'Have train fares gone up or down since British Rail?'

[Captain Chaos]

Just saw this on the BBC and thought it would be of interest.

I find it rather interesting that most of the season tickets appear to be better value in real terms compared to 1995. Whereas Single Fares are less so.

So what are your opinions to this? Are Season holders much better off than they were years ago? Should the system be changed so as Season tickets and other tickets are more fairly increased?

Here's the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703

Have train fares gone up or down since British Rail?

It is 20 years since rail privatisation was set in motion. Are fares higher or lower today than they were under British Rail?

January is the traditional time of year for teeth gnashing from rail passengers as fares rise again.

Twenty years ago, the wheels of rail privatisation were set in motion. In January 1993, John Major's government enacted the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act 1993.

At the time, the message was that fares would rise no faster under the new privatised railway as under BR. It was suggested that they might even fall.

"I see no reason why fares should increase faster under the new system then they do under the present nationalised industry structure," Transport Secretary John MacGregor told the House of Commons in February 1993. "In many cases, they will be more flexible and will be reduced."

So two decades years on, what has happened?

Since the last set of British Rail fares were published in June 1995, the rate of Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation has risen by 66%, according to research by fares expert Barry Doe for Rail Magazine.

Doe's figures show a huge variation in fares since privatisation.

A single from London to Manchester has gone up by 208%, up from £50 in 1995 to £154 today. That is more than three times the rate of inflation.

But a season ticket for the same journey has risen by only 65% - just less than inflation.

(read more)

 

[cuccir]

I find it rather interesting that most of the season tickets appear to be better value in real terms compared to 1995.

Is that a fare (ha!) conclusion? From the season tickets:

5 of the fares have gone up more than the rate of inflation
1 fare Has increased with inflation
4 of the fares have gone up below the rate of inflation

From that we could say that - at best - the fares are inline with inflation.
Furthermore, the average change is a 9.1% rise above the rate of inflation, as the above-inflation increases are higher than the below-inflation increases.

Of course, the results of this survey are not statistically significant - the sample size is far too low.

 

[radamfi]

Probably a more important comparison is between wages and season tickets. That is more favourable to the train operators as wages usually go up higher than inflation, although of course in recent years the reverse has been the case. Of course, it could be argued that fares under BR were extortionate in the first place.

There is an assumption that the innovation in Advance fares only happened because of privatisation. BR had already implemented Apex and SuperApex fares and had BR continued to exist, maybe they would have also had issued Advance type tickets as internet technology came along. Most other European networks have market priced Advance type fares despite no other European country having privatised their long distance rail network. In Italy there is now a private company running high speed trains, but FS still runs them in competition.

 

[Zoe]

Most other European networks have market priced Advance type fares despite no other European country having privatised their long distance rail network. In Italy there is now a private company running high speed trains, but FS still runs them in competition.

Has anywhere gone as far as making some intercity services book in advance only with no walk-up fares available?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BR had already implemented Apex and SuperApex fares and had BR continued to exist, maybe they would have also had issued Advance type tickets as internet technology came along.

The difference was though that back in the days of BR, walk-up fares did seem to be the norm even for intercity journeys with advance fares offering a discount on this but only available at a fixed price and only a certain routes. Since around 2006, advance fares seem to have become the norm for intercity journeys with walk-up fares a premium option. Would there have been as much of an incentive for BR to change the system?

 

[radamfi]

Has anywhere gone as far as making some intercity services book in advance only with no walk-up fares available?

It could be argued that TGV/Thalys/Eurostar/AVE/ICE (Brussels to Frankfurt) and others that are reservation compulsory could be considered to have no walk-up fares. However in practice you can usually get a ticket just before you get on as long as there are seats.

The difference was though that back in the days of BR, walk-up fares did seem to be the norm even for intercity journeys with advance fares offering a discount on this but only available at a fixed price and only a certain routes. Since around 2006, advance fares seem to have become the norm for intercity journeys with walk-up fares a premium option. Would there have been as much of an incentive for BR to change the system?

To be fair, walk-up off-peak fares have been capped by legislation, although the capping has been to the Saver level (with the withdrawal of the SuperSaver) and extra restrictions on the tickets have been imposed. Certainly though, most normal people find long distance Anytime tickets out of their price range these days when they might have considered an Open Single/Return vaguely affordable under BR.

I'm not sure what would have happened if BR had continued. I suspect Anytime fares wouldn't have risen by as much, but Off-Peak fares may have gone up more and there may not have been as cheap Advance fares.

 

[Zoe]

To be fair, walk-up off-peak fares have been capped by legislation, although the capping has been to the Saver level (with the withdrawal of the SuperSaver) and extra restrictions on the tickets have been imposed. Certainly though, most normal people find long distance Anytime tickets out of their price range these days when they might have considered an Open Single/Return vaguely affordable under BR.

However in 2004 the cap changed from RPI minus one percent to RPI plus one percent and around this time Super Saver tickets were completely withdrawn making the cost of turn up and go travel significantly more expensive. Saver tickets were also made more restrictive but the TOCs did introduce a wide ranger of advance fares which were even cheaper than the Super Saver and I get the impression that people were in general quite happy to give up the flexibilty of walk-up tickets in return for cheap advance fares with Saver tickets remaining as a premium option for those that really needed and were prepared to pay for them.

It was actually the SRA that called for the Saver to be repositioned as more of a premium ticket back in 2003:

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk...save-the-saver-50002-13180166/#story_continue

A cheap rail ticket from Birmingham to London could double in price, it was claimed today.

The Saver class represents the only chance many users have of getting a reasonably affordable trip.

With Virgin's standard ticket from Birmingham to London Euston costing £92, the saver is much cheaper at £28.50. A First Class ticket costs a whopping £158.

Now the Strategic Rail Authority is calling for saver fares to be "repositioned as more of a premium ticket".

Train operators like Virgin have been putting pressure on the SRA to ease regulations on the prices of the saver tickets.

It seems we are lucky that the only change was to RPI plus one percent and the cap wasn't completely removed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure what would have happened if BR had continued. I suspect Anytime fares wouldn't have risen by as much, but Off-Peak fares may have gone up more and there may not have been as cheap Advance fares.

Not sure about that, they would have been left with empty trains if they had expensive walk-up fares and expensive advance fares.

 

[yorkie]

Looking at the figures and graphs, it's clear that 'InterCity' type services have suffered far more than the former 'NSE' type services. Commuters are also less badly affected than people making one-off trips.

The graph does not cover 'Regional' services, but I would take a guess that they are not as badly affected, unless the flow is priced by Cross-Country in which case people travelling at "peak" times are very badly affected by the draconian restriction codes.

What the data cannot ever really take into account is the cost of making a journey that would have been valid on a Saver in British Rail compared to making the same journey today. To do such a comparison would involve examining restriction codes and a direct comparison is not possible. A good thread highlighting that issue and how unbelievably high some increases are, using York-Birmingham as an example was posted by D6700 How things change, yet also stay the same

I treat York - London like an airline: I will only travel if I can book far in advance. Booking on the day travel is not feasible and I will simply not travel. It's just not a viable option.

 

[soil]

It's slightly meaningless.

An off-peak, walk-up, flexible return from London to Manchester is £77.30, or £38.65 each way.

This is less than the quoted £50 from 1995.

The market for Anytime long distance singles is a specific one, and in nearly every case they would be coming back, so the price of a walk-up single is irrelevant.

I consider that £38.65 for London to Manchester, on the day, is very cheap.

It's worth noting also that the RPI is not necessarily the best comparator. In 1995 petrol cost 53p/litre. It now costs £1.33.

 

[radamfi]

An off-peak, walk-up, flexible return from London to Manchester is £77.30, or £38.65 each way.

This is less than the quoted £50 from 1995.

But you are comparing the 1995 Open Single to today's Off-Peak Return! What you should really compare is the 1995 SuperSaver to today's Off-Peak Return and the 1995 Open Single to today's Anytime Single. I did actually buy an Open Single on that route once or twice back in those days and I had virtually no money as I was a student. However I wouldn't ever consider buying an Anytime Single today on that route these days. It should also be borne in mind that the return portion of a SuperSaver could be used on any train in those days, except on Fridays and other peak days when you would need a Saver.

It's worth noting also that the RPI is not necessarily the best comparator. In 1995 petrol cost 53p/litre. It now costs £1.33.

But haven't total motoring costs increased by a much smaller amount?

 

[soil]

But you are comparing the 1995 Open Single to today's Off-Peak Return! What you should really compare is the 1995 SuperSaver.

Yes but they haven't quoted that in the article.

As they note, the season ticket has risen by less than inflation.

Clearly it is appropriate to compare season ticket costs, since these can form a significant part of people's wages, but I don't see that the price of long distance singles is a particularly useful measure of anything.

Rail passenger numbers are rising, and it makes sense to deter peak-time travel as much as possible. The prime beneficiaries of this of course are season ticket holders, whose fares, as the article notes, have not risen particularly fast.

But haven't total motoring costs increased by a much smaller amount?

Well the marginal cost (nearly all fuel) of a journey from London to Manchester is clearly much higher now. Whether the cost of cars is now lower, is not really relevant, since nearly everyone owns a car.

 

[SS4]

The author can exploit the number of variables in the sample to fit whichever conclusion he or she (or his/her editor) has already decided on. Thus making such comparisons less reliable than Basil Fawlty's car

 

[soil]

Quite cheeky I feel to say that the £55 fare is now £154, without really making it clear that there is a £98 fare which is very usable for leisure travel being valid on a large number of trains daily.

Regular commuters don't pay hugely more, so the only ones who really pay more are those passengers who travel occasionally and insist on doing so at peak times. Seems reasonable that they are made to bear the brunt, IMO.

 

[radamfi]

But for long distance routes, like London to Manchester, aren't season tickets bought in very small numbers? Even considering the shorter journey time today, it still takes over 2 hours so not many people are prepared to spend that long commuting, and even if they are, the £1,274 per month season ticket cost would deter most of them. That particular route is famous for being less busy in peak than off-peak. That is why the first train leaving Euston in the evening after the peak restrictions end is always so busy.

 

[Holly]

Originally Posted by Tom de Castella, BBC Magazine ...
"I see no reason why fares should increase faster under the new system then they do under the present nationalised industry structure," Transport Secretary John MacGregor told the House of Commons in February 1993. "In many cases, they will be more flexible and will be reduced." ... [emphasis added]

That much at least was a bare faced lie.

Fares are hugely less flexible than they were; not more flexible.
And John MacGregor knew full well that that was be perpetrated on the public.

 

[bb21]

That much at least was a bare faced lie.

Fares are hugely less flexible than they were; not more flexible.
And John MacGregor knew full well that that was be perpetrated on the public.

Not quite so, as the majority of Off-Peak fares now have no break of journey restrictions on the outward portion.

However I am not for one minute suggesting that it is linked to privatisation, and I totally get your point.

 

[soil]

Peak restrictions result in bunching after the peak, that's inevitable.

This was addressed by East Coast and others by introducing super off peak fares, to create more of a distinction between the £36 fare and the £154 fare. But when they do they are criticised for it....

 

[cuccir]

Two threads on this - do they need merging?

 

[Zoe]

This was addressed by East Coast and others by introducing super off peak fares, to create more of a distinction between the £36 fare and the £154 fare. But when they do they are criticised for it....

If a cheaper than Saver Super Off Peak fare had been introduced (like BR used to do with the Super Saver) and the Saver remained the same then I doubt there would have been many complaints. Instead though, the new fares were introduced at the current Saver rate but much more heavily restricted and the Off Peak fare was then hiked. On the other hand, you can get a fare that is likely cheaper in real terms than the Super Saver would have been and guarantee yourself a seat by booking in advance.

 

[bb21]

Peak restrictions result in bunching after the peak, that's inevitable.

This was addressed by East Coast and others by introducing super off peak fares, to create more of a distinction between the £36 fare and the £154 fare. But when they do they are criticised for it....

They are criticised for it as Super Off-Peak fares were introduced to replace the Saver, but with much more draconian time restrictions. Off-Peak fares on East Coast, unlike many other TOCs at simplification, were not brought in to replace Saver fares, but the more expensive Business Savers. The net effect is a stealth price rise.

Something very similar happened in FGW land, starting at around 2005, when they abolished the old Super Saver, hacked up Saver fares by 20%, then reintroduced Super Savers at the old Saver rates (presenting it as a brand new "cheaper" fare), but now with heavier time restrictions for the same price compared to the old Saver.

 

[yorkie]

Two threads on this - do they need merging?

Someone alerted me to this, so yes I will do that now.

I looked in this section but couldn't find a thread existing, also did a search for some of the contents and couldn't find it.

I will move the text of the article into the OP's post (so it complies with our Forum Rules regarding the posting of articles), and move it into the Fare Advice & Policy Section.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Peak restrictions result in bunching after the peak, that's inevitable.

This was addressed by East Coast and others by introducing super off peak fares, to create more of a distinction between the £36 fare and the £154 fare. But when they do they are criticised for it....

They did not "introduce" the Super Off Peak. The fare that is "Super Off Peak" on East Coast (and some other TOCs, such as EMT) is the protected fare, the old Saver. These tickets were alid at all times for non-London/Stevenage journeys, and had generous restrictions for London/Stevenage journeys. They have re-named the fare and introduced a myriad of draconian and complex restrictions. They then introduced a new fare called Off Peak that is considerably more expensive.

It is absolutely right for people to criticise them for these actions.

On the other hand, if they had kept the Off Peak as the same terms as the old Saver, and the price increase in line with the protection that those fares are supposed to have, and had genuinely introduced a Super Off Peak, then I would completely agree with you.

But that just isn't what happened!

 

[soil]

Clearly if there are empty trains running through most of the day over 100s of miles that's a bad thing. So I think pricing people off the most crowded trains and onto these empty trains makes a lot of sense.

 

[Goatboy]

The overall rise is hidden by the plethora of ultra-cheap advance fares on routes like the WCML, ECML and Midland Mainline.

If you live in Birmingham and want to travel to London midweek in advance then great, you can do it for 15 quid return. Next month I will travel from Birmingham to Euston, one way, for just £2.50 more than the cheapest possible daytime offpeak single from Malvern Link to Worcester, a journey of 6 miles. This sort of thing is just stupid. A daytime Link to Worcester train is just as completely empty as the over-capacity Virgin trains the cheap advances are offered on.

Sadly for the rest of us who use routes which either do not have Advance flows or have XC Advance flows priced so that you might as well just buy an offpeak return, it's not quite as rosey. But whenever somebody points this out somebody else pops in and waves a 5 quid London to Edinburgh Advance Single around and says look how cheap rail travel is.

 

[soil]

The article, as usual, is obsessed with London.

It doesn't recognise the many different fare levels depending on routes taken.

For example, you can take the direct train from Southampton to Bristol for £34.50 Anytime Return.

A Not Via London fare, clogging up the busy Bristol - Reading - London fare is £177.

 

[Goatboy]

For example, you can take the direct train from Southampton to Bristol for £34.50 Anytime Return.

A pretty reasonable fare for a journey of about 80 miles given the flexibility it offers. But if instead of going to Southampton from Bristol you wanted to go a similar distance but to Birmingham, you'd pay £100 for that same Anytime Return ticket.

 

[Zoe]

A daytime Link to Worcester train is just as completely empty as the over-capacity Virgin trains the cheap advances are offered on.

Are the Virgin trains really that over-capacity? If so then the question of why people are not using them considering they now run at turn up and go frequencies that when combined with congestion in the cities should make the train the most convenient option.

 

[Goatboy]

Are the Virgin trains really that over-capacity?

I've no idea, I'll let you know when I've tried it. But we are often told on here that high fares are because the route is busy and supercheap advances are because of lots of excess capacity.

If it's packed then I would seriously question why Virgin are giving away tickets for trivial amounts of money.

 

[bb21]

I've no idea, I'll let you know when I've tried it. But we are often told on here that high fares are because the route is busy and supercheap advances are because of lots of excess capacity.

Surely you don't believe all that.