack periods (i.e., off peak), just to keep the leasing costs covered. The ORCATS system may also have undesirable effects on price promotions, but I would expect it's very hard to quantify.

Finally, keeping commuting prices high is very convenient if you want to avoid infrastructure expenditure. Pricing people off of the busiest trains has been discussed time and time again as a far cheaper way of matching demand and capacity.
I note again that this also applies to buses -- many operators charge higher fares in the peak, or offer a better value range of passes outside of the peak.

Although there's sound economics behind most of these premises, it is ultimately a decision that has come from Whitehall -- and not just this government, this has been going on for decades. So if you want to get it fixed, you need to start lobbying...

 

[Oliver]

It has been decided for many years that "public transport must pay its way". In order for that to happen, farebox income has to rise to meet the cost of infrastructure, staff, rolling stock, fuel and operations.

That's not correct. NO government in recent times has expected public transport to fully meet its costs, For rail, the current government policy is (IIRC) that the users share of the total costs should rise from about 50% to about 60%. That still leaves a very large amount of the cost falling on the government (i.e. all taxpayers).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One advantage of the train that is easily forgotten is that your chances of survival are orders of magnitude better than on a coach. How much do you value your life?

If I make a journey by either train or by coach, my chances of survival are - to several significant figures - 100%. I'm fairly sure that even if I spent a year commuting by either option (and assuming I wasn't doing anything silly), the survival chances in both cases would still be extremely close to 100%. I'm not quite sure how just-below-100% can be orders of magnitude better than just-below-100%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't understand the argument that a route with infrequent services should be cheaper. Surely a route with lots of services should be cheaper, by virtue of the economy of scale. There are more services and passengers travelling through each station and past each signal etc, and the costs of maintaining these don't go up proportionally with passenger numbers.

It seems to me that the railway knows it can get away with charging more if services are more frequent, despite it costing them less per passenger to run. Of course some of it is down to pricing certain routes/times at capacity high to persuade people to travel at different times

Your 2nd paragraph answers your first one. Yes, economies of scale probably mean that a more frequent route is cheaper-per-train to operate. However in almost any business, the price charged is usually based not so much on costs but on what the customer is willing to pay (that's not just railways, that's how business works). And a more frequent service is more convenient for passengers, so people are probably willing to pay more.

 

[Goatboy]

What? Public transport means it transports the public, as opposed to private transport which doesn't. The fact it transports the public doesn't mean it should be substantially cheaper than private transport.

It should if its aim is to support the governments target of reducing car use. Otherwise everyone would just drive. Using your own personal and private transport should be the most expensive way of travelling.

Few people consider airlines or taxis 'public transport' and they also transport the public. The difference is that public transport is or should be a social/public service subsidised by the state whereas taxi's, airlines etc are not.

 

[Class377/5]

That's not correct. NO government in recent times has expected public transport to fully meet its costs, For rail, the current government policy is (IIRC) that the users share of the total costs should rise from about 50% to about 60%. That still leaves a very large amount of the cost falling on the government (i.e. all taxpayers).

Actually it's 75% not 60% the Government is aiming for so prices will continue to rise for sometime.

That's a 50% increase to fare payerson top of anything else.

However fact that the complex set up the Government left the railways in and is continuing to force increased costs (IEP) means that's not going to get better.

 

[DiscoStu]

It came from an article I found online somewhere, im not sure which station they were referring to. Sorry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What a ball ache. A passenger should be able to walk to the station and automatically be quoted the cheapest fare.

 

[tbtc]

I don't understand the argument that a route with infrequent services should be cheaper. Surely a route with lots of services should be cheaper, by virtue of the economy of scale. There are more services and passengers travelling through each station and past each signal etc, and the costs of maintaining these don't go up proportionally with passenger numbers.

True - infrequent routes are generally those making the biggest losses (e.g. Arriva Trains Wales) - where the fare revenue is nowhere near the cost of running the service (I think the Heart Of Wales line takes about twenty pence in revenue for every pound that it costs to run?) - hence why these routes don't offer bargain fares.

It must be remembered that public transport pricing policies are first and foremost a political decision.

It has been decided for many years that "public transport must pay its way".

It has been decided for many years that "public transport must pay 75% of its way"

What a ball ache. A passenger should be able to walk to the station and automatically be quoted the cheapest fare.

You can walk to the station and be sold the cheapest fare if you ask the person behind the desk. However that cheapest fare may restrict you to certain trains or mean you can only travel on a specific future date.

Please don't believe that cheap fares are only available on the Trainline

 

[Greenback]

With reference to the comment in the OP about coach travel being cheaper than railways, I am 57 years old and coach travel has ALWAYS been cheaper than rail travel. I would have thought it was common sense.

A lot of people may believe that coach travel is ALWAYS cheaper than rail travel, but that is not the case. I have compared costs for several journeys that I wanted to make, and quite a lot were cheaper by rail than coach.

Using another form of transport isn't a boycott. It's making a choice. I'm sure a lot of commuters would prefer a cheaper train service, but the alternatives are rarely convenient. People who can use coaches, which are, in my experience considerably cheaper, already do. Could the roads actually cope with a significant influx of ex-rail users?

The roads could probably cope outside of the London area, but there would be increased delays due to traffic, journey times would be considerably lengthened during peak hours, and the costs of maintaining the roads would probably go up due to the extra use.

I should perhaps clarify at this point that when talking about coaches not always being cheaper, I am talking about long distance journeys rather than commuter services.

Nobody is sensibly going to boycott the railways, they will probably do what my (very large) company has done once they worked out the swindle with their agency booking staff automatic "anytime" fares :
- institute "no travel" weeks
- ban open returns, you either have to book one leg on an advance ticket or travel off peak
- get as many people as possible to work from home or teleconference.

The first thing they should do is to ditch the agency. They would probably save enough over a year to appoint you as their rail ticket booking manager and double your salary to boot!

You need fuel to heat your house - there's not a lot of alternatives.

You generally choose where you want to work and you generally choose where you want to live - there are often alternative means of getting between the two.

If people decide to move out of the city and commute in, or if people decide to go and work in another town/ city then the cost of travel must be a price worth paying to allow that to happen.

For example, if I commute from Sheffield to Leeds each day (as I used to) I'd need to earn around £3k gross just to pay for the season ticket (approx £2k), so I factor that (and the time taken) into any job considerations.

I agree that travel costs need to be factored in to any decision making over where to live and work. People should also consider other things such as travel time, frequency of service and so on.

There is an argument that some people may have done this, be on a tight budget and unable to pay the sort of increases that some flows have seen. I do see some merit in this viewpoint, though I also think it is a bit naive to to expect higher than inflation rises (ticket prices seem to have been rising faster than inflation for at least 30 years) or to leave a margin for error when planning a budget.

You can walk to the station and be sold the cheapest fare if you ask the person behind the desk. However that cheapest fare may restrict you to certain trains or mean you can only travel on a specific future date.

Please don't believe that cheap fares are only available on the Trainline

Very true. Tough if the expectation is that staff will automatically be able to offer the cheapest fare including splits and rovers, then that is an unrealistic expectation by DiscoStu. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, though, suffice to say that tbtc is correct that a passenger should always be offered the cheapest through fare from origin to destination that suits their needs.

 

[Kneedown]

EMT may have high quality service refurbished 158s on their Norwich - Liverpool South Parkway/Lime Street services.

You must be very easily pleased. You can paint and decorate doggy doo as much as you like but it's still doggy doo at the end of the day. Doggy doo with less luggage space and more seats was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm not that against any of the sprinters - but the decor, crappy seats, bright lighting, poor line speed on my route, lack of capacity in general and lack of wifi annoy me personally.

The decor, seats, lighting and wifi could be fixed with a decent overhaul rather than the usual lick of paint type refurbs that Northern do. This to me is where the money needs speeding now.

The capacity will be fixed in time with cascades, so I'm hopeful of improvements soon. Similarly line speed on my line is due to be improved in part in CP5, so I'm hopeful of improvements there.

I still stand by the argument for new stock - 200 D/EMU carriages per year is a target for keeping stable replacement - however a level of 300-400 D/EMU carriages is needed in the short term (10 years) to clear out the stock that is completely beyond refurb and build capacity up.

 

[telstarbox]

And a high-frequency route (or faster route) is more attractive, so people will pay more for it. For example, LM only fares between Birmingham and London are cheaper than the Any Permitted, otherwise no-one would use their slower service for Birmingham-London journeys.

 

[Goatboy]

And a high-frequency route (or faster route) is more attractive, so people will pay more for it. For example, LM only fares between Birmingham and London are cheaper than the Any Permitted, otherwise no-one would use their slower service for Birmingham-London journeys.

I would personally disagree that high frequency has much of a relation to either the fares themselves or peoples willingness to pay. Journey time though, I would absolutely agree.

 

[Voyagergirl]

Could you give an example of a rail journey you think is too expensive and how much you think it should cost?

Doncaster to Scunthorpe - £10, should be no more than £6

Sheffield to Derby £15, should be around £9

Also, the government say there isnt enough funds to add extra coaches, yet charge these prices!

 

[Goatboy]

I am frequently on about faras as I think high fares is one of the key issues with our rail network. But those two you have highlighted don't seem that bad?

£10 return for a 26 mile journey Doncaster to Scunthorpe. Not cheap, but not exactly outrageous either is it?

Sheffield to Derby - 40 miles in half the time it would take by car? Again, it isnt cheap but its not a good example of the worst value offered.

 

[SPADTrap]

Doncaster to Scunthorpe - £10, should be no more than £6

Sheffield to Derby £15, should be around £9

Also, the government say there isnt enough funds to add extra coaches, yet charge these prices!

What experience have you got with pricing things in such a way? Or is that just what you'd 'feel like' paying? What's the TOCs operating costs for this? Quote me those and your post will hold some credibility.

I'm honestly curious.

 

[Goatboy]

What's the TOCs operating costs for this?

This keeps being mentioned but shouldnt be strictly relevent when pricing public services which are taxpayer funded.

Otherwise we'd be charging people £100 a trip on remote Scottish highland rail journeys of 5 miles in duration or £50 for a 5 mile bus trip in the middle of Wales. The cost of operating your childs primary school isn't factored into the school fees you pay if its state funded, either..

 

[SPADTrap]

This keeps being mentioned but shouldnt be strictly relevent when pricing public services which are taxpayer funded.

Otherwise we'd be charging people £100 a trip on remote Scottish highland rail journeys of 5 miles in duration or £50 for a 5 mile bus trip in the middle of Wales. The cost of operating your childs primary school isn't factored into the school fees you pay if its state funded, either..

Yeah true I see your point. But they still have costs which may be a factor?

 

[ukrob]

Doncaster to Scunthorpe - £10, should be no more than £6

Based on what exactly? A taxi would be four times that and take the same amount of time.

 

[Monty]

Doncaster to Scunthorpe - £10, should be no more than £6

Sheffield to Derby £15, should be around £9

Also, the government say there isnt enough funds to add extra coaches, yet charge these prices!

On what basis have you decided what fares should and shouldn't be? Thats like me walking into Argos and saying that televisions costs £200, it shouldn't be more than £100.