Rail fares to go up sharply

[Metroland]

Train passengers face the prospect of even steeper rises in rail fares next January after Britain’s new transport secretary warned that the existing pricing formula might not survive the autumn spending review.

The existing deal for price rises, based on the retail price index plus 1 per cent, will mean fares going up by at least 6 per cent at the start of 2011 if the inflation measure remains at the current level of 5 per cent next month.

Yet this formula could be broken – meaning even sharper rises – if the Department for Transport is forced to accept a higher-than-average cut to its budget in the October review, Philip Hammond admitted. This would hit commuters hard, given that many are enduring pay freezes in the current financial climate.

The Con-Lib coalition, in its post-election agreement, vowed to ring-fence concessionary bus fares for the over-60s, worth £1bn a year, increasing the need to find money elsewhere.

But in the short term the public spending squeeze may force him to reverse several orders for new rolling stock. An order for 1,400 Hitachi train carriages for InterCity routes has been put on ice until the autumn, as has another order for about 700 mainly commuter carriages.

The government may also reconsider the £1bn electrification of the Great Western line. Network Rail had been expected to borrow to finance electrification of the key route. “Frankly, that is not an option any more,” said Mr Hammond.

Instead, he said, he was examining the case for compelling rail companies to contribute to the costs of electrifying certain lines as a condition for winning longer franchises.

“We’re committed to electrification as part of the carbon agenda but it has to sit within the fiscal constraints we face,” he said. That, however, would suggest further upward pressure on train fares to help operators pay for the added costs.

The government had intended to reduce its share of industry costs, which hit a high of more than 50 per cent in 2006-07, to 25 per cent by 2014. Sir Roy suggested that ticket prices and access charges for some freight might have to increase by more than currently planned to meet this target.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0e6e6e0-8233-11df-9467-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

 

[yorksrob]

Damned Tories. Their ring fencing always spelled trouble. I note that they seem to have protected free bus travel for the over sixties, regardless of income. Been listening to Mr Souter no doubt.

 

[yorkie]

Has it not occurred to them that people simply won't travel by rail?! I guess that's what they want.

As for the "increased costs" associated with electrification, long term that is the only way railways will be viable when oil becomes unaffordable! Electrification massively reduces running costs.

We would be in a much better position today if the previous government had spent all the money that was wasted on new, lardbutt DMUs that in 20 years time people will realise are just ridiculous, had instead been spent on electrification. How much did the wasteful 185s cost, for no increase in capacity? I am sure that a country like Switzerland would have electrified the whole route for less money, and used spare stock from the WCML upgrade.

The more they increase fares, the more people will look for ways round the unfair fares (both legal and illegal).

 

[shinkansen1966]

Damned Tories. I note that they seem to have protected free bus travel for the over sixties, regardless of income. Been listening to Mr Souter no doubt.

I have mixed views on over 60s free bus travel.

It has certainly boosted bus travel...and schedules, too. I don't have a car and never learnt to drive. So as a full time working person, some of my taxes do go towards this service. In a way, I benefit from those extra buses carrying senior citizens on their free trips.

But the subsidy does find its way into the pockets of some private bus companies. And once you factor in the money some of these companies get from their rail operations, spending tax money on private companies starts to loose its appeal....

 

[142094]

The problem with free travel for over 60s is that it has encouraged a lot of what you could call the "one stop brigade" to get on the buses, where they get the bus one or two stops down the road, but beforehand would have walked. All well and good for those who get the free travel but the bus company gets the same amount from the council for those going one stop and those going 20 stops. What would have been a good idea would be for either a sloping scheme, where one stop costs the council 10p, 2 stops 20p and so on until a maximum fare. Perhaps also instead of being totally free, a small charge, say 20p could be payable by the passenger to offset the high costs of the scheme.

 

[shinkansen1966]

but the bus company gets the same amount from the council.

Do you happen to know exactly how the finances of this work ? How much does the bus company get ? Just curious....

 

[TheWalrus]

Damned Tories. Their ring fencing always spelled trouble. I note that they seem to have protected free bus travel for the over sixties, regardless of income. Been listening to Mr Souter no doubt.

Who would you have in government? Cos let's be honest, there's no better party!

 

[142094]

Do you happen to know exactly how the finances of this work ? How much does the bus company get ? Just curious....

I don't know much about it in great detail, but from what I have heard/read/seen the company gets a certain amount per ticket given out, regardless of the length of the journey. The figure I had in my mind was 50p but I may be getting confused with the fare that was beforehand (in Newcastle the concessionary fare was around 50p before the free bus passes were introduced).

They had this problem in York, with a lot of the over 60s using the buses to travel short distances, and the money that was earmakred from the government would have fallen well short of the actual cost to the council. In the end the council had to ask for more money to cover the shortfall. Indeed I've seen many get the bus one stop from near where I live to go to the bingo. The walk must only be 5-10 minutes at a slow pace (of course I'm assuming no problems with mobility), but since the bus is free they use it. There was a lively debate in Newcastle in the newspaper about pensioners getting the free travel, and indeed a lot of them were grateful for it but would have been happy to pay a small fee for using the bus.

 

[Greenback]

I don't know much about it in great detail, but from what I have heard/read/seen the company gets a certain amount per ticket given out, regardless of the length of the journey. The figure I had in my mind was 50p but I may be getting confused with the fare that was beforehand (in Newcastle the concessionary fare was around 50p before the free bus passes were introduced).

They had this problem in York, with a lot of the over 60s using the buses to travel short distances, and the money that was earmakred from the government would have fallen well short of the actual cost to the council. In the end the council had to ask for more money to cover the shortfall. Indeed I've seen many get the bus one stop from near where I live to go to the bingo. The walk must only be 5-10 minutes at a slow pace (of course I'm assuming no problems with mobility), but since the bus is free they use it. There was a lively debate in Newcastle in the newspaper about pensioners getting the free travel, and indeed a lot of them were grateful for it but would have been happy to pay a small fee for using the bus.

I don;t know how it works exactly, but the local Gower bus services now issue tickets to the destination asked for by the pass holder, even though no money changes hands. The pass is read first, which I assume is to prevent unscrupulous companies 'inventing' journeys!

I would have thought that this provides an audit trail for both the WAG and the bus companies, so that everyone knows how much is being paid and for what.

Of course, as the fares are invariably much higher per mile for short journeys, the bus companies are on to a winner anyway! Especially as it seesm unlikely that a pass holder doing, say, four short journeys in a day would have the amount capped as under Oyster, and the bus company would end up receiving more than if the customer had purchased a day ticket!

 

[Scotty]

We have 'In2Town' buses here, which are regular buses on circular routes around the town, including the centre.

A lot of elderly people, with their bus passes, use them to travel about 300 yards from one part of the shopping area, to another. I don't blame them, although sometimes they sit and wait for them at the bus stop, and it would be quicker to walk.

 

[Old Timer]

This is a "non-story" so stop getting all wound up :roll:

It is full of speculation. It is simply taking aposition and then extending it speculatively, without any substantiation, as the story even admits later. If you extrapolate the story all it says is my aunt would be my uncle if she had balls !....and is about as useful as a newspaper story.

Remember that the FT gave up all pretence of being an independent reported of news and took on a Leftist bias a couple of years ago, hence the start and continuing decrease in sales since those in the City gave up on it.

Damned Tories. Their ring fencing always spelled trouble. I note that they seem to have protected free bus travel for the over sixties, regardless of income. Been listening to Mr Souter no doubt.

Damned when they do and damned when they don't. :roll: :roll:

 

[323235]

I don;t know how it works exactly, but the local Gower bus services now issue tickets to the destination asked for by the pass holder, even though no money changes hands. The pass is read first, which I assume is to prevent unscrupulous companies 'inventing' journeys!

Yeh I remember a bus driver who used to print off about 50 Concessionary tickets at the end of his journeys on quite a number of occasions.

 

[Greenback]

Yeh I remember a bus driver who used to print off about 50 Concessionary tickets at the end of his journeys on quite a number of occasions.

When the Wales scheme first came in, quite a while back now, there were all sorts of rumours of dodgy dealing! According to a bus driver friend of mien, some companies didn't bother stopping for passengers at all, just made up free journeys!

 

[TheBigD]

Doesn't XC's franchise allow them to raise unregulated fares by RPI + 4.4%? Seem to remember seeing it mentioned somewhere.

 

[Deerfold]

I don;t know how it works exactly, but the local Gower bus services now issue tickets to the destination asked for by the pass holder, even though no money changes hands. The pass is read first, which I assume is to prevent unscrupulous companies 'inventing' journeys!

I would have thought that this provides an audit trail for both the WAG and the bus companies, so that everyone knows how much is being paid and for what.

Of course, as the fares are invariably much higher per mile for short journeys, the bus companies are on to a winner anyway! Especially as it seesm unlikely that a pass holder doing, say, four short journeys in a day would have the amount capped as under Oyster, and the bus company would end up receiving more than if the customer had purchased a day ticket!

Each local authority in England has its own scheme. It is supposed to be work as closely as possible so the bus companies do not lose or gain because this scheme is in place. There is a body which some bus companies complained to if they thought their area scheme was unfair.

I know of some bus services which have not fared well with the free travel. Harrogate & District were running an hourly service Harrogate - York which they gave up running as it was mostly carrying concessionary fares - the return they got was such that they could not cover their costs if the service was completely full with pass-holders. The long running summer X4 from the Burnley area to Blackpool has been withdrawn as it is classed as a tourist route and would thus no longer receive any recompense for pass-holders.

 

[Greenback]

The fragmented nature of the scheme in England has weakened it in my opinion. It should not have been left to each local authority to sort it out. Of course, it;s been said that the councils were consulted, but they were bound to prefer to give themselves more power weren't they?!

 

[yorksrob]

This is a "non-story" so stop getting all wound up :roll:

It is full of speculation. It is simply taking aposition and then extending it speculatively, without any substantiation, as the story even admits later. If you extrapolate the story all it says is my aunt would be my uncle if she had balls !....and is about as useful as a newspaper story.

Remember that the FT gave up all pretence of being an independent reported of news and took on a Leftist bias a couple of years ago, hence the start and continuing decrease in sales since those in the City gave up on it.



Damned when they do and damned when they don't. :roll: :roll:

Yes, apologies for my over-excitement and perhaps slightly intemperate comment last night.

However, there have been a couple of policies of theirs which have grated with me recently.

For example the ring-fencing of budgets - which even a supposedly high spending party such as the Lib Dems didn't commit to (although they're perhaps right to give the armed forces some protection in this whilst they're fighting a war).

And their championing of a cut in Inheritance tax - a tax on unearned wealth, as opposed to taking people on lower incomes out of income tax - the ultimate tax on hard work, particularly if you're on £15000 a year or less, seemed bizarre to me.

However, I'm in danger of breaking my self imposed rule of sticking to rail related or light hearted subjects on the forum.

With regard to the original post, I'd rather they targeted concessionary travel a little more carefully rather than imposing yet more indiscriminate fare rises on rail passengers.

You're quite right OT in that it's too early to tell with regard to transport policy. I just hope the railway doesn't end up with the mucky end of the stick (particularly with regard to our local provincial passenger services which I'm beginning to get a bit jumpy about).

 

[Old Timer]

YorksRob
All I can really say on here, is that there are good vibrations coming out of the Minister's office regarding Railways and Public Transport.

Too many people are too quick to try to portray the Conservatives as a party of doctrinal cost cutters when that is not the case.

It is a fact of history that EVERY Conservative Government since the War has been voted in on the wings of a failed economy and has had the unenviable task of having to implement tough measures to rectify matters.

Unfortunately after the pleasure of unreserved spending, the payback day has come and as usual the Country is financially screwed, hence the Conservatives are put back into power in the same circumstances again.

I posted some months, indeed well over a couple of years back, on another site, that the economy was going to be completely destroyed and that our Pension crisis would result in the retirement age rising. Of course I was roundly criticised and mocked by the various Leftists and fellow travellers. History has proven me right.

The Conservatives do not have an anti-rail Policy.

In the lead up to the GE, the problem was that there was a lack of inertia with regards to Rail. No-one in the Shadow Transport team was prepared to come out and set out a decisive and new initiative for the Railways. I can tell you that there were two clear wings, those who wanted to come out with a complete new approach, against those who wanted to say nothing so as not to draw criticism from the hypocrites then in power.

Now that things are out of the way, steps are being taken to put right a number of wrongs. You have seen what has happened in the last few days at Network Rail (something again I hinted would happen). You can expect one or two further happenings in due course.

HS2 represents a fly in the ointment. CrossRail a smaller one.

Money spent on HS2 would be far better spent on the existing Infrastructure, lengthening platforms, electrifying the in-fills, etc, etc.

The issue for the Conservatives is that whatever they do they will be damned by people on here.

Cancel HS2 and invest in Infrastructure and they will be criticised roundly. Spend money (which I think should not be spent) on HS2 and they will be forever criticised for "cuts", etc, etc.

Then you can add in the usual round of people who will use either situation to spread hatred and bile about the Conservative approach to the Railways.

Only a couple of weeks ago we had the usual "Conservatives destroyed the Railways in the 80s/90s" diatribe being spouted out again, which continues to raise its head at fairly regular intervals despite being completely and provably wrong.

The honest fact is that the Railway system is now actually badly broken as a result jointly of Coucher, his followers, and a vindictive Labour Government which has had at its heart a policy of Political convenience, under-pinned by a malevolent hatred and a twisted dogma.

The result is a Raiulway that is badly maintained by a poorly motivated and rewarded workforce, who are "supported" by an equally poorly trained and equipped labour force, who are driven by the financial benefits rather than having an interest in the job itself.

Meanwhile those who did know what was going on and going wrong have been clinically excised by the former Network Rail Regime and repalced by compliant but hopelessly inadequate and unskilled boil in the bag "engineers". There only contribution is to parrot the contents of the varioius Company Standards, that is as and when they can understand them, let alone find them. In many ways it could be compared to a private Feifdom of old.

The atmosphere between Network Rail and its principal Infrastructure Contractors has been poisoned, possibly beyond redemption, by 7 years of lies, bullying and consistent but unjustified public criticsm.

There are no easy solutions here, and Network Rail's attitude has driven most of the good Contractors senior managers, and engineers out of the UK either permanently or on short term projects. None of them are prepared to come back to work in the environment as it stands.

Railtrack definitely had its shortcomings, but by 2002/3 these were starting to be resolved. Amazingly more and more are heard murmurs asking for a return to Railtrack days. A good comparison would be that whereby a large proportion of people are now looking back with rose-tinted glasses towards the previous age under Communism. THAT is the level of discontent.

Finally there is an awful lot of rubbish talked about Inheritance Tax. The revenue figures are not that dramatic, but what those to the Left of the spectrum will not admit to is that the great majority of people who are now classed, and indeed would class themselves, as Middle Class could have found themselves paying inheritance tax on properties left to them. Properties by the way does not just include houses, it includes everything. Items such as money, life assurance, etc, etc.

The vast majority of people really have not done the maths for if they had they would see how close THEY are to the inheritance tax band. Labour kept VERY quiet of course their plans to increase the limit. The were increasing for the same reasons as the Conservatives, except of course that the usual hypocricy (from the privately educated daughter of an Earl who has demonstrated nepotism in the extreme) has been broadcast.

 

[bnm]

It is a fact of history that EVERY Conservative Government since the War has been voted in on the wings of a failed economy and has had the unenviable task of having to implement tough measures to rectify matters.

May well have been the case, but we have not had a Conservative government voted in this time.

 

[Metroland]

This is a "non-story" so stop getting all wound up :roll:

It is full of speculation. It is simply taking aposition and then extending it speculatively, without any substantiation, as the story even admits later. If you extrapolate the story all it says is my aunt would be my uncle if she had balls !....and is about as useful as a newspaper story.

Remember that the FT gave up all pretence of being an independent reported of news and took on a Leftist bias a couple of years ago, hence the start and continuing decrease in sales since those in the City gave up on it.

The interview from the horse's mouth (so not sure if it's speculation unless the FT just made it up) was also reported in the right wing Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...er-price-hikes-transport-secretary-warns.html

and the Evening standard

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...e-fight-to-government-over-rail-fare-rises.do

oh and your favourite paper:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...ers-face-inflation-busting-fare-rises-10.html

 

[Old Timer]

It is still all speculation. I thought you at least would have known how sheepish in tendency the papers are.

A crap story gets repeated and thus gains credibility, hence the absolutely awful state of the media in the UK now.

For the record, I dont read the Mail or the Mail on Sunday, and I cannot, right now, recall ever quoting from either on here.

 

[jon0844]

A crap story gets repeated and thus gains credibility, hence the absolutely awful state of the media in the UK now.

Very true. I'm often ashamed to work in the media, and only yesterday the Mail printed a story about Apple recalling the new iPhone after reading it on Twitter from a FAKE Steve Jobs account (@fakestevejobs I think was the name!!). They quickly pulled it today, but more and more often the 'trusted press' are re-printing what they read on blogs, Twitter and even forums!

So, I am sure if something was made up here and then someone tipped off a paper, they'd print as as gospel.

I do think we need to wait and see. Of course, it MIGHT be true - but we don't know for certain.

 

[Old Timer]

I do think we need to wait and see. Of course, it MIGHT be true - but we don't know for certain.

And THAT of course was the outcome desired :roll: :roll: :roll:

This is the equivalent of trying to prove a negative !

FT has printed a non-story.

Sadly it looks as if the rest of the press are sheeping along.

I forecast that the next thing to happen is that the scummy Leftist red tops will come along and spin the denial (of a non-story) by the Minister as some sort of conspiracy and suggest that this is what IS going to happen.

ALL based on a non-story by a failing rag. :roll:

This Country just continues to debase itself.

I see Abbott is now putting it about that people should not have to move for a job, despite the fact that the only reason she is in this Country is because her parents MOVED here for work :roll: :roll: :roll: Add that to her awful racist comments on the TV interview last week. You really couldn't make this up !

I have been out of the Country for a week, and just got back. Frankly reading this sort of crap, I wish I was back out again :roll:

 

[jon0844]

Most successful people will move for a top job - even if it means leaving the country, so I am very surprised that Labour wants to try and put such a negative spin on this being an option for everyone.

Imagine you're unemployed and there are no jobs locally, but there is a good job in a nearby town or city. You can't exactly move if you have no job, but now someone is offering to aid your relocation. And that's a BAD thing?!

Labour now seems to be so messed up that they want to fight any attempt to make people find work. Does Labour think that the rich should pay for everyone else to stay home? Who becomes rich next time to pay for the next generation of people who don't want to work?

It's a bad thing for those who don't want to work perhaps, but those that do must be very thankful indeed.

But that's for another thread, on another forum, on another day!!

And, you're right, the story is being spread and nobody cares if its true - it just gains traction as it goes..

 

[Metroland]

Well we'll have to see what truth is in the story. I remain opened minded on the new coalition government, fare raises wouldn't surprise me given that cost of the railway is completely out of control thanks a number of factors, and anything to stem that IMHO is a good thing. I'm not 100% sure passengers should be paying, though in the case of London commuting it must be attractive right now to price people off rather than pay for expanded capacity with money we haven't got right now - although of course the private sector should be paying else there is little point in them being there.

As for the media, I suspect they do take things from forums, in the good old days reporters used to be sent out, now all they need is to browse the internet, to find out what 'real people' are thinking, even though the received wisdom is way off the mark - which it often is, especially on railway matters.

 

[caughtonatrain]

Do you happen to know exactly how the finances of this work ? How much does the bus company get ? Just curious....

As pointed out by somebody else it is complicated, and it does differ around the country because the scheme is partly discretionary and is partly financed and wholly administered at the local authority level.

But for those interested, a Parliamentary briefing paper on the very topic was published last week, presumable for the benefit of MPs trying understand the costs of the scheme and potential for reform...
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snbt-01499.pdf

 

[jon0844]

Could the Government put some form of levy on train tickets (say 1 or 2 pence per ticket) to be collected centrally and reinvested in the railway (exclusively - not central Government to pay off something else). That way, the fare rises don't just go into the pocket of the TOC?

I doubt people would have any issue with that, if they could see that the money was REALLY going back into new projects. The levy could even vary based on the area/region, to more fairly balance the investment based on where it would be spent.

Failing that, I guess they could impose a levy on TOC profits, but that would be fiercely fought against I'm sure (and possibly a breach of a franchise arrangement?).

 

[Justin Smith]

This is a "non-story" so stop getting all wound up :roll:

It is full of speculation. It is simply taking aposition and then extending it speculatively, without any substantiation, as the story even admits later. If you extrapolate the story all it says is my aunt would be my uncle if she had balls !....and is about as useful as a newspaper story.

Remember that the FT gave up all pretence of being an independent reported of news and took on a Leftist bias a couple of years ago, hence the start and continuing decrease in sales since those in the City gave up on it.



Damned when they do and damned when they don't. :roll: :roll:

I wouldn't be so sure. The Tory party have never been particularly pro rail, but have definitely been pro car. In fact the new Transport Secretary has been quoted that he'll "end the war on the motorist".
Great, that should make the roads even more crowded (and dangerous) then........

 

[jon0844]

Why would ending the war on the motorist make roads more dangerous?

 

[Justin Smith]

Why would ending the war on the motorist make roads more dangerous?

Fewer speed camera`s and the generally more lax attitude to aggressive/illegal driving that that reduction would encourage.

Also the more cars on the road the more accidents you`ll get, simple maths, and the roads are hugely more dangerous than the railways, even in coaches with decent size windows !