Northern to introduce evening peak restrictions

[muz379]

In terms of day to day running I'm sure their involvement is limited. But I'll bet my bottom dollar that the executives running Northern will be targeted on profit margins and profit levels, and sacked if they don't meet them.

I also believe that the ethos of a company comes from the very top. In another part of their business Serco were happy to invent people on tags in order to defraud the taxpayer of tens of millions of pounds. I don't believe that this was an isolated incident or a case of a rotten apple. If Serco don't care about the fallout from a complex fraud against the taxpayer, they're certainly not going to care about some northerners whining that their cheap evening return has been abolished.

I firmly believe that the railways should have remained in the non-profit sector, yes. The profit motive is causing much of the damage to the railways, especially the way Network Rail and the TOCs spend more time and money bickering about delay attribution than they do making sure the equipment works properly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It depends where you're travelling to, doesn't it.

If you're travelling to New Lane the train obviously needs to stop there. If you're going beyond New Lane then the train needs to stop there for you to do a 19(b) split. But if you're not travelling as far as New Lane (e.g. Wigan Wallgate or Bolton) then there's no such obligation.

I give it a week before tickets from New Lane have their restrictions changed.

Yes executives at Northern will be driven by Targets , and will be expected to maintain a profit margin , just like any other company , no different .

However this has not been done to drive that profit margin up like lots of people seem to be suggesting . That has been done because the DFT are giving Northern less in subsidy then they used to .

The profit margin on the railway is already 3% , for investors and shareholders that is a pretty shoddy profit margin when you look at the margins in a lot of other businesses .

Wether or not you or I think the railway should be run in a certain way is a topic for another thread , of which there are many on this forum .

The fact remains the railway is run in the way it is and so Serco & Abellio shareholders can expect to have that profit margin year in year out . If you disagree with that canvas and lobby against government , it is not Serco & Abellio that have made that decision .

If people think this is bad , this is just the beginning of the Mcnulty package being brought in , wait until they start reducing off peak services and sunday services , and putting off peak ticket prices up massively as well .

No. If starting a journey at Burscough Bridge with a New Lane - Manchester ticket, there is no requirement for the train to have stopped at New Lane. NRCoC Condition 16 applies.

Right you are , I got mixed up between the requirement for it to stop if using split ticketing and not break of journey ,

 

[northwichcat]

No. If starting a journey at Burscough Bridge with a New Lane - Manchester ticket, there is no requirement for the train to have stopped at New Lane. NRCoC Condition 16 applies.

Yep. The only thing that might happen is the conductor will tell you the train doesn't stop at New Lane and that you'll need to change trains to reach New Lane.

 

[alastair]

I completely agree with this .

one of the other mooted suggestions was to introduce car parking charges .If im honest I wont be surprised if this does happen eventually anyway

Im sure other mooted ideas to reduce the subsidy would have been a reduction in off peak services , including a massive reduction in later evening and Sunday services .

Northern wouldn't have done this IMO if it werent for pressure and prompting from the DFT . Its going to hit staff morale as guards and ticket office staff get abuse over it , its not good for PR all of the stories in the press that are running .

Re. car parking charges,how come there is free parking at Northern stations? Is that a historical thing going back to the BR era,or is it something seen to actively encourage people to use rail?

Down here in SWT land,car parking charges are a massive money-spinner for the TOC. Anything from £3 up to £15 a day with around £7 the average.

Sounds like Northern passengers get off very lightly!

 

[northwichcat]

Re. car parking charges,how come there is free parking at Northern stations?

There is not blanket free car parking at Northern Rail stations. Staffed stations outside PTE areas usually have parking charges. Within PTE areas only designated station car parks are free. However, sometimes the number of free spaces is limited and rail users who don't arrive by around 7am have to park in nearby council car parks for the appropriate daily charge.

Sounds like Northern passengers get off very lightly!

A typical generalisation after hearing what it's like in one area of the Northern franchise and automatically assuming it's the same everywhere.

Down here in SWT land,car parking charges are a massive money-spinner for the TOC. Anything from £3 up to £15 a day with around £7 the average.

It seems in SWT land you get heavily discounted rates from 12:00 on Friday

Basingstoke (BSK)
Managed by South West Trains
Weekend tickets available after 1200 noon Fridays at the ticket office £6.00
Saturday £3.00, Sunday £1.00

Lucky people in Basingstoke to be able to leave their car between Friday afternoon and Sunday afternoon for just £6. At Northern Rail managed Knutsford you'd pay £15 to do that, while at Wilmslow it would be £25!

 

[Tetchytyke]

However this has not been done to drive that profit margin up like lots of people seem to be suggesting . That has been done because the DFT are giving Northern less in subsidy then they used to .

The profit margin on the railway is already 3% , for investors and shareholders that is a pretty shoddy profit margin when you look at the margins in a lot of other businesses .

It's been done to maintain that profit margin. Northern won't be making more money but they won't be making any less money. Given that their profits come entirely from the subsidy, that's a big problem.

I don't buy this talk of "shoddy" profit margins, given the risk portfolio of a TOC. Cap and collar arrangements mean that the income risk rests almost entirely with the Government. 3% profit in a low-risk business is not "shoddy" at all. The fact transport companies are climbing over each other to take on franchises proves that much.

 

[muz379]

Given that their profits come entirely from the subsidy, that's a big problem.

Whilst you might be right there , that is a discussion for another set of threats entirely .

The point here is that the Management of Northern are under an obligation from the shareholders to maintain that profit margin , the DFT knows this and knew that the reduction of subsidy is something that would hit passengers . And yet still pressed ahead with its plans .

If Northern had been left the choice none of this would have happened . But in an ideal world , subsidies are not infinite and the current Rhetoric from the DFT seems to be about reducing the cost of the railway to the taxpayer which impacts upon the cost to the passenger .

Even if Northern Reduced their profits by half some of the costs to the current DFT drive to reduce subsidy will be felt by passengers

If you think profit being taken from the subsidies is wrong , then fine lets take northerns £38.5m profit from the £713m subsidy that it recieves . £38.5M is only a little over 5% of the subsidy received . "Realising the Potential of GB rail " hints at a possible 40% "efficiency" saving that can be made .

Some of these savings are no doubt going to be made by making the passenger pay more for less . If you look at the metrolink in Manchester that operates without a subsidy it is comparably more expensive for passengers than the railway is

To think that the solution to the problem is simply to do away with the profits for the TOCS is just plain naive in my opinion , and just comes form the usual sensationalist statements such as unions make like profits coming from subsidies is a discrace . Even if we got rid of the profits if the DFT is committed to reducing subsidy this would still cost the passengers in fare increases and reduced services .

The problem is not with Serco & Abellio the problem is with the DFT wanting to drive subsidy payments down . Either that or there is not a problem at all and passengers should be expected to pick up more of the bill for running the railway so that taxpayer funded subsidies can be reduced .

 

[mwmbwls]

If you're travelling to New Lane the train obviously needs to stop there. If you're going beyond New Lane then the train needs to stop there for you to do a 19(b) split. But if you're not travelling as far as New Lane (e.g. Wigan Wallgate or Bolton) then there's no such obligation.

I give it a week before tickets from New Lane have their restrictions changed.

Indeed (a) a break of journey is allowed on Off Peak tickets and in the case of New Lane changing trains essential if you are coming from Manchester Piccadilly,Bolton and Westhoughton as only Manchester Victoria services call at the West Lancashire halts. The closest changing point is Burscough Bridge

I suspect that you might be right about changing the rules - that would not be uncharacteristic given the covert if not underhand way this matter has been addressed. The concept has been executed by Northern on the instructions/invitation of the DfT as part of the negotiations for the extension of the existing franchise - not the new franchise now out for consultation and negotiation, where Rail North might be expected to have views. Given that Northern were only following orders I am surprised that they have managed to inveigle the DfT into such a dubious economic framework. In essence they are assuming is that although passengers will be priced off the trains at peak periods that sufficient numbers of them will either pay a higher price to travel in peak - helping revenue but doing nothing for overcrowding or travel on later trains. It argues that non season ticket holders are discretionary travellers - but the problem with that is that within that discretion they can decide either not to travel at all (a probable outcome as result of imposing against the flow peak charges) or to choose to travel by other modes such as cars etc. However in the meantime the high fixed cost base railway still has to run with all the attendent operating and capital costs. Did anybody talk to the long distance TOCs about the principles of demand management which start with basic tenet that once a train leaves a station with an empty seat that is revenue foregone? Stopping people from travelling, against the flow, in from Buxton on earlier empty trains than the 19.29 is daft - in essence you can charge a premium when a products (seats) are in short supply (peaks) but not when there is a surplus (off peaks). Peaks are determined by directional loadings as well as times of the day. It will be interesting to see how this works out. Of course, Northern could well not be responsible when the lame ducks come home to roost on this and the DfT will have moved into change the names/wipe the tapes mode when the new franchisee takes over. In terms of raising revenue and reducing deficits I suspect that this will fail but will be brushed under the carpet.

 

[button_boxer]

Is that so??
Interesting. Could be handy for getting on at Lostock.

One thing to watch out for is that tickets to Manchester from Blackrod and Lostock are issued to "Manchester CTLZ" and include Metrolink in the city centre, whereas Adlington to Manchester is issued to "Manchester stns" and you have to pay extra if you need Metrolink as well.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Well, if that's your take on it. I was under the impression your job is to ensure people can get the right ticket for their journey.....

Offering the right fare is dependent on having the right information about the journey. We are not supposed to make assumptions, but we are also supposed to serve people in the queue within 3 minutes (or 5 minutes at 'peak time') of them joining it. All of this 'need to be quick' means that sometimes errors and assumptions occur and that isn't helpful to anyone, but it happens. This is, of course, not mentioning the people who seem to think that we don't need to know much information.....

P: "A return to come back here please".
C: "Where are you going?".
P: "I'm coming back here".

P: "When is the next train to St Albans?".
C: "1754, it's the Bedford service".
P: "Single to Radlett".

P: "Manchester please".
C: "Single or Return?".
P: "Just the normal one thanks".

It's really not hard to see why clerks sometimes make assumptions and errors.

Can you two just PM each other ?

No, but I shall endeavour to keep the posts smaller from now on.

 

[Starmill]

The way things have been implemented pushes people off public transport and into cars. I don't know why parking charges weren't implemented, it'd have made as much money but without so much negative PR. It could even have been spun as a green initiative. As it is putting severe restrictions on intermodal tickets like the Day Rover just encourages people to drive all the way.

Indeed. Worse, it forces people like me, who do not have a car, to make compromises, causes difficulty and increases the cost of my journeys - even though I am already doing the 'right' thing by using public transport almost exclusively (and obviously active modes too, walking ect.).

I suppose it's all in line with government policy that the costs for motorists are too high and need to be reduced, but rail users should pay even more for their journeys.

See you in hell, George!

 

[Oscar]

As far as I understand this:
- the primary impact of the fare increases will be to restrict leisure travellers / other travellers who do not set off until after the Off-Peak Day Return becomes valid (normally 09:30). Commuters with season tickets or people in employment who need to travel before 09:30 won't be affected.
- this means more capacity available for these latter two groups in the evening peak, which will in theory enable and encourage more commuting. However, the morning peak is less spread out than the evening peak, so now the fare differential for both peaks is the same, one would assume that trains in the evening peak will quieter than in the morning peak. This suggests that the morning peak will become the main capacity constraint for commuting.
- the first group will be more likely to travel by car because of this, and this will erode the concept of local services as affordable turn-up-and-go services to use as a means of getting from A to B.

I am sympathetic with the view of the Campaign for Better Transport that these fare increases should not go ahead, because I think that changes in economics and town planning would be better for people's well-being and for sustainability than encouraging more commuting where possible, and because these fare increases will undermine modal shift towards public transport. I think that public transport fares should be lower and that this should be paid for by better integration (requiring statutory change), more strategic investment and in some cases better information, which would attract many more passengers. I would ideally like to see some costs of motoring such as perhaps car insurance, MOT and road tax funded through a tax on fuel as expenditure for roads and accidents is obviously correlated to the amount people drive (and it would be more socially just than charging higher premia to young and old - the premia in theory should make them think, but I'm not sure that they do). This would make some hidden costs much more visible to drivers and would make the price comparison between public transport and driving fairer. Congestion charges and tolls could also help pass on externalities to drivers. Taking public transport should always be cheaper than the up-front cost of driving, at least for one or two people. However, differences between peak and off-peak demand contribute hugely to the costs of running a public transport system and I think it's fair to price fares accordingly.

 

[northwichcat]

As far as I understand this:
- the primary impact of the fare increases will be to restrict leisure travellers / other travellers who do not set off until after the Off-Peak Day Return becomes valid (normally 09:30). Commuters with season tickets or people in employment who need to travel before 09:30 won't be affected.
- this means more capacity available for these latter two groups in the evening peak, which will in theory enable and encourage more commuting. However, the morning peak is less spread out than the evening peak, so now the fare differential for both peaks is the same, one would assume that trains in the evening peak will quieter than in the morning peak. This suggests that the morning peak will become the main capacity constraint for commuting.
- the first group will be more likely to travel by car because of this, and this will erode the concept of local services as affordable turn-up-and-go services to use as a means of getting from A to B.

For most of the year the morning peak has school/college pupils travelling at the same time as workers. However, school/college pupils usually finish at least an hour earlier than workplaces but apparently the numbers using off-peak tickets in the evening peak was slightly higher than the number of school/college pupils travelling in the morning peak, which made the evening peak slightly busier than the morning peak.

 

[Deerfold]

Taking public transport should always be cheaper than the up-front cost of driving, at least for one or two people. However, differences between peak and off-peak demand contribute hugely to the costs of running a public transport system and I think it's fair to price fares accordingly.

I'd buy into that view, at least in part if the changes didn't affect poorly-used conta-peak services and if there was a day ticket (in West Yorkshire) that could be bought, at a premium, which allowed peak time travel.

It'd also be interesting to take very early journeys out of the peak if they're really trying to spead the load - the 0601 from Keighley is quieter than many off-peak trains but people have no incentive to travel a little earlier as fares are still peak.

 

[Oscar]

I'd buy into that view, at least in part if the changes didn't affect poorly-used conta-peak services and if there was a day ticket (in West Yorkshire) that could be bought, at a premium, which allowed peak time travel.

It'd also be interesting to take very early journeys out of the peak if they're really trying to spead the load - the 0601 from Keighley is quieter than many off-peak trains but people have no incentive to travel a little earlier as fares are still peak.

Agree on all counts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For most of the year the morning peak has school/college pupils travelling at the same time as workers. However, school/college pupils usually finish at least an hour earlier than workplaces but apparently the numbers using off-peak tickets in the evening peak was slightly higher than the number of school/college pupils travelling in the morning peak, which made the evening peak slightly busier than the morning peak.

The evening peak is normally spread over a longer period of time though - is this the case in the North of England?

I think it's fair to say however that with Off-Peak tickets being valid in the evening peak it's still only roughly as busy as the morning peak and so increasing fares at this time isn't going to create lots of commuter capacity. Elsewhere (e.g. on London routes) there are often three fares - highest valid at any time, medium price not morning peak, cheapest not morning or evening peak. This is probably the most logical way to price to the peaks (obviously taking direction into account and starting the morning peak at, say, 0700 rather than the start of the day).

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think that you can justify having much higher peak fares on Northern on the basis that it they are to pay for a massive increase in provision because that doesn't happen like it does down South. Generally it seems to be pretty much the same pattern throughout the day (you might be strengthened by a 153 if you're lucky).

Morning peak fares are justified because they do a good job at rationing travel for commuters as the vast majority of evening peak travellers will have already came in in the morning peak and the higher fare. The evenin peak will achieve nothing other than cause nuisense and confusion.

 

[noddingdonkey]

What I find most objectionable about this whole policy is that it boils down to the Government (in the guide of DfT) trying to price the public of the trains.

Given that they also try to price people off the roads, how the hell do they expect people to get anywhere? Surely it's got to be one or the other?

 

[Merseysider]

What I find most objectionable about this whole policy is that it boils down to the Government (in the guide of DfT) trying to price the public of the trains.

Given that they also try to price people off the roads, how the hell do they expect people to get anywhere? Surely it's got to be one or the other?

I don't think it's just the railway and cars the Tories are trying to price us out of, but that's one for a different thread.

 

[northwichcat]

The evening peak is normally spread over a longer period of time though - is this the case in the North of England?

...

This is probably the most logical way to price to the peaks (obviously taking direction into account and starting the morning peak at, say, 0700 rather than the start of the day).

Some stations in the North don't have a pre-7am departure in both directions so saying Northern Rail passengers starting their journey pre-7am can travel cheaper could potentially annoy some passengers who don't have that choice and would travel early if they had the choice.

TPE, who offer early trains, do offer cheap 'Early Bird' season tickets e.g. http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=LDS&dest=MAN&grpd=0438&rte=295&tkt=7DS instead of http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=LDS&dest=MAN&grpd=0438&tkt=7DS However, as two North TPE services appeared in the recent 10 'most crowded trains' list it obviously doesn't prevent overcrowding in itself.

 

[Oscar]

I don't think that you can justify having much higher peak fares on Northern on the basis that it they are to pay for a massive increase in provision because that doesn't happen like it does down South. Generally it seems to be pretty much the same pattern throughout the day (you might be strengthened by a 153 if you're lucky).

Morning peak fares are justified because they do a good job at rationing travel for commuters as the vast majority of evening peak travellers will have already came in in the morning peak and the higher fare. The evenin peak will achieve nothing other than cause nuisense and confusion.

Yes, I think this is probably true. Some reasons why evening peak restrictions work well in the South East but not necessarily in the North:
- there is often a three tier system with return tickets available which only restrict the morning peak (and Advance fare quotas can sometimes be used to manipulate demand as well).
- the difference in off-peak/peak passenger numbers is greater, so some kind of restriction is required to create enough capacity for commuters.

So all in all I am moving towards opposing this proposal.

 

[Howardh]

What I find most objectionable about this whole policy is that it boils down to the Government (in the guide of DfT) trying to price the public of the trains.

Given that they also try to price people off the roads, how the hell do they expect people to get anywhere? Surely it's got to be one or the other?

Devil's advocate - this could be turned the other way round. Why don't people live closer to work and then there's reduced traffic on roads and rail?

In the 70's when people began to move away from towns into suburbs and countryside, it was to live in a *nicer* area, and commuting wasn't a problem if you had a car. Trouble is everybody does it now, and the roads are clogged. Time to start offering incentives to get people to live closer to their work? Of course, as opposed to the 70's you now have two people working, one could work in Preston, the other Stockport, so where do you live? Preston, Stockport or half-way?

 

[Starmill]

Devil's advocate - this could be turned the other way round. Why don't people live closer to work and then there's reduced traffic on roads and rail?

In the 70's when people began to move away from towns into suburbs and countryside, it was to live in a *nicer* area, and commuting wasn't a problem if you had a car. Trouble is everybody does it now, and the roads are clogged. Time to start offering incentives to get people to live closer to their work? Of course, as opposed to the 70's you now have two people working, one could work in Preston, the other Stockport, so where do you live? Preston, Stockport or half-way?

Not all travel is about commuting! Unfortunately nobody has yet found a way to break the link between demand from travel and GDP growth. I see travel as a resource worth paying for personally, the ability to get around. Think about how long it would take to walk on average from places around the M60 into Manchester city centre? I don't want to have less ability to travel around in my life - I want more. But I want it in a way that is sustainable and efficient - and also that reflects the true cost of provision. Since public transport is by far and away the best way to achieve this (short, perhaps, of inventing teleportation) I don't see why we cannot concentrate our minds as a nation into developing a system that actually works. The answer to that is probably the number of people who would cling to their cars even if a PT alterative of adequate quality were provided - or at lease, a perception that such people exist in great numbers, and a gearing of government policy towards catering for them disproportionately to win votes.

 

[6Gman]

What I find most objectionable about this whole policy is that it boils down to the Government (in the guide of DfT) trying to price the public of the trains.

er, this would be Northern Rail, which receives one of the highest level of subsidies per journey of any operator and has some of the lower fares. Hardly "trying to price the public of[f] the trains"!

 

[Howardh]

Not all travel is about commuting! Unfortunately nobody has yet found a way to break the link between demand from travel and GDP growth. I see travel as a resource worth paying for personally, the ability to get around. Think about how long it would take to walk on average from places around the M60 into Manchester city centre? I don't want to have less ability to travel around in my life - I want more. But I want it in a way that is sustainable and efficient - and also that reflects the true cost of provision. Since public transport is by far and away the best way to achieve this (short, perhaps, of inventing teleportation) I don't see why we cannot concentrate our minds as a nation into developing a system that actually works. The answer to that is probably the number of people who would cling to their cars even if a PT alterative of adequate quality were provided - or at lease, a perception that such people exist in great numbers, and a gearing of government policy towards catering for them disproportionately to win votes.

Point I was trying to make, possibly badly!, is that if commuters lived close to work then that would free up the space for everyone else, from delivery to emergency services to leisure! Of course in reality that would never happen, and we can't *force* commuters off the road onto the rails as there simply isn't the capacity - and the cost for them outweighs the benefits. Could end up with the situation that the roads become so clogged up they eventually choose to live nearer their workplaces, may cost them more to buy/rent but would save on travel costs, and give you extra hours *at home*.

Like I said - it's a devil's advocate question; which I think was on my Geography paper at Uni!

But, straw poll and all that, people on here who are working > if there were tax incentives for you to move much closer to where you worked, would you be interested? Thinking if you lived within 2 miles of your job, if practical, you had your annual tax-free allowance raised to, say, £14k or more?

 

[Starmill]

er, this would be Northern Rail, which receives one of the highest level of subsidies per journey of any operator and has some of the lower fares. Hardly "trying to price the public of[f] the trains"!

Firstly how many times does it need to be said that there are other operators which recive more subsidy?

Secondly the two things are not at all linked in the way you suggest they are.

Being 'priced out' of a market (in this case, for train travel) happens when the rationing function comes into effect - there is only a finite amount of some resource for which there is rising demand, so the price goes up, fewer people can afford it and the good is rationed such that there is equilibrium again. This would clearly be grossly unfair in such a market as that for public transport. In any case, it is counter-intuitive. Good transport links that are accessible and priced affordably will stimulate growth in the economy both regionally and nationally.

Now I'm far from convinced that that is what is happening here. It is simply a price rise for the sake of it. A wheeze to alter some accounting and fit in with the agenda of a government, implemented by morons who can't even get people to write their letters with a spell checker. I'm in little doubt that the adverse effects of this fare rise - which will almost certainly already be damaging the economy - are down to a case of not thinking it through properly.

 

[fowler9]

Point I was trying to make, possibly badly!, is that if commuters lived close to work then that would free up the space for everyone else, from delivery to emergency services to leisure! Of course in reality that would never happen, and we can't *force* commuters off the road onto the rails as there simply isn't the capacity - and the cost for them outweighs the benefits. Could end up with the situation that the roads become so clogged up they eventually choose to live nearer their workplaces, may cost them more to buy/rent but would save on travel costs, and give you extra hours *at home*.

Like I said - it's a devil's advocate question; which I think was on my Geography paper at Uni!

But, straw poll and all that, people on here who are working > if there were tax incentives for you to move much closer to where you worked, would you be interested? Thinking if you lived within 2 miles of your job, if practical, you had your annual tax-free allowance raised to, say, £14k or more?

I'd be made up with that. I live a mile and a half from the office. Loads of people in our company live very close, much closer than me. Sadly with the current job market and housing prices it's hard for people to find a job near home or move near work. I think trying to encourage businesses away from the South East would be a start but this is starting to drift way off subject.

 

[Howardh]

I'd be made up with that. I live a mile and a half from the office. Loads of people in our company live very close, much closer than me. Sadly with the current job market and housing prices it's hard for people to find a job near home or move near work. I think trying to encourage businesses away from the South East would be a start but this is starting to drift way off subject.

Aye..and pigs will fly...
Yup, it is veering off-topic! Meanwhile, for a night out tomorrow, gonna chech how much a return to Manchester is with a bus to and from Bolton compared with a return to Preston. No-brainer last week when fares were in Greater Manchester, er, sensible after 6.30pm!!
EDIT £9.40 return. Blimey. Think I'll get a Wayfarer and go to Edale for £11.

 

[muz379]

But, straw poll and all that, people on here who are working > if there were tax incentives for you to move much closer to where you worked, would you be interested? Thinking if you lived within 2 miles of your job, if practical, you had your annual tax-free allowance raised to, say, £14k or more?

Interestingly I am currently looking to move within a mile of work so I can walk it in ,3 reasons are influencing that decision

1) because at my Age car insurance is ridiculously expensive . Something like £1800 to insure a 1l vauxhall corsa . Then Id have to put fuel in it every week .
2)Because of the shifts I work finishing late and starting early I cant rely on public transport to get me to work . And wouldn't want to on a Friday/Saturday night when it is full of idiots .
3) I actually would rather pay slightly more rent to have longer in bed in the morning . in essence getting home from work 25 minutes after I have finished rather than an hour of sitting in stressful traffic is actually something I value .

So it would actually be cheaper for me to rent a slightly more expensive flat in the city center because of car insurance and fuel .

In many cases I dont even think people need a tax incentive to move closer to work .In a previous job one of my Managers used to put £200 worth of fuel in his car every month just to get him to and from work . If he hadnt had to put that in his car he would be £2600 a year better off straight off the bat before you consider the extra wear and tear on his tyres from doing loads of extra miles each week
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Offering the right fare is dependent on having the right information about the journey. We are not supposed to make assumptions, but we are also supposed to serve people in the queue within 3 minutes (or 5 minutes at 'peak time') of them joining it. All of this 'need to be quick' means that sometimes errors and assumptions occur and that isn't helpful to anyone, but it happens. This is, of course, not mentioning the people who seem to think that we don't need to know much information.....

P: "A return to come back here please".
C: "Where are you going?".
P: "I'm coming back here".

P: "When is the next train to St Albans?".
C: "1754, it's the Bedford service".
P: "Single to Radlett".

P: "Manchester please".
C: "Single or Return?".
P: "Just the normal one thanks".

It's really not hard to see why clerks sometimes make assumptions and errors.


No, but I shall endeavor to keep the posts smaller from now on.

Yeah my experiences completely mirror that
Sometimes you aren't given enough information to make sure 100% if they are coming back or not . Sometimes we get it wrong , I have sold people the wrong ticket before , either because I forgot to ask something to make sure they got the right ticket , or because they didn't offer up information that was necessary to get the right ticket like the number of times I have printed the ticket to then be told Oh I have a railcard as well .


My All time favorite

p: "Ticket to Wigan Please "
G: "Single or Return?"
p: "Whichever one is cheaper"
G: "Well that depends on if you plan on coming back or not"
p: stares blankly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I want more. But I want it in a way that is sustainable and efficient - and also that reflects the true cost of provision. Since public transport is by far and away the best way to achieve this (short, perhaps, of inventing teleportation) I don't see why we cannot concentrate our minds as a nation into developing a system that actually works. The answer to that is probably the number of people who would cling to their cars even if a PT alterative of adequate quality were provided - or at lease, a perception that such people exist in great numbers, and a gearing of government policy towards catering for them disproportionately to win votes.

I dont know what you mean by sustainable but some would argue that systems that exist without subsidy are good examples of sustainability , and you only have to look at the costs on the metrolink to realise that sustainability comes at a cost to those using the system .

Do you think the current model of overcrowding for a 2/3 hour window in the morning and afternoon and then services just carrying around air most of the time is sustainable ?

I would rather personally those traveling on public transport took most of the cost of running the system than those who dont use it and only indirectly benefit from the economic benefits of public transport . This will inevitably mean fare increases and restrictions on off peak services .

Im afraid anyone traveling in the peak flows that is a leisure traveler should have to pay the peak fare just like all of the commuters on that service . just as you would if you where a leisure traveler wishing to travel in the morning peak flow .

However journies against peak flow should not be subject to this same restriction . This would cause problems with some Northern service though in decided where peak flows start , say the 06:12 Northern service from MCV to LDS its obviously contra peak flow leaving Manchester , but at what point traveling towards leeds does it become a peak flow , the decision on where to start the peak flow charging from on that service would undoubtedly upset some passengers from some stations the same way some people in this thread are a bit upset about the new peak restrictions ,

Another thing that really bugs me is how depending on what PTE area you live in depends on what money is spent on when it comes to the railway ,so for example the 144's which would be perfect for the MCV to HUD route arent actually used on there because the price wasn't right and the relevant PTE's didnt want to stump up the money .Maybe this is something that can change with Rail North , who knows .

 

[Oscar]

I dont know what you mean by sustainable but some would argue that systems that exist without subsidy are good examples of sustainability , and you only have to look at the costs on the metrolink to realise that sustainability comes at a cost to those using the system .

Do you think the current model of overcrowding for a 2/3 hour window in the morning and afternoon and then services just carrying around air most of the time is sustainable ?

Sustainable means that something can continue. Whether subsidies can continue depends on circumstance - but there is no inherent reason why they can't unless the government has no income (though in practice there are many other priorities, and I think we should question the subsidy per person - see my earlier points).

As to the second point - our fragmented public transport system is less attractive for leisure journeys than for commuting because:
- groups are more likely to travel together for leisure journeys
- leisure journeys are less likely to be to a city centre (so fragmentation is more of a problem)
- the roads are less busy

I think that we should greatly improve integration and group ticketing to make public transport more attractive for these journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not all travel is about commuting! Unfortunately nobody has yet found a way to break the link between demand from travel and GDP growth.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Travel obviously means spending and creates employment directly and indirectly, which can then lead to more travel - so demand for travel and GDP growth are linked to some extent. The National Travel Survey shows that demand for travel is not increasing. There's a limit to how much most people want to and need to travel and the poorest in society increasingly can't afford it. It's interesting to note that the correlation between the nation's GDP and demand for rail travel has not been strong in recent decades, because only certain segments of the population travel extensively and they tend to be less affected by changes in the economic situation. In terms of GDP growth and ecological sustainability, what matters is what is being consumed (and how efficiently), but since consumption leads to more consumption and there are inherently limits to efficiency, there are long-term limits to GDP growth which depend on how efficiently we use resources (using technology); currently we're not innovating much, we're asset stripping (e.g. overfishing, climate change).

 

[snail]

I know why, and it is of no surprise. The intention is to reduce subsidy to Northern so that car-owning non-rail taxpayers benefit. Yes, they do appear to be intending to push people off public transport and into cars, as this reduces the need for extra carriages and the costs that entails. The road lobby is very powerful, while we are pushovers in comparison.

Evidence?

 

[fowler9]

Evidence?

Train fares going up so commuters have to pay more so that subsidy is reduced. Rail users start looking for alternatives?