-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should Shapps raise rail fares in a time like this?
- Thread starter Hey 3
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The pandemic has obliterated any scope of the railway being as self-sufficient as possible, both for the national network and TfL, as the network needed to be operational with far fewer people using it.
People using the railway any public transport over driving has far wider reaching benefits to society. Lower carbon emissions at use, better air quality in cities, more scope for human scale activities rather than roads full of traffic, the list goes on. There has been an obsession with moving railway expenditure to the farebox, starting with New Labour, which did not take the social benefits into account.
This should be an opportunity to have wide reaching fare reform that involves risk-taking and ensures split-ticket users do not lose out. The previous obsessions with revenue neutrality had muzzled it. Public transport cannot always be expected to run in its own commercial bubble.
People using the railway any public transport over driving has far wider reaching benefits to society. Lower carbon emissions at use, better air quality in cities, more scope for human scale activities rather than roads full of traffic, the list goes on. There has been an obsession with moving railway expenditure to the farebox, starting with New Labour, which did not take the social benefits into account.
This should be an opportunity to have wide reaching fare reform that involves risk-taking and ensures split-ticket users do not lose out. The previous obsessions with revenue neutrality had muzzled it. Public transport cannot always be expected to run in its own commercial bubble.
The railways haven't been even close to self sufficient since WW2. The "obsession" with farebox revenue goes back much further, arguably to Beeching's time. But the railways should be cost focused and its eminently correct that for transport, where using it is a choice, the consumer should pay, not expect non consumers to foot the bill.
For the railways there should be a review on how they work and how technology can move change. So closing ticket offices with more self-serve, and before anyone starts about the elderly or infirm, they seem to cope with London Underground or Manchester Metrolink where few places have ticket offices. A renewed drive for OMO would also help - there's no evidence that trains on the GN or Thameslink suburban are any less safe than those on the WCML for example.
Lastly, driverless trains - the DLR has proven it can work. London Underground should now be looking at driverless for all deep level tube lines with platform / track separation as seen on the Jubliee line extension.
The rail industry can do a huge amount to reduce costs, inertia and belligerent unions are not a reason not to.
Both of which have very simple ticketing systems compared to the national network.
clagmonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,442
You state that 10% of the population use the railway. However, what is the percentage that benefits from it. If those people who currently use the railway were to travel by car, how many current non rail users would suffer from congestion? How many lorries would go on the road because of cases where it was unsustainable to maintain a line just for freight traffic? In those cases, would there be an increase in the cost of consumer goods, perhaps even fuel, as a result of increased costs of road haulage over bulk rail haulage.
Freight traffic isn't relevant, because freight is more profitable than passengers for the rail network. And freight volumes are probably less affected due to the Covid pandemic, beyond the short term disruption to supply chains.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Tha vast majority of journeys taken on the rail network are done using "simple" i.e. turn up and go tickets. If people want to pre-book tickets there are on line and phone options in the same way as National Express / Megabus who have few if any staffed stations.
clagmonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,442
If you increase the fares to remove subsidy, as you seem to be suggesting, it is likely that there would be a modal shift away from rail and hence many passenger services would have to be withdrawn. Fixed infrastructure costs would clearly remain the same so freight operators would end up having to pay a larger contribution towards these. As I understand it, these often operate on tight margins, hence the cost of transporting goods would likely increase, with potential increases in road traffic congestion if rail subsequently lost the traffic and potential for price rises to be passed onto the consumer.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
This debate about a self-sufficient railway is missing the point entirely. The railways facilitate the flow of the economy, as such that business benefits from it. Road transport also gets an element of subsidy too and the argument that road tax pays for it all is a moot point, because it is a volume based issue, while at the same time being the biggest contributor to carbon emissions of any transport mode. If there is enough people using the railway, revenue increases and it too could make the claim of being self sufficient.
The answer rests with getting people out of their cars, stop polluting, reduce congestion, let our cities breathe again and perhaps our population will be healthier by walking to & from the railway station too!
The answer rests with getting people out of their cars, stop polluting, reduce congestion, let our cities breathe again and perhaps our population will be healthier by walking to & from the railway station too!
Annetts key
Established Member
A0wen
We now have the technology to do away with humans in very large areas of our lives. We no longer need checkout staff in shops, security staff in shops and warehouses, robots can shelf stack most items in shops and most handle stock control in warehouses.
Automation systems can fly spacecraft, aircraft, control ships, control/drive trains, busses, trams, lorries and cars. And if you are doing away with the pilots, captain, driver etc, you can also do away with most if not all of the rest of the crew/team.
AI can now perform in some limited create in the creative arts world. And as you remove humans from your company or organisation, it allows more use of automated accounting. I’m sure a lot of other office jobs could also disappear as the level of human involvement falls.
Just to be totally clear: we don’t need human signallers, human train drivers, human on train crew, human ticket office staff, a lot less human station staff, and as more technology is used in equipment that has a much longer time period between maintenance (if any) is required, far less maintenance staff. With such a large reduction of front line staff, there will be far less administrative, HR and management staff. So these changes WILL over time affect the vast majority of people in this industry.
Other areas and other industries could be similarly affected.
I’m sure that there are many other areas where automation, computers, robots and AI can partially or fully replace humans.
The question is not “can we do away with humans? But what kind of society do we want? Do we really want a world where only say 25% of people have a job? How would the other 75% of people live, where would they get money to buy food and pay for housing?
Further, how many people want to live their life’s with very large parts of their time only interacting with automated systems, because there are no humans involved. If lockdown has shown anything, it has clearly shown that we are a social animal. Most people WANT human contact. Although not all, as the usage of self-checkout in supermarkets shows.
While on the subject, how many people here, let alone the actual passengers would be happy with driverless trains and pilotless aircraft?
All this sounds great. But currently we're being asked to pay for all kinds of waste if we would like to travel. I think that's what people object to...
Except on many trunk routes there is demand for more freight paths, hence the works needed at Ely, more capacity through Felixstowe, if you travel north from Bedford on the MML in the evening peaks you'll see freights queued on the slow lines, not allowed through Bedford until the peak has ended. And since freight is profitable, where passengers generally aren't, why not allow more freight at the expense of passenger?
And it wasn't about increasing fares to remove subsidies, it was making the point that given the massively increased operating deficit the railways have currently, that some of that should be recouped from the farebox - and 2% is hardly excessive.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No issue with driverless trains at all. The DLR has been driverless since day one. At many airports the transfers to terminals use driverless trains / monorails.
Pilotless aircraft is an interesting one, because many civilian aircraft are flown on autopilot for many miles and the passengers simply don't know it.
Very much spot on. While AOwen is correct about reducing subsidy since Beeching, that was a different time. There were fewer arguments for having a railway, cars were seen as affording freedom and public transport could be delivered by bus for those who did not drive. Only a few scientists and urbanists could anticipate how ill-founded such thinking with consequences of pollution and congestion. Indeed many closed routes would be well used if they existed today.
I don't disagree with automation but can sympathise with unions if staff lose their jobs and end up being dumped onto the dole.
The railway cannot be expected to function in its own economic ecosystem, and if it is going to win over people who are otherwise going to drive or fly, much more polluting modes, fares need to compete against them. Self-sufficient might make raw acccounting sense, and maybe more resilient if the government wants to make cuts to public services. However there are significant environmental and social benefits to a more affordable railway that crude expenditure and revenue sums do not account for.
A new railway can be driverless. But the current one with open stations/platform edges, trees beside the track, insufficiently protected overbridges and crossings, cannot be driverless.
Requiring something pay it’s way for the first time, which predictably means the price goes in an upward spiral as fewer people tolerate the cost, is a known political tactic I’d like to never see again. It’s underhanded.
Requiring something pay it’s way for the first time, which predictably means the price goes in an upward spiral as fewer people tolerate the cost, is a known political tactic I’d like to never see again. It’s underhanded.
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
Absolutely not. I turn 18 in June. I have already missed four months of usage of my 16-17 saver, and five months in mid 2020 of course. The vast majority of all the plans I have made will now cost double as it is, as I will have to do them after June. Even if I waste another thirty pounds on a 16-25, I will still have to pay considerably more.
It’s bad enough that we cannot extend our railcards (and I only got mine in November), without raising fares at the same time.
It’s bad enough that we cannot extend our railcards (and I only got mine in November), without raising fares at the same time.
How is 2% "considerably" more ?
It's 20p on a £10 fare.
How much were you thinking you'd spend exactly?
As I pointed out the reality is that many prices rose by significantly more than 2% this year, and on average over the last few years. There are many examples across the country, often driven by the decision to withdraw a cheaper ticket, which GWR and CrossCountry have done widely, or apply highly restrictive time restrictions.
In somany posts in this thread, I read the words: "only 10% are by rail". Out of interest, assuming that journeys aren't of uniform distance, what would be the proportion of the total travelled distance that is undertaken by rail? Is that figure available?
Last edited:
That, of course, could have happened even if there had been a freeze on regulated fares.
Which is fairly irrelevant because they've been happening for years in the interests of thr government. They could just as easily make the reverse changes. Or to put it another way the concept of regulation was already pretty much meaningless.
squizzler
Established Member
I sympathise withe your confusion, because people are using several different metrics more or less interchangeably, indeed I suspect different percentages purposely for the wrong definition. The answer you seek is 10%:
- <10% of trips are by rail.
- 10% of person/distance travelled is by train (train trips tend to be longer than other forms of travel, so proportion of distance travelled is much higher than the actual proportion of trips by rail.
- >50% of people are rail users (use the train one or more times per year).
Have you got some evidence for the final one, because that number could be anything - and I would actually expect it to be sub 50%.
squizzler
Established Member
With pleasure, its in the National Travel Survey Factsheet. Page four, "Frequency of Surface Rail Use", 61% of population use rail one or more times a year in all. I agree that does leave a significant figure - 39% - who use rail less frequently than once a year or perhaps even never.
Only two percent of all trips by rail at the time but 9% of all UK person distance travelled was by rail.
Only two percent of all trips by rail at the time but 9% of all UK person distance travelled was by rail.
Last edited:
Purple Orange
On Moderation
It’s quite interesting that the biggest age groups who use bus are older teenagers, the highest for rail is the 30-39 category, cars take over in 40-60 year old, then back to buses in old age.
Sorry, but I'm still a bit confused by your post. In post #40, A0wen says that "about 10% of journeys are mande by rail" which DavidB seems to accept in post #47. In your list in post #81, this 'about' 10 % is now <10%, - so a reduction.
Then you say in the second item in the list: "10% of person/distance travelled is by train (train trips tend to be longer than other forms of travel, so proportion of distance travelled is much higher than the actual proportion of trips by rail." That doesn't seem true because you say that the annual passenger/distance travelled by rail is about 10% of the total, yet later in the sentence you say that train trips tend to be longer, therefore if 10% of trips are by rail and the (average distance travelled per journey is further, then the distance travelled would be considerably more than 10% of the total distance travelled by all modes.
If I've got it wrong, then please explain.
squizzler
Established Member
I would agree my summary on post 81 may not be totally eloquent. Also note that the figures there were my best recollection at the time; the referenced numbers are in post 83.
Anybody in doubt would do better not to take my word of course but to visit the primary source I linked to in later post.
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. So it seems that there's a lot of work to do to break the population's addiction to motoring, and wean it onto more sustainable modes.
It's totally unrealistic to think you'll "break the population's addiction to motoring". Pre Covid alot of lines and services were at or near capacity. If you shifted 10% onto rail (pre Covid), you'd basically flood the rail network. And before you then say "oh, that's OK, build more lines", you have to consider the process that *has* to be followed for that - you can't just ignore the planning process for your pet form of transport but expect other forms to be subject to it. Equally, you won't see change from about £40m / mile of new line - and that has to be paid for somehow.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
You have to concede that there is still capacity in many parts for more rail passengers surely? A drive between Birmingham & Manchester should be accommodated on Cross Country with longer trains. Commuter services where there are just 2 trains with 3 carriages each hour need to see 3 or 4 trains each hour and 6 carriages in length. There is a lot of scope to d9 more with the rail network and that driving, creating congestion, is not a long term solution.
But it's not as simple as say "just run longer trains" - there may be infrastructure limitations which prevent longer trains e.g. platform lengths, signal siting etc. Addressing those all adds to the cost.
And again, there's the cost of obtaining new trains - LNW / WMT reckoned 100 new trains was going to cost it around £ 680m - so about £ 7m a train. And how do your propose to staff additional services ? You've got inflexible and belligerent unions who won't countenance a penny of cost reduction, which means expanding rail services comes at a huge cost.
With Manchester - Birmingham, that's fine if you want to go city centre to city centre - it's not so clever if your journey is Cradley Heath to Trafford Park for example. Journeys which on the face of it are "simple" flows often aren't.
- Status