Lack of Advances on lightly loaded trains

[Connacht]

Surely the pricing software used by the TOC should aim to achieve high occupancy?

Ryanair have 95% occupancy.

I consider half-full peak time trains as a failure.

 

[Brubulus]

Surely the pricing software used by the TOC should aim to achieve high occupancy?

Ryanair have 95% occupancy.

I consider half-full peak time trains as a failure.

Low cost airlines generally use load targeting (attempting to fill all seats) instead of revenue targeting(maximising revenue), which is what the railway does.

 

[35B]

Surely the pricing software used by the TOC should aim to achieve high occupancy?

Ryanair have 95% occupancy.

I consider half-full peak time trains as a failure.

If a failure, is that because of over pricing or over supply?

 

[modernrail]

If a failure, is that because of over pricing or over supply?

It’s a failure. We are subsiding the fixed costs of running fresh air around on an intercity network whose adjacent modes are severely congested with full flights and full motorways. The idea that there is not enough suppressed demand to utilise this capacity is for the birds.

Of course the same does not apply to off peak commuter capacity. That is harder to deal with because there is much less demand to travel from Epsom to London Waterloo at 11.30 on a Tuesday morning.

 

[35B]

It’s a failure. We are subsiding the fixed costs of running fresh air around on an intercity network whose adjacent modes are severely congested with full flights and full motorways. The idea that there is not enough suppressed demand to utilise this capacity is for the birds.

Of course the same does not apply to off peak commuter capacity. That is harder to deal with because there is much less demand to travel from Epsom to London Waterloo at 11.30 on a Tuesday morning.

Then what are the drivers for people to make the alternative choices?

 

[modernrail]

Then what are the drivers for people to make the alternative choices?

If one of the best known features of peak intercity services in the UK was something other than its eye watering prices that might be a valid question.

I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have caught the plane or jumped in a car because of the high peak fares on the railway. In almost every case I would much rather than caught the train.

Sure, it becomes marginal for some people if they happen to live close to the airport or need to drive to somewhere reasonably far from the relevant intercity station, but the idea that there is not a huge amount of surpressed demand for intercity travel in the UK is, as I say, for the birds.

What is interesting is how little confidence the people setting this approach seem to have in their own product. There is also a distortion in the market here. The game seems to be ‘convince the DfT we are doing something to raise revenue’ and the choice has weirdly come out is ‘people complain our product is too expensive, so make it more expensive - but at least the DfT think we are doing something about it.

As has been posted above, the private sector thinking logically thinks differently. I have seats, I have capacity, I want to sell it.

I also love the idea that seems to have creeped onto this forum that it is important to keep empty seats on a train because the people you have extracted more revenue from will be happier customers because the train is less busy.

It has come out through a number of posters so assume it is forming some sort of narrative within some of the TOCs at the moment. Well if that is the prevailing logic, HS2 needs to be cancelled immediately as does every other capacity enhancement scheme, because there is no business case whatsoever for capacity enhancements on a system where the fare setters are not going for filling capacity.

 

[FenMan]

A quick compare and contrast between a (relatively) free market and the UK.

I want to travel, at one day's notice, between two major cities for a key business meeting. The meeting starts at 11.00. I'll need some prep time before the meeting starts and will also pop into the office afterwards before heading home at 17.00. I also take account of the time needed travelling to and from the station/airport and airline check in times when carrying hand baggage.

I'll use Thursday, 12 June for the comparison. I won't include links to the data as it'll go out of date, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Manchester - London - Manchester on Avanti
Out: depart 07.55, arrive 09.43 - Anytime single: £193
Back: depart 17:53, arrive 20.05 - Anytime single: £193
Total cost: £386

Manchester - London - Manchester by air
Out: depart 07:50, arrive 09.00
Back: depart 20:50, arrive 21:50
Total cost: £487

and .....

Melbourne - Sydney - Melbourne by air
Out: depart 07.45, arrive 09.10
Back: depart 19.00, arrive 20.35
Total cost: £206

Australia is a very expensive place to live compared with the UK (although wages are higher too). Yet it seems open competition offers far better value to business travellers than the quasi-monopoly position we have in the UK.

 

[Brubulus]

A quick compare and contrast between a (relatively) free market and the UK.

I want to travel, at one day's notice, between two major cities for a key business meeting. The meeting starts at 11.00. I'll need some prep time before the meeting starts and will also pop into the office afterwards before heading home at 17.00. I also take account of the time needed travelling to and from the station/airport and airline check in times when carrying hand baggage.

I'll use Thursday, 12 June for the comparison. I won't include links to the data as it'll go out of date, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Manchester - London - Manchester on Avanti
Out: depart 07.55, arrive 09.43 - Anytime single: £193
Back: depart 17:53, arrive 20.05 - Anytime single: £193
Total cost: £386

Manchester - London - Manchester by air
Out: depart 07:50, arrive 09.00
Back: depart 20:50, arrive 21:50
Total cost: £487

and .....

Melbourne - Sydney - Melbourne by air
Out: depart 07.45, arrive 09.10
Back: depart 19.00, arrive 20.35
Total cost: £206

Australia is a very expensive place to live compared with the UK (although wages are higher too). Yet it seems open competition offers far better value to business travellers than the quasi-monopoly position we have in the UK.

Would be interesting to know how full the Avanti service would be. Were it full and standing, the lack of available Advances might be reasonable. It almost certainly isn't.

 

[Benjwri]

A quick compare and contrast between a (relatively) free market and the UK.

I want to travel, at one day's notice, between two major cities for a key business meeting. The meeting starts at 11.00. I'll need some prep time before the meeting starts and will also pop into the office afterwards before heading home at 17.00. I also take account of the time needed travelling to and from the station/airport and airline check in times when carrying hand baggage.

I'll use Thursday, 12 June for the comparison. I won't include links to the data as it'll go out of date, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Manchester - London - Manchester on Avanti
Out: depart 07.55, arrive 09.43 - Anytime single: £193
Back: depart 17:53, arrive 20.05 - Anytime single: £193
Total cost: £386

Manchester - London - Manchester by air
Out: depart 07:50, arrive 09.00
Back: depart 20:50, arrive 21:50
Total cost: £487

and .....

Melbourne - Sydney - Melbourne by air
Out: depart 07.45, arrive 09.10
Back: depart 19.00, arrive 20.35
Total cost: £206

Australia is a very expensive place to live compared with the UK (although wages are higher too). Yet it seems open competition offers far better value to business travellers than the quasi-monopoly position we have in the UK.

Worth noting Manchester is a bit of an odd one flight wise. It’s purposely priced extremely high by BA because it is basically only for people connecting from/to other flights at Heathrow.

 

[modernrail]

Worth noting Manchester is a bit of an odd one flight wise. It’s purposely priced extremely high by BA because it is basically only for people connecting from/to other flights at Heathrow.

Is that to keep the capacity available to connecting passengers, unless a non-connecting passenger is willing to pay quite a hefty amount?

 

[Benjwri]

Is that to keep the capacity available to connecting passengers, unless a non-connecting passenger is willing to pay quite a hefty amount?

Yes exactly. BA has little interest in what domestic market there is here, they want to maximise their competition for international flights and keep seats available. I’ve seen Manchester to London going for in the 4-500s, but a Transatlantic flight using the same Manchester to London leg going for £20 more.

You can also sometimes see this where you have two similarly loaded domestic flights, but one will be hundreds of pounds cheaper because it arrives at a poor time for onward connections.

 

[fandroid]

It does seem as if the pricing models could be experimentally changed to see what can be done to fill more seats (and to encourage a "let's go by train" mentality which should have a knock-on effect on future sales.) How about returning to the true meaning of Advance for a while and aiming to fill say 90% of seats with reduced fares up to 2 weeks before? Leaving the 10% for late deciders, paying full price. We might then get stories in the press about how a canny student got from London to Manchester, saving £150 without flying overnight via Warsaw.

 

[modernrail]

Yes exactly. BA has little interest in what domestic market there is here, they want to maximise their competition for international flights and keep seats available. I’ve seen Manchester to London going for in the 4-500s, but a Transatlantic flight using the same Manchester to London leg going for £20 more.

You can also sometimes see this where you have two similarly loaded domestic flights, but one will be hundreds of pounds cheaper because it arrives at a poor time for onward connections.

Interesting.

Is there a possibility the rail algorithms pick those high fares up to make comparisons/assess demand on a route?

 

[Benjwri]

Interesting.

Is there a possibility the rail algorithms pick those high fares up to make comparisons/assess demand on a route?

Im sure the lack of competition from any airlines on Manchester routes helps makes it an abnormally highly priced route for Avanti, but there aren’t any algorithms searching specific fares I don’t believe.

 

[stut]

Low cost airlines generally use load targeting (attempting to fill all seats) instead of revenue targeting(maximising revenue), which is what the railway does.

Is that due to the profitability of ancillaries? (Which I guess is an alternative form of revenue targeting...)

 

[Sonic1234]

Is that due to the profitability of ancillaries?

Yes. The railway has less ancillaries, and those who seek out bottom tier Advances are probably the least likely to upgrade to first class, buy something from the trolley (or even at the station)....

One of the ancillary sources of revenue for the railway from Advances is catching people out on the wrong train and charging them a full fare.

 

[modernrail]

Yes. The railway has less ancillaries, and those who seek out bottom tier Advances are probably the least likely to upgrade to first class, buy something from the trolley (or even at the station)....

One of the ancillary sources of revenue for the railway from Advances is catching people out on the wrong train and charging them a full fare.

Yes and that has been a disgrace since privatisation as well.

Railway late - maximum liability = 100% of your fare back, but only after quite a long delay.

Passenger late (often due to a whole host of totally understandable normal life events, not least delays on incoming transport) = a new fare potentially many times x your advance, and no credit for your advance just to really run salt in the wound. Kicks in if passenger more than a minute late. Often with a side helping of guard making you feel like you have committed a capital crime.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A quick compare and contrast between a (relatively) free market and the UK.

I want to travel, at one day's notice, between two major cities for a key business meeting. The meeting starts at 11.00. I'll need some prep time before the meeting starts and will also pop into the office afterwards before heading home at 17.00. I also take account of the time needed travelling to and from the station/airport and airline check in times when carrying hand baggage.

I'll use Thursday, 12 June for the comparison. I won't include links to the data as it'll go out of date, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Manchester - London - Manchester on Avanti
Out: depart 07.55, arrive 09.43 - Anytime single: £193
Back: depart 17:53, arrive 20.05 - Anytime single: £193
Total cost: £386

Manchester - London - Manchester by air
Out: depart 07:50, arrive 09.00
Back: depart 20:50, arrive 21:50
Total cost: £487

and .....

Melbourne - Sydney - Melbourne by air
Out: depart 07.45, arrive 09.10
Back: depart 19.00, arrive 20.35
Total cost: £206

Australia is a very expensive place to live compared with the UK (although wages are higher too). Yet it seems open competition offers far better value to business travellers than the quasi-monopoly position we have in the UK.

Not sure this is a useful comparison. Melbourne to Sydney is a 10-11 hour train journey, flying is the only way to make such a trip. But it is a decent size market such that in a peak hour there are more flights than there are all day between MAN and LHR. Suffice it to say with 3 different airlines offering services it's no surprise competitive fares are available.

More generally the concept of on-track competition is difficult to realise due to the very nature of the infrastructure used. Trains require pathing for the whole journey, especially if operated at frequency, not to mention interactions with many other services/routes whereas as planes only need a few minutes worth of taxiway and runway time. Rail networks tend to be more efficient when run as a monopoly but that does mean fare setting can become rather arbitrary. Ultimately operators tend to charge what the market will bear unless there is political intervention. The complaints being discussed here suggest the need for an independent regulator to provide a degree of transparency but it's hard to imagine the DfT would ever contemplate such a thing.

 

[FenMan]

Not sure this is a useful comparison. Melbourne to Sydney is a 10-11 hour train journey, flying is the only way to make such a trip. But it is a decent size market such that in a peak hour there are more flights than there are all day between MAN and LHR. Suffice it to say with 3 different airlines offering services it's no surprise competitive fares are available.

More generally the concept of on-track competition is difficult to realise due to the very nature of the infrastructure used. Trains require pathing for the whole journey, especially if operated at frequency, not to mention interactions with many other services/routes whereas as planes only need a few minutes worth of taxiway and runway time. Rail networks tend to be more efficient when run as a monopoly but that does mean fare setting can become rather arbitrary. Ultimately operators tend to charge what the market will bear unless there is political intervention. The complaints being discussed here suggest the need for an independent regulator to provide a degree of transparency but it's hard to imagine the DfT would ever contemplate such a thing.

I'm comparing peak - time travel between two city pairs where there is a very significant business flow and the end to end journey times are similar. Effectively Avanti have no competition (apart from a gruelling car journey) while the presence of Virgin Australia focuses minds wonderfully at Qantas/Jetstar to the benefit of passengers and the wider economy.

This government has been very clear that growth is the priority and I suggest Avanti's fare machinations run counter to this by making face-to-face meetings prohibitively expensive. HM Treasury may be pleased that Avanti is maximising its revenue, but at what cost in lost growth to the wider economy?

I would argue current DfT/HM Treasury imperatives are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[modernrail]

I'm comparing peak - time travel between two city pairs where there is a very significant business flow and the end to end journey times are similar. Effectively Avanti have no competition (apart from a gruelling car journey) while the presence of Virgin Australia focuses minds wonderfully at Qantas/Jetstar to the benefit of passengers and the wider economy.

This government has been very clear that growth is the priority and I suggest Avanti's fare machinations run counter to this by making face-to-face meetings prohibitively expensive. HM Treasury may be pleased that Avanti is maximising its revenue, but at what cost in lost growth to the wider economy?

I would argue current DfT/HM Treasury imperatives are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I fully agree.

An economy that seeks growth to should be targeting peak loadings of 70% plus.

This idea that there are no passengers available for those seats, so you have to try and sweat the last few willing to board as hard as you can is maddening. It just feels like the industry has lost the plot and provided a very odd answer to a very reasonable question - how do we get more revenue.

I might be completely wrong of course, the loadings might be at that level, but anecdotally I don’t believe so and I don’t see why loadings are not published. I pay my taxes, I expect to see how well they are spent and I would also quite like to see the railways play their part in generating growth.

 

[fandroid]

Could say, LNER, be persuaded to effectively subcontract ticket sales for peak trains to a willing third party, on a no-reduction of overall income basis, but with an incentive to achieve at least 70% loadings?

I can imagine Virgin being willing to use their imagination on a challenge like that

 

[35B]

Doesn’t this all come back to the demands being made of rail operators by Gove to a) maximise revenue and b) not risk any reduction in returns?

Or, in other words, government policy.

 

[modernrail]

Doesn’t this all come back to the demands being made of rail operators by Gove to a) maximise revenue and b) not risk any reduction in returns?

Or, in other words, government policy.

I am not sure it does.

If that is the challenge set by Gov it is then up to individuals within the industry how they go about achieving that.

I am sure there are lots of schools of thought and theories about how you achieve it.

One school of thought is being employed. It is very hard to assess whether it is sensible without seeing both revenue and loadings data.

My hunch is that it is the wrong approach unless it is resulting high loadings. I do not buy for a second m the argument that low loadings at high fares is the right answer for peak services. Also, from the standpoint of economic activity and growth it is 100% the wrong answer. That capacity should be your most precious in terms of economic activity.

 

[AlterEgo]

A quick compare and contrast between a (relatively) free market and the UK.

I want to travel, at one day's notice, between two major cities for a key business meeting. The meeting starts at 11.00. I'll need some prep time before the meeting starts and will also pop into the office afterwards before heading home at 17.00. I also take account of the time needed travelling to and from the station/airport and airline check in times when carrying hand baggage.

I'll use Thursday, 12 June for the comparison. I won't include links to the data as it'll go out of date, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Manchester - London - Manchester on Avanti
Out: depart 07.55, arrive 09.43 - Anytime single: £193
Back: depart 17:53, arrive 20.05 - Anytime single: £193
Total cost: £386

Manchester - London - Manchester by air
Out: depart 07:50, arrive 09.00
Back: depart 20:50, arrive 21:50
Total cost: £487

and .....

Melbourne - Sydney - Melbourne by air
Out: depart 07.45, arrive 09.10
Back: depart 19.00, arrive 20.35
Total cost: £206

Australia is a very expensive place to live compared with the UK (although wages are higher too). Yet it seems open competition offers far better value to business travellers than the quasi-monopoly position we have in the UK.

That’s a dreadful comparison.

Manchester to London is not a viable air route as an O+D pair, the route exists almost entirely because of connecting traffic. BA would much rather a MAN-LHR seat goes to someone paying £600-£1500 to go to Tokyo or New York or São Paulo than someone wanting a day trip on business to the London office.

Melbourne to Sydney is not even remotely a similar market. In any case, the main competition for your business case as outlined here in the UK is the private car. It is not in Australia. Remind us what the train is like between Melbourne and Sydney and how long that takes?

 

[35B]

I am not sure it does.

If that is the challenge set by Gov it is then up to individuals within the industry how they go about achieving that.

I am sure there are lots of schools of thought and theories about how you achieve it.

One school of thought is being employed. It is very hard to assess whether it is sensible without seeing both revenue and loadings data.

My hunch is that it is the wrong approach unless it is resulting high loadings. I do not buy for a second m the argument that low loadings at high fares is the right answer for peak services. Also, from the standpoint of economic activity and growth it is 100% the wrong answer. That capacity should be your most precious in terms of economic activity.

In a rational world, I might agree with you. In the world we inhabit, we know that the government have blocked initiatives that were not certain to make a positive return, preferring to maintain stasis rather than speculate.

From a purely arithmetic point of view, as a business, a strategy of higher prices/lower loading may well be more remunerative than lower prices/higher loadings. What we don't have full sight of is the price/demand curve for rail travel, and hence how that trade off can be expected to work. My own view, based on personal experience and observation of the trains that I use, is that demand for rail travel is less elastic than many on here assume, and that the pricing strategy is financially justifiable.

There is a separate question about what constitutes sensible government policy, where I tend to agree that on wider economic and environmental grounds, it is daft to actively discourage demand where there is unused capacity.

In neither case do I think that as a taxpayer there is any particular right to examine operational data in detail or, more to the point, seek to back seat manage publicly funded operations. That way madness lies, and the policy focus absolutely should be on macro outcomes, not specifics.

 

[modernrail]

That’s a dreadful comparison.

Manchester to London is not a viable air route as an O+D pair, the route exists almost entirely because of connecting traffic. BA would much rather a MAN-LHR seat goes to someone paying £600-£1500 to go to Tokyo or New York or São Paulo than someone wanting a day trip on business to the London office.

Melbourne to Sydney is not even remotely a similar market. In any case, the main competition for your business case as outlined here in the UK is the private car. It is not in Australia. Remind us what the train is like between Melbourne and Sydney and how long that takes?

It still means a flight over a much longer distance than a train or flight to Manchester is cheaper than either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2025 ==

In a rational world, I might agree with you. In the world we inhabit, we know that the government have blocked initiatives that were not certain to make a positive return, preferring to maintain stasis rather than speculate.

From a purely arithmetic point of view, as a business, a strategy of higher prices/lower loading may well be more remunerative than lower prices/higher loadings. What we don't have full sight of is the price/demand curve for rail travel, and hence how that trade off can be expected to work. My own view, based on personal experience and observation of the trains that I use, is that demand for rail travel is less elastic than many on here assume, and that the pricing strategy is financially justifiable.

There is a separate question about what constitutes sensible government policy, where I tend to agree that on wider economic and environmental grounds, it is daft to actively discourage demand where there is unused capacity.

In neither case do I think that as a taxpayer there is any particular right to examine operational data in detail or, more to the point, seek to back seat manage publicly funded operations. That way madness lies, and the policy focus absolutely should be on macro outcomes, not specifics.

The railway often seems to have a problem with back seat managing by passengers, but also seems incredibly happy to welcome a hefty subsidy into its world from those same people.

It is incredibly reasonable to want to see how that money is being used and what results it is producing. There is no excuse for not publishing this sort of data.

There may have been a bit more justification during privatisation proper (although I think the presence of substantial subsidy should override this) but some TOCs are already nationalised and the privatised remnants are not taking revenue risk.

Pre-privatisation this sort of data was harder to gather and publish in a meaningful manner.

Now, it is certain that the data already exists isn’t it? So it just a matter of publishing it.

We live in a democracy. All sorts of public bodies publish very meaningful data about their outcomes. Why shouldn’t the railway? That way, reasonable debate can happen. If railway managers don’t like reasonable debate, they should hand the subsidised portion of their salary back.

 

[Benjwri]

It still means a flight over a much longer distance than a train or flight to Manchester is cheaper than either.

Except the reason has been given above. There is no competition on the Manchester route compared to the one you mention. Just how a flight to Edinburgh is often much cheaper, or a flight to Europe.

 

[modernrail]

Except the reason has been given above. There is no competition on the Manchester route compared to the one you mention. Just how a flight to Edinburgh is often much cheaper, or a flight to Europe.

Yes but a publicly funded railway is obviously not all about getting away with the maximum possible price you can extract from an ever decreasing pool of passengers!!

So the comparison with a reasonable air fare over a longer distance does have some relevance. Although I do agree there are lots of other potential comparisons that might be even more instructive.

 

[35B]

The railway often seems to have a problem with back seat managing by passengers, but also seems incredibly happy to welcome a hefty subsidy into its world from those same people.

It is incredibly reasonable to want to see how that money is being used and what results it is producing. There is no excuse for not publishing this sort of data.

There may have been a bit more justification during privatisation proper (although I think the presence of substantial subsidy should override this) but some TOCs are already nationalised and the privatised remnants are not taking revenue risk.

Pre-privatisation this sort of data was harder to gather and publish in a meaningful manner.

Now, it is certain that the data already exists isn’t it? So it just a matter of publishing it.

We live in a democracy. All sorts of public bodies publish very meaningful data about their outcomes. Why shouldn’t the railway? That way, reasonable debate can happen. If railway managers don’t like reasonable debate, they should hand the subsidised portion of their salary back.

I don't work for the railway, and never have. I support accountability, but not at the operational level - it has bedevilled publicly owned services for ever, as is obvious if you look at the NHS. When you mention democracy, it's worth note that we live in a representative democracy. That means that we pay taxes to the government, and the government then spend that money - meaning that it is the government who need to be held to account for what they are procuring, and in turn the government hold the recipients of subsidy to account for delivering what they're being paid to do.

With that in mind, the emphasis on specifics also distracts from the bigger questions that I think matter more - what is the government trying to do about modal shift? How is rail contributing to environmental targets? What is the subsidy buying us as taxpayers? What is the objective of the long term contract with Agility Rail under which the ECML and GWML class 80x units have been procured? What is the right balance between a walk up service and reliance on reservations?

But these are political questions that need answers from politicians. Going to "why is xyz fare so high" just invites ministers to pass the buck, and gives us the illusion of accountability, while getting nowhere in practice.

That comes back to a question about how the railway provides both a public good (the existence of a network and services that allow us to get around the country) and a private good (my personal gain from a specific journey). Subsidy needs to deliver the public good, and be assessed on that basis - where we as a nation (far from uniquely) are really bad at that.

 

[modernrail]

I don't work for the railway, and never have. I support accountability, but not at the operational level - it has bedevilled publicly owned services for ever, as is obvious if you look at the NHS. When you mention democracy, it's worth note that we live in a representative democracy. That means that we pay taxes to the government, and the government then spend that money - meaning that it is the government who need to be held to account for what they are procuring, and in turn the government hold the recipients of subsidy to account for delivering what they're being paid to do.

With that in mind, the emphasis on specifics also distracts from the bigger questions that I think matter more - what is the government trying to do about modal shift? How is rail contributing to environmental targets? What is the subsidy buying us as taxpayers? What is the objective of the long term contract with Agility Rail under which the ECML and GWML class 80x units have been procured? What is the right balance between a walk up service and reliance on reservations?

But these are political questions that need answers from politicians. Going to "why is xyz fare so high" just invites ministers to pass the buck, and gives us the illusion of accountability, while getting nowhere in practice.

That comes back to a question about how the railway provides both a public good (the existence of a network and services that allow us to get around the country) and a private good (my personal gain from a specific journey). Subsidy needs to deliver the public good, and be assessed on that basis - where we as a nation (far from uniquely) are really bad at that.

I agree with most of that, but still think loading data is pretty critical to show how well the asset and capacity we are paying for is being used and whether the politicians and operational managers are getting it right.

There does of course need to be the ability in a representative democracy for the electorate to assess how well people are doing, so they can assess whether the they should continue to represent.

The politicians current answer is heavily influenced by the quality of the information and thinking coming up from the railway managers. As a worker in a country that needs to get working more, as a taxpayer in a country that is not collecting enough tax to pay its bills and fund its aging population, it is reasonable for me to be able to question whether this very expensive capacity is being used and used well.

At the moment we are only having half a debate, if that.