High fares - The issue that won't go away

[yorksrob]

I think there's plenty of evidence that they genuinely don't care about that, they're scrabbling for money and everything they try explodes in their faces.



Not enough voters use rail for this to affect an election result, sadly.

By itself no, but I think high fares feed into the "everything's too expensive/nothing works" narrative that loses elections.

I've said it before, the government needs some not too expensive quick wins that it can show to the electorate.

 

[crablab]

Thus while London-Edinburgh was probably underpriced by the market when you consider the available capacity (the extra train per hour in December may change this, and it will be interesting to see the effect this has on fares), I'm not convinced London-Birmingham on Avanti is - indeed the quiet Avanti trains and busier Chiltern and WMT ones on this route would suggest that it's rather overpriced by the market.

I'd agree with your analysis.

And irrespective of the social issues with carting fresh air around, I don't think rolling these fares out to other routes which don't have this particular scenario will yield the same revenue results.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And irrespective of the social issues with carting fresh air around, I don't think rolling these fares out to other routes which don't have this particular scenario will yield the same revenue results.

I think that's clearly why LNER chose Edinburgh/Newcastle for this trial rather than Leeds which was the subject of the single fare pricing (but retaining the super off peak) one.

 

[35B]

It doesn’t matter if they do change their plans or chose another mode. It still puts the railway in a better place financially without causing a massive increase in pricing to some customers. The only time that would be a problem is if there is not underlying demand to fill a train up at off peak fares. Most of the time on intercity routes, off peak, it appears there is.

That assumes that services will continue to run, and the income from changed prices will offset changes in demand. That's not a reliable assumption.

Part of the point of very low fares is that they attract business that would not otherwise exist. The challenge is in avoiding persuading potential customers that such fares would be standard.

 

[crablab]

I think that's clearly why LNER chose Edinburgh/Newcastle for this trial rather than Leeds which was the subject of the single fare pricing (but retaining the super off peak) one.

Which somewhat limits the utility of the data coming out of the trial, and perhaps makes it rather less useful as the "blueprint" for further fares reform elsewhere.

Part of the point of very low fares is that they attract business that would not otherwise exist. The challenge is in avoiding persuading potential customers that such fares would be standard.

If the business is generated by mode shift the the pricing has to remain competitive to the alternative options. It's all very well saying they are "low fares" and "shouldn't be standard" but the wider market determines the boundary of what people are willing to pay for.

So you either offer an attractive price or an attractive service to justify a higher price.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which somewhat limits the utility of the data coming out of the trial, and perhaps makes it rather less useful as the "blueprint" for further fares reform elsewhere.

It was mentioned elsewhere in the thread that there is a plan at some point to trial something similar (but not necessarily identical) on a medium distance and short distance journey to get the actual data for that. It has been noted in the specific thread for the LNER thing (I think) that EMR has created the 70 Minute fares on Luton Airport Parkway-St Pancras, but this seems a strange one to do it on not least because some are more expensive than an Anytime Day Single (and all more than a contactless single, which isn't really in EMR's power to crank up or remove), so this could just be someone fiddling about with stuff to see what it might look like, plus they aren't on sale yet.

 

[35B]

If the business is generated by mode shift the the pricing has to remain competitive to the alternative options. It's all very well saying they are "low fares" and "shouldn't be standard" but the wider market determines the boundary of what people are willing to pay for.

So you either offer an attractive price or an attractive service to justify a higher price.

I agree in general. My point is that if you are shifting surplus inventory at a particularly low price, you may anchor people at that level - which is only economic to provide in certain circumstances. It's why discounting is a dangerous strategy for any company.

 

[JonathanH]

Going back to GWML, I don't think the market is elastic enough that you'd be able to get away with that.

Friday night from Paddington, Saturday morning towards London, and maybe Saturday evening / Sunday evening strike me as times when the GWR market could be highly elastic. Similarly with events at Cheltenham, Cardiff, Newquay and Glastonbury, when extra provision is needed.

 

[modernrail]

Friday night from Paddington, Saturday morning towards London, and maybe Saturday evening / Sunday evening strike me as times when the GWR market could be highly elastic. Similarly with events at Cheltenham, Cardiff, Newquay and Glastonbury, when extra provision is needed.

I was at Glastonbury last year and arrived to Castle Cary Monday late morning to leave for Paddington. A special arrived. I was one of 3 people in the carriage. There can’t have been more than 100 on the train.

Feels like another example of where very welcome additional capacity ends up badly used. Maybe because lots of people assume catching a train to Glastonbury is a nightmare and expensive and so drive.

 

[yorksrob]

I was at Glastonbury last year and arrived to Castle Cary Monday late morning to leave for Paddington. A special arrived. I was one of 3 people in the carriage. There can’t have been more than 100 on the train.

Feels like another example of where very welcome additional capacity ends up badly used. Maybe because lots of people assume catching a train to Glastonbury is a nightmare and expensive and so drive.

I remember seeing documentaries with crowds of people being handled at Castle Carey for the festival. This was relatively recent as well.

 

[redreni]

Not enough voters use rail for this to affect an election result, sadly.

According to the census about 0.5% of the UK population is Jewish. Did that stop antisemitism being a major issue in the 2017 and 2019 elections?

I'm not comparing rail users to any religious or ethnic group, of course, nor equating inadequate subsidies with discrimination. Nor am I downplaying how difficult it is to get an issue that doesn't affect people directly to register with them as an issue in an election. Just observing that it is not impossible.

 

[Haywain]

According to the census about 0.5% of the UK population is Jewish. Did that stop antisemitism being a major issue in the 2017 and 2019 elections?

I'm not comparing rail users to any religious or ethnic group, of course, nor equating inadequate subsidies with discrimination. Nor am I downplaying how difficult it is to get an issue that doesn't affect people directly to register with them as an issue in an election. Just observing that it is not impossible.

Except that you won't get an element of the media to attack a party leader over their alleged attitude to the railways.

 

[JamesT]

I was at Glastonbury last year and arrived to Castle Cary Monday late morning to leave for Paddington. A special arrived. I was one of 3 people in the carriage. There can’t have been more than 100 on the train.

Feels like another example of where very welcome additional capacity ends up badly used. Maybe because lots of people assume catching a train to Glastonbury is a nightmare and expensive and so drive.

A puff piece from Trainline https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/how-the-trainline-is-boosting-glastonburys-sustainability claims

Things have been moving in the right direction in recent years, though. Last year saw a remarkable 225% increase in train travel to Castle Cary and nearby stations during Glastonbury week.

But doesn’t give an absolute level.

 

[Haywain]

I was at Glastonbury last year and arrived to Castle Cary Monday late morning to leave for Paddington. A special arrived. I was one of 3 people in the carriage. There can’t have been more than 100 on the train.

Feels like another example of where very welcome additional capacity ends up badly used. Maybe because lots of people assume catching a train to Glastonbury is a nightmare and expensive and so drive.

Castle Cary is the main railhead for Glastonbury and has been for many years. In the next few weeks we will see a glut of posters in Disputes & Prosecutions who have been caught by revenue staff at Castle Cary with out of date ralcards and other offences, as happens every year.

 

[deltic]

A puff piece from Trainline https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/how-the-trainline-is-boosting-glastonburys-sustainability claims

But doesn’t give an absolute level.

Castle Cary averages around 6k passengers a week, so suggests an extra 12k went through during Glastonbury. If they are returns it means some 6k out of 200k attendees went by rail via Castle Cary so not a significant number. Compares with 300 coaches serving Glastonbury so around 15k people arriving by coach. Although the organisers claim a third of people come by public transport or cycle.

 

[yorksrob]

Except that you won't get an element of the media to attack a party leader over their alleged attitude to the railways.

You might do over their attitude to passengers though !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2025 ==

Clearly LNER's bleating about open access (Rail 1036) supposedly taking £1.1 billion in revenue has little credibility for passengers:

"LNER slams £1.1 billion loss to open access"

If they behave like fares bandits by removing affordable walk-on fares, why should they expect any sympathy from the travelling public.

 

[thedbdiboy]

You might do over their attitude to passengers though !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2025 ==

Clearly LNER's bleating about open access (Rail 1036) supposedly taking £1.1 billion in revenue has little credibility for passengers:

"LNER slams £1.1 billion loss to open access"

If they behave like fares bandits by removing affordable walk-on fares, why should they expect any sympathy from the travelling public.

Remember this is not about a private sector company complaining because it has lost market share to a competitor. It's part of an industry that the Government is funding to the tune of £14 billion a year; the debate is about taxpayer vs passenger revenue funding, and about whether a route where there is competition from car, coach and air should raise more money through the farebox if the market appears willing to pay it.

 

[Starmill]

Remember this is not about a private sector company complaining because it has lost market share to a competitor. It's part of an industry that the Government is funding to the tune of £14 billion a year; the debate is about taxpayer vs passenger revenue funding, and about whether a route where there is competition from car, coach and air should raise more money through the farebox if the market appears willing to pay it.

If Ministers were confident in this analysis they'd be perfectly at liberty to offer to purchase Lumo from First Group. A merger with a DfTO company or holding it over as a new one would be perfectly feasible in business terms if these supposed benefits exist as claimed. However, to date, their approach towards Lumo has consisted mostly of childish complaints that they didn't get their way. They certainly haven't been putting their money where their mouth is!

There are lots of reasons I don't like Lumo and their choice of approach, everything from their disrespect of passengers' lawful rights, their deeply wasteful use of line capacity, their horrid customer experience at times, and their utterly ridiculous luggage policy. However these issues are well within the scope of the existing ORR regulation and ORR clearly don't believe Lumo is breaking the rules Ministers were responsible for creating and updating. So again, all the bad things about Lumo are ultimately the fault of the government, not First and certainly not anyone else.

Whinging achieves absolutely nothing when you're the ones in the driving seat, apart from making you look incompetent I suppose.

And as for that £14 billion of public money, perhaps if there were some evidence of DfTO companies achieving an efficiency somewhere, that argument would hold more water. Unfortunately they're all wasting large amounts of that cash now just as they were 5 or 10 years ago.

 

[The Ham]

Remember this is not about a private sector company complaining because it has lost market share to a competitor. It's part of an industry that the Government is funding to the tune of £14 billion a year; the debate is about taxpayer vs passenger revenue funding, and about whether a route where there is competition from car, coach and air should raise more money through the farebox if the market appears willing to pay it.

That £14bn means that to provide free public transport for all would mean that the extra taxes wouldn't be £1,000 but up to £600 per tax payer (remembering the £32,000 which is the average per tax payer the government spends, so it's not even that each tax payer would have to pay £600 in taxes)

It's certainly less than this, as there's still bus support and the cost savings from having to deal with payments, refunds, etc. That's before you even consider reducing staff count and other government savings (not having to pay travel expenses, having a healthier population due to people walking now, the likely increase in taxes from people being now easily able to start employment, etc.).

 

[yorksrob]

Remember this is not about a private sector company complaining because it has lost market share to a competitor. It's part of an industry that the Government is funding to the tune of £14 billion a year; the debate is about taxpayer vs passenger revenue funding, and about whether a route where there is competition from car, coach and air should raise more money through the farebox if the market appears willing to pay it.

One dreads to think what fares would be like on the ECML without the open access operators.

 

[oldman]

That £14bn means that to provide free public transport for all would mean that the extra taxes wouldn't be £1,000 but up to £600 per tax payer (remembering the £32,000 which is the average per tax payer the government spends, so it's not even that each tax payer would have to pay £600 in taxes)

It's certainly less than this, as there's still bus support and the cost savings from having to deal with payments, refunds, etc. That's before you even consider reducing staff count and other government savings (not having to pay travel expenses, having a healthier population due to people walking now, the likely increase in taxes from people being now easily able to start employment, etc.).

I don't understand. The operational cost of the railway, according to ORR, is £25bn not 14.

 

[Starmill]

I don't understand. The operational cost of the railway, according to ORR, is £25bn not 14.

The person they're quoting has done an approximation of that cost minus existing ticket and ancillary revenue I think.

 

[TUC]

A key need is to provide lower fares for family groups, and others travelling together. In preparation for a trip we're taking, I searched for fares for a return journey from Middlesbrough to Stranraer for two adults and two children. Even with a F&F railcard and split tickets, the best I could get was £194. Compare that to c£60 for driving and it's hard to see in any way how the train is an attractive option.

 

[yorksrob]

A key need is to provide lower fares for family groups, and others travelling together. In preparation for a trip we're taking, I searched for fares for a return journey from Middlesbrough to Stranraer for two adults and two children. Even with a F&F railcard and split tickets, the best I could get was £194. Compare that to c£60 for driving and it's hard to see in any way how the train is an attractive option.

It always amazes me that Northern, TPE etc don't have a groupsave offer - another area where the Southern region seems to excel.

 

[JonathanH]

It always amazes me that Northern, TPE etc don't have a groupsave offer - another area where the Southern region seems to excel.

Northern have Northern Duo on selected routes which provides a similar saving. TPE hasn't had the capacity and the majority of long distance operators don't do Groupsave in any case.

As some have previously pointed out, the South East has to provide a level of capacity for weekday peaks that mean it is easy to provide that capacity at other times too. However, it also has a Saturday morning problem towards London in many cases.

If trains can be filled at existing prices, and the railway isn’t meeting its costs, it isn't obvious that reducing fares is the answer. The railway needs to sell its surplus capacity through targetted offers and promotions, not reduce its revenue from existing travellers.

 

[yorksrob]

Northern have Northern Duo on selected routes which provides a similar saving. TPE hasn't had the capacity and the majority of long distance operators don't do Groupsave in any case.

As some have previously pointed out, the South East has to provide a level of capacity for weekday peaks that mean it is easy to provide that capacity at other times too. However, it also has a Saturday morning problem towards London in many cases.

If trains can be filled at existing prices, and the railway isn’t meeting its costs, it isn't obvious that reducing fares is the answer. The railway needs to sell its surplus capacity through targetted offers and promotions, not reduce its revenue from existing travellers.

We need a railway that serves the public, not the other way round.

People shouldn't have their ability to go about their business dictated by what kind of rolling stock this or that line happens to have.

 

[Starmill]

Northern have Northern Duo on selected routes which provides a similar saving. TPE hasn't had the capacity and the majority of long distance operators don't do Groupsave in any case.

As some have previously pointed out, the South East has to provide a level of capacity for weekday peaks that mean it is easy to provide that capacity at other times too. However, it also has a Saturday morning problem towards London in many cases.

If trains can be filled at existing prices, and the railway isn’t meeting its costs, it isn't obvious that reducing fares is the answer. The railway needs to sell its surplus capacity through targetted offers and promotions, not reduce its revenue from existing travellers.

Actually TransPennine Express do offer a group discount of 3-9 people, but only by booking Advance tickets. This is a lot more useful than it used to be, because there aren't many journeys left that they don't offer Advance tickets for.

It's pretty much useless for people who don't want to commit to a return time however, as there's a risk that they'll have to pay for singles on the day at the Anytime rate (or rarely an Off Peak single may be offered), which costs about the same as the Off Peak Return does, negating all of the saving from booking in advance and charging a massive penalty on top. It's most useful for people who are returning by some mode other than the railway, or who are content to just arrive back late in the evening on one of the last trains.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I don't understand. The operational cost of the railway, according to ORR, is £25bn not 14.

Yes, the overall cost is £25bn and passengers pay £11bn of that cost in fares. The rest (£14bn) comes from Government/taxpayers. That gets to the heart of this debate - fares are viewed as too high, but still don't even cover half the cost of running the industry.

 

[alistairlees]

Yes, the overall cost is £25bn and passengers pay £11bn of that cost in fares. The rest (£14bn) comes from Government/taxpayers. That gets to the heart of this debate - fares are viewed as too high, but still don't even cover half the cost of running the industry.

That’s the surface of the debate, not the heart of it. Closer to the heart of it are the key questions:
- why is network rail so expensive (it’s the bulk of costs)? See here for the £15bn of expenditure in 2023/24
- why have rolling stock costs increased so much? (bungled IEP procurement)
- and why is there no truly concerted effort to drive up revenue ?

These are the real biggies. Sorting these out takes treasury pressure away and enables the railway to free itself (as much as possible) from political interference and to actually deliver a good railway.

 

[TUC]

That’s the surface of the debate, not the heart of it. Closer to the heart of it are the key questions:
- why is network rail so expensive (it’s the bulk of costs)? See here for the £15bn of expenditure in 2023/24
- why have rolling stock costs increased so much? (bungled IEP procurement)
- and why is there no truly concerted effort to drive up revenue ?

These are the real biggies. Sorting these out takes treasury pressure away and enables the railway to free itself (as much as possible) from political interference and to actually deliver a good railway.

Why does the DfT and the Treasury not say to Network Rail ' the typical costs of operating and maintaining similar rail networks in other countries is £x'. Over the next three years we will gradually reduce your budget to similar levels, but will expect the same levels of work activity as now. It is for you to reduce your costs over that time'?