GB Rail Sale has highlighted how unaffordable many fares are

[Allwinter_Kit]

I'm very confused by this event and how it is becoming a but of a "thing" (this one is tied up with 200 years but I'm sure there was something similar under Shapps' stewardship). What does it aim to achieve?

To draw attention to people that trains are now only affordable when there is a mega-sale on?

To attract new people to the railway with a one off journey that they won't repeat when it is twice as expensive?

To contrast with the March fare rise where fares will go up again (and fuel duty remains frozen)?

Has anyone managed to bag a one-off bargain fare (such as some of the ones outlined here) and that's made them a regular rail customer? All it seems to do to me is highlight how generally unaffordable rail has become now.

 

[Deerfold]

I'm very confused by this event and how it is becoming a but of a "thing" (this one is tied up with 200 years but I'm sure there was something similar under Shapps' stewardship). What does it aim to achieve?

To draw attention to people that trains are now only affordable when there is a mega-sale on?

To attract new people to the railway with a one off journey that they won't repeat when it is twice as expensive?

To contrast with the March fare rise where fares will go up again (and fuel duty remains frozen)?

Has anyone managed to bag a one-off bargain fare (such as some of the ones outlined here) and that's made them a regular rail customer? All it seems to do to me is highlight how generally unaffordable rail has become now.

The only fares I've seen them on that I've searched recently, they've been £5.20 whilst a normal advance with Railcard was £2.70.

 

[RAPC]

I'm very confused by this event and how it is becoming a but of a "thing" (this one is tied up with 200 years but I'm sure there was something similar under Shapps' stewardship). What does it aim to achieve?

To draw attention to people that trains are now only affordable when there is a mega-sale on?

To attract new people to the railway with a one off journey that they won't repeat when it is twice as expensive?

To contrast with the March fare rise where fares will go up again (and fuel duty remains frozen)?

Has anyone managed to bag a one-off bargain fare (such as some of the ones outlined here) and that's made them a regular rail customer? All it seems to do to me is highlight how generally unaffordable rail has become now.

I think the value of the sale very much depends upon where you want to travel and also the type of customer, which you have touched upon. As a regular rail passenger, it isn't much use to me as most of my journeys aren't covered, but I appreciate that it will be for others.

As for the logic behind it, sales are a regular tactic across most business, including travel and transport. A sale is normally intended as a call to action for better than normal pricing, that is only available for a short time. It doesn't draw attention to how unaffordable pricing is for the vast majority of people, as that isn't what sales do.

It will be intended to attract new and lapsed passengers back to the railway as one of a number of potential target groups. That will be worthwhile if they have a good experience. It may be a negative experience depending on the operator and the day of the week though! Either way, it generates an extra journey and creates the potential for additional repeat business with some.

You already have a strong view of rail travel being expensive and unaffordable, so I doubt a sale will do much to address your opinion. From personal experience in advertising and marketing TOC sales in the past, sales do work though, both in terms of increasing travel, driving trial from new customers and gaining incremental revenue. It serves a purpose and generally does it effectively across many of the target audiences.

 

[Haywain]

All it seems to do to me is highlight how generally unaffordable rail has become now.

Train loadings do not suggest that rail is “generally unaffordable”.

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

Train loadings do not suggest that rail is “generally unaffordable”.

Train loadings show that there is significant demand for more services and capacity and that the usual approach of pricing more people off the network to manage this is an excellent way of making train travel a rich person's extravagance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2025 ==

As for the logic behind it, sales are a regular tactic across most business, including travel and transport. A sale is normally intended as a call to action for better than normal pricing, that is only available for a short time. It doesn't draw attention to how unaffordable pricing is for the vast majority of people, as that isn't what sales do.

It will be intended to attract new and lapsed passengers back to the railway as one of a number of potential target groups. That will be worthwhile if they have a good experience. It may be a negative experience depending on the operator and the day of the week though! Either way, it generates an extra journey and creates the potential for additional repeat business with some.

I would agree with this. But for the fact that it's not a sofa or a kitchen. It's not a once every decade purchase, where you will happily wait for a sale and get a good deal. If your aim to is to get people who have given up on rail back into the habit, or people who have never tried the train before onto the rails, then saying "have you thought of commuting or holidaying by train? Try it! It'll be this cheap once and then twice as expensive EVERY OTHER day/trip" doesn't work.

It's not a subscription where I can be lured into understanding the value so don't mind the price going up after an initial period, it's a cost, every single time, that I pay to go from A to B when there are other options.

"Try the coach for a quid" works when the "normal" fare (£10/15) is still attractive - you might bring people in who would otherwise have driven as it might well be a similar or lower cosr.

"Try the train for what people assume is a reasonable amount (say £30) and then learn that it is normally at least £60 if not more should you want some degree of flexibility)" when driving is cheaper will not have the same effect.

If there is spare capacity on the network we should sell it for this price all year round. If there isn't, then we shouldn't pretend there is.

 

[yorkie]

Train loadings do not suggest that rail is “generally unaffordable”.

Loadings is the wrong metric. Switzerland is the model that we should be judging ourselves against; not artificially suppressing demand.

Public transport usage in the UK is poor compared to Switzerland.

The harsh reality is that most of the population do think rail fares are too expensive and choose not to travel by train, even for journeys where rail isn't too inconvenient. There are some flows that are exceptions, where rail is dominant, but they are very much the exception than the normal.

Generally speaking, I'd say there is a correlation between people who appear to suggest that rail fares aren't poor value, and those who are holders of passes, PRIVs etc. Many of those in the latter category do not think the former; I'm sure most don't, but the correlation I see is that many of those in the former category happen to be also in the latter.

 

[ArranArchie]

Expensive is probably the better word. It costs me two hours' wages to do a return journey once a week (45 mins retn), and is exempt from this rail sale.

 

[yorkie]

Expensive is probably the better word...

Agreed; and people may disagree (particularly those with discounts, though many people with discounts do agree with us!) but, at the end of the day, "expensive" is subjective, and I know for an absolute fact that many people do hold the opinion that many rail fares are expensive.

There are, of course, exceptions. However, the problem is that the people who want to reform fares believe that the fares that are the exception are "too cheap" and should increase in price. I find that deeply concerning.

However, we must also remember that there is a reason that many fares are expensive, and this is because of how the industry is structured and the fact that - compared to countries like Switzerland - the capacity we make available on certain key routes is ridiculously poor. Therefore, the industry - rightly or wrongly - feels the need to put prices up, in order to stifle demand on these routes, to avoid too much overcrowding. If all fares were simply lowered, then overcrowding on certain routes and at certain times would become unbearable.

In sensible countries, where public transport is much higher up the priority list, they would build the capacity needed, rather than increase fares. However, I see no prospect of that happening in the UK any time soon.

 

[Haywain]

Public transport usage in the UK is poor compared to Switzerland.

But we don't live in Switzerland and the UK is very much biased, in transport terms, towards the private car. Politically it is increasingly difficult to change that and without it changing there is not going to be much emphasis on public transport. However, while rail fares are considered expensive - not something I am arguing against - there is a difference between expensive and unaffordable, and there are clearly a significant number who evidently do not feel that is the case.

 

[azOOOOOma]

As UK society breaks down and morphs into a lawless hell hole, I expect cars will become even more popular. As a female, I’ll not use trains at night that don’t have onboard staff and even then it’s unnerving, especially in certain parts of the country.

Laura x

 

[Buzby]

If it was based on distance travelled it would be easy to calculate - a break of journey is important to me as I can make a medium to long journey more interesting. Selling tickets that (a) demand I use a particular train/TOC (b) Insist no break of journey allowed - unless changing, and (c) be prepared to lose my investment unless the exact journey is completed as scheduled, is neither fun nor intuitive.

We’re not really comparing travel costs, but the likelihood of whether there’ll be a Delay Repay bonus at the end, along with the loss of return discounts and flexibility.

 

[yorkie]

But we don't live in Switzerland and the UK is very much biased, in transport terms, towards the private car.

Exactly the problem, and the structure of the rail industry does nothing to challenge that.

Politically it is increasingly difficult to change that and without it changing there is not going to be much emphasis on public transport.

Yes, I agree it is a challenge.

However, while rail fares are considered expensive - not something I am arguing against - there is a difference between expensive and unaffordable, and there are clearly a significant number who evidently do not feel that is the case.

If someone has to pay something, even though the cost is disproportionate, unfair and unjustified, then I suppose you could say it is "affordable" in a strict sense. But that's not how the word is colloquially used; it's also subjective, and the original poster has made the point that a better word to use is "expensive."

I'm not sure if people who feel they have no choice but to pay high fares would be happy to use the term "affordable" to describe the fares they pay, however this is just arguing over semantics now, so I suggest we leave it there!

 

[35B]

Loadings is the wrong metric. Switzerland is the model that we should be judging ourselves against; not artificially suppressing demand.

Public transport usage in the UK is poor compared to Switzerland.

The harsh reality is that most of the population do think rail fares are too expensive and choose not to travel by train, even for journeys where rail isn't too inconvenient. There are some flows that are exceptions, where rail is dominant, but they are very much the exception than the normal.

We could do well to learn from Switzerland. However, visiting for the first time in 25 years last summer, I was conscious that, whatever else you may say about Swiss public transport, it is not inexpensive.

I also think loadings are a good gauge of demand. If services are fully loaded at a given price, that is absolutely a signal that the price is affordable for the service on offer.

The questions that then follow are about how far custom would increase if prices were reduced, and how that demand could be met if so - and at what cost.

I suggest that much of the unwillingness to use the train is not about price, but value - where non price factors (times, frequency, connections, comfort, access) enter into potential passengers’ assessment of how they will travel. And that takes us back to Switzerland, where the overall package is significantly better put together than here.

 

[Titfield]

You could make rail free, run a high frequency, high capacity, punctual, reliable service and many millions would still use their cars.

 

[Haywain]

many millions would still use their cars.

Indeed. Even if the cost of motoring was increased dramatically some car use would be from simple preference but much would be driven (!) by factors such as convenience and flexibility, as well as by the fact that some journeys just are not possible (in a sensible way, if at all) by public transport.

 

[yorkie]

We could do well to learn from Switzerland. However, visiting for the first time in 25 years last summer, I was conscious that, whatever else you may say about Swiss public transport, it is not inexpensive.

It is inexpensive; it's affordable to get a pass that covers the whole network; there is often no penalty to mix modes; everyone is eligible for a discount card. You can't compare the prices to an undiscounted fares on UK salaries.

I also think loadings are a good gauge of demand. If services are fully loaded at a given price, that is absolutely a signal that the price is affordable for the service on offer.

But that's the wrong metric; providing limited capacity and increasing the price to deter people from overflowing the poor service on offer isn't measured as a success by any sensible country.

The questions that then follow are about how far custom would increase if prices were reduced, and how that demand could be met if so - and at what cost.

I suggest that much of the unwillingness to use the train is not about price, but value - where non price factors (times, frequency, connections, comfort, access) enter into potential passengers’ assessment of how they will travel. And that takes us back to Switzerland, where the overall package is significantly better put together than here.

Indeed it's vastly better.

 

[TUC]

Rail travel becomes particularly expensive when two or three people are travelling together. The car very quickly becomes a much cheaper option. Yes, there are products such as the Two Together railcard, but that is only worthwhile if it is the same two people who travel together on multiple journeys, and even then the car is often still cheaper.

 

[Russel]

Rail travel becomes particularly expensive when two or three people are travelling together. The car very quickly becomes a much cheaper option. Yes, there are products such as the Two Together railcard, but that is only worthwhile if it is the same two people who travel together on multiple journeys, and even then the car is often still cheaper.

I have a family and friends railcard, I can't think of a journey I've made over the last 12 months that wasn't vastly cheaper by car, when I'm traveling my my partner and child...

Then you have to factor in disruption and cancellations which are currently rather common, then the aspect of standing all of the way and it suddenly becomes quite an unattractive option.

I'd love to use the train more, but unless I'm traveling into London, it simply isn't worth it.

 

[yorkie]

Rail travel becomes particularly expensive when two or three people are travelling together. The car very quickly becomes a much cheaper option. Yes, there are products such as the Two Together railcard, but that is only worthwhile if it is the same two people who travel together on multiple journeys, and even then the car is often still cheaper.

Indeed, and if one of the people is ill, the rail industry may take the view that both tickets are completely invalid! It's bonkers.

I'd love to use the train more, but unless I'm traveling into London, it simply isn't worth it.

The DfT will be pleased to hear that; they don't want us to use the train too much.

If the modal share of rail in the UK increased to a level that was merely around half the modal share held by rail in Switzerland, then busy routes would be horrendously overcrowded at peak times. DfT don't want to deal with providing the capacity for that!

The DfT is very keen to continue to price people onto the roads; train companies such as LNER are also keen to follow DfT instructions, as evidenced by the initiatives to remove our freedom (while paying for weird mascots going on about freedom, in order to somehow distract us), which the DfT would like to deploy throughout other TOCs.

 

[Sonic1234]

The DfT is very keen to continue to price people onto the roads

Exactly. I've always questioned how much government wants "modal shift."

Central and local government make a fortune out of motorists, both directly through taxes, parking charges, VAT etc. and through taxes paid by a huge network of motoring-related businesses, a lot of which are small businesses.

"Modal shift" is a buzzword to bring out when there is another plan to screw the motorist.

weird mascots going on about freedom

LNER's definition of freedom is that you can watch YouTube while travelling. Not things like break of journey.

 

[35B]

The DfT will be pleased to hear that; they don't want us to use the train too much.

If the modal share of rail in the UK increased to a level that was merely around half the modal share held by rail in Switzerland, then busy routes would be horrendously overcrowded at peak times. DfT don't want to deal with providing the capacity for that!

The DfT is very keen to continue to price people onto the roads; train companies such as LNER are also keen to follow DfT instructions, as evidenced by the initiatives to remove our freedom (while paying for weird mascots going on about freedom, in order to somehow distract us), which the DfT would like to deploy throughout other TOCs.

The issue is much broader than DfT.

 

[Mark J]

I'm very confused by this event and how it is becoming a but of a "thing" (this one is tied up with 200 years but I'm sure there was something similar under Shapps' stewardship). What does it aim to achieve?

To draw attention to people that trains are now only affordable when there is a mega-sale on?

To attract new people to the railway with a one off journey that they won't repeat when it is twice as expensive?

To contrast with the March fare rise where fares will go up again (and fuel duty remains frozen)?

Has anyone managed to bag a one-off bargain fare (such as some of the ones outlined here) and that's made them a regular rail customer? All it seems to do to me is highlight how generally unaffordable rail has become now.

I would agree with this post.

During last year's sale I booked tickets to Cardiff. I would not go usually as the fare from Reading is ridiculously expensive. The same for Bristol, which I've booked this year.

My upper limit on a day out fare is around £25, for which I'll usually ticket split to achieve.

Occasionally I will spend more than this, however that will only be a handful of times a year.

I've managed to bag Reading to Birmingham return for £18.50, same price for Reading to Coventry too.

In addition, I've also got a 1st class return to Malvern booked for £20, plus a return to Worcester for £16, with the outward journey being 1st class.

The rail sale is also the only time of the year that I'm able to afford to travel first class - which I'll only usually consider on journeys of over an hour.

I'm also happy to travel on some the earliest trains going out, and latest trains coming back, in order to get the best prices.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We could do well to learn from Switzerland. However, visiting for the first time in 25 years last summer, I was conscious that, whatever else you may say about Swiss public transport, it is not inexpensive.

It absolutely is with the Halbtax, which anyone who uses it with any frequency in Switzerland will have. The full adult fares are in essence a tourist tax. The "real" fare is half the full fare.

 

[voyagerdude220]

I think with the Rail Sale fares from my experience of looking for them in the Ticket Office- some examples have been much better value for money/cheaper than usual compared to others.

e.g. some Cross Country examples have been substantially cheaper [particularly in First Class] compared with other none Rail Sale Advance tickets. Also TPE ones between Manchester and Scotland (£7.70!)- peanuts compared to normal. Whereas on Avanti- Manchester to London "Rail Sale" £28- "Normal" Advance Single- £32.

 

[Andy Pacer]

The DfT will be pleased to hear that; they don't want us to use the train too much.

Interesting, is there a source for this statement, or is it an opinion?

 

[thejuggler]

A car has high fixed costs and every cost for using it has a very high opportunity cost attached to it for the convenience.

Exactly. I've always questioned how much government wants "modal shift."

Central and local government make a fortune out of motorists, both directly through taxes, parking charges, VAT etc. and through taxes paid by a huge network of motoring-related businesses, a lot of which are small businesses.

"Modal shift" is a buzzword to bring out when there is another plan to screw the motorist.


LNER's definition of freedom is that you can watch YouTube while travelling. Not things like break of journey.

Every "modal shift" scheme has to provide a calculation of the reduction to the Treasury in fuel duty and VAT revenues and this is added to the cost of the scheme.

 

[Andy Pacer]

I think with the Rail Sale fares from my experience of looking for them in the Ticket Office- some examples have been much better value for money/cheaper than usual compared to others.

e.g. some Cross Country examples have been substantially cheaper [particularly in First Class] compared with other none Rail Sale Advance tickets. Also TPE ones between Manchester and Scotland (£7.70!)- peanuts compared to normal. Whereas on Avanti- Manchester to London "Rail Sale" £28- "Normal" Advance Single- £32.

I'd agree that this matches what i've been finding. The journey often quoted is the Chieftain (Kings Cross - Inverness) which at half price in 1st class does represent a real discount, and in terms of the subject of the thread does make it affordable when it otherwise wouldn't be for many.

 

[TUC]

A car has high fixed costs and every cost for using it has a very high opportunity cost attached to it for the convenience.

That is often argued, but the reality is that insurance, MOT costs etc. are already 'sunk' costs at the start of each year. No one takes those into account in reality when six months later they are deciding whether to go by car or train.

Even if you did, let's say they cost £1,000 a year and you use your car five days a week, that means those extra costs per travelling day are c£4. That will make virtually zero effect to your decision when compared to a rail journey that may be £30-50 more than the fuel costs.

 

[Tetragon213]

Train tickets are quite frankly appallingly expensive if one doesn't know all the tricks regarding how to "play" the system, which I highly doubt Johnny Average knows.

Last time I was booked on a CDF-London ticket for work purposes, I was shocked when my ticket arrived in my inbox attached to the invoice, which plainly stated a cost of nearly £300! I could drive that journey twice back and forth and still be better off financially than if I'd taken the train. I actually brought this up to management, but no, they were insistent that we take the train for work related travel owing to the company's "green" policy.

For the most recent rail sale, I was incredibly disappointed by the complete lack of any savings on pretty much any journey I wanted to do within the next 3 months.

 

[styles]

Generally speaking, I'd say there is a correlation between people who appear to suggest that rail fares aren't poor value, and those who are holders of passes, PRIVs etc. Many of those in the latter category do not think the former; I'm sure most don't, but the correlation I see is that many of those in the former category happen to be also in the latter.

I am one of those who promotes rail as an affordable option to friends, family, etc. I don't hold any passes etc (just a collection of Two Together Railcards).

The issue I find is that in order to make many journeys affordable, you need to know lots of "tricks" - split tickets, national railcards, regional railcards, carnets, rangers/rovers, GroupSave, Avanti Superfares, ScotRail Kids For A Quid, Club Avanti, LNER cashback, the fact that mature students can get a 16-25 railcard, Scotland NEC, Unizones, GTR money back guarantee, XC feeless Advance ticket changes, PlusBus, Nothern Duo, gold cards, RailMaster, Rail & Sail, flexipasses, GA pregnant passenger first class upgrades, SeatFrog, etc.

You can often lose people just at the point of mentioning split tickets, let alone the rest.

That's before even getting onto the websites which charge booking fees (Trainline etc) or take a commission for split tickets (Splitmyfare, this site's booking engine, etc), many of which appear top of the Google results for train tickets.

There are loads of cheap fares, and until I was 31 I didn't drive because I always managed to find cheap train (or occassionally, bus/coach) tickets. But only because I invested a lot of time into researching them.

Finding the cheaper fares should we way easier.