Pros and cons of a GB-Ticket

[Farigiraf]

I've listed what I perceive are pros and cons of potential implementation of a GB-Ticket, which is a British adaptation of Austria's Klimaticket - the lack of clear Regional/Intercity distinction in the UK means that the German model of only permitting regional trains would be highly complex, although the name is more catchy than 'Climate Ticket'.

Aiming to actually help with the cost of living and attract new travellers, instead of subsidising those who can already comfortably afford train travel, while at the same time trying to keep the 'headline figure' (which anti-rail politicians in Germany frequently criticise) as low as possible so that it doesn't become highly politically vulnerable, a cost of around £1200-1500 a year (equivalent of £100-125 a month) is worth considering. There are numerous reasons why you may want to make it higher, but it must be considered that anything more than the cost of a typical utility bill makes it inaccessible to those on lower incomes, which reduces many of the fiscal multipliers which the viability of a GB-Ticket relies on.
Of course, there would be senior/youth/low-income/job-based discounts, plus regional equivalents (e.g. L&SE, East Midlands, Scottish Central Belt) for a lower cost can be considered. The fate of railcards I'm unsure about - they're a largely different offering (often paying for themselves after just a few trips) but there would be a lot of duplication too.

Pro	Con
Increased off-peak travel, filling otherwise empty seats	Peak-time trains would likely be regularly full and standing
If implementation in Germany teaches us anything, Overcrowding on busy routes may encourage rail investment to increase capacity, allowing for commuter rail expansion (Crossrail / South Wales Metro style projects), regional rail expansion (line reopenings) and possibly the revival of public favour in high-speed rail	The many other issues with building infrastructure in the UK wouldn't be magically solved, meaning that investment may struggle to keep up with passenger growth
Increased usage of local buses (and trams wherever they exist), encouraging mass transit and bus expansion	Complex funding systems, bus deregulation and inconsistent levels of devolution throughout the country would make such expansion a logistical nightmare
Allows people with lower incomes to access many better-paid jobs within commuting distance, reducing the decline of regional towns with high unemployment. Reduces the North-South divide.	↓
Reduces the cost of living, allowing for more disposable income to spend in other businesses	The increased money from these 3 categories on the left typically go to other departments (e.g. NHS, Defra) not the DfT, so if looking at the DfT budgets instead of the UK economy, the project appears as loss making.
The typical benefits of modal shift: - less cars on the roads resulting in less accidents and cleaner air = lower costs for NHS - Cities/towns that prioritise public transport growth over road access are typically nicer places to live, increasing land value - Numerous environmental benefits	↑

I'm not expecting such an idea to actually materialise: Germany and Austria's railways are in a better condition and rail is viewed as a public service / economic multiplier, while in the UK, politicians are focused on reducing subsidy by cutting things that don't make a profit, and in general less people are used to taking the train.
If by some chance it gets implemented, a GB-Ticket would certainly change that, but to what extent? How sustainable would it be long term - would the wider economic benefits of it (which likely outweigh the subsidy cost) be noticeable on the Treasury's revenue sheets before there start to be calls for the scrapping of it?

 

[JonathanH]

A particular con is that it is simply the wrong product for the capacity and structure of our railway.

If someone lives in Great Yarmouth, for instance, it may be appropriate to offer incentives to use the train to Norwich. That doesn't have to mean they can use that incentive to travel in Manchester. Why is a 'go-anywhere' ticket the right answer to deal with the need to make travel cheaper on a more local scale?

Most road congestion is caused by people making relatively short journeys, and it is those that perhaps need to be made easier and more cost effective to make by public transport.

 

[Farigiraf]

A particular con is that it is simply the wrong product for the capacity and structure of our railway.

If someone lives in Great Yarmouth, for instance, it may be appropriate to offer incentives to use the train to Norwich. That doesn't have to mean they can use that incentive to travel in Manchester. Why is a 'go-anywhere' ticket the right answer to deal with the need to make travel cheaper on a more local scale?

Most road congestion is caused by people making relatively short journeys, and it is those that perhaps need to be made easier and more cost effective to make by public transport.

The issue with incentives created on a case-by-case basis is that on a large scale, it just contributes to the already complex fares system in the UK. E.g. I'm sure the Dales railcard or Highland railcard is beneficial, but how would the average rail traveller find out about these things? I only found out about the Anglia Plus rover from the Railrover site - nothing at all about it at any GA stations and it's only on the app if you look for it.

I did specifically mention that there's a case to be made for implementing regional GB-Tickets for those who don't make lots of long-distance trips. In Austria, alongside the main Klimaticket, there are separate regional Klimatickets such as the Vienna commuter area klimaticket or the Carinthia Klimaticket. Something like an Anglia GB-Ticket at around half the price of the countrywide version would be a much better option for the Great Yarmouth resident in your example.
Regarding short journeys, a GB-Ticket would include local buses and trams too, incentivising leaving the car at home for a local trip.

 

[JonathanH]

I only found out about the Anglia Plus ranger from the Railrover site - nothing at all about it at any GA stations and it's only on the app if you look for it.

I did specifically mention that there's a case to be made for implementing regional GB-Tickets for those who don't make lots of long-distance trips.

Yes, but how is a fare set that is reasonable for all purposes?

The Anglia Plus annual season tickets come in a number of variants:
Norfolk only £2,848
Suffolk only £2,928
Cambridgeshire only £2,936
Cambs & Suffolk £4,712
Suffolk & Norfolk £4,712
Cambs & Norfolk £5,000

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tickets-railcards-offers/promotions/anglia-plus-annual-season/

Travel wherever you like on Greater Anglia, East Midlands Railway and Great Northern/Thameslink services within your chosen zonal area. Available in Standard Class only.

The Norfolk zone covers the lines from Norwich to Thetford, Sheringham, Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Diss.

The Suffolk zone covers the lines from Ipswich to Lowestoft, Felixstowe, Stowmarket and Bury St Edmunds, also from Lowestoft to Somerleyton.

The Cambridge zone covers the lines from Cambridge to Bury St Edmunds, Ely and Thetford, also between Bury St Edmunds and Ely.

A ticket valid in both Norfolk and Suffolk is also valid between Stowmarket and Diss.

Those are already a sizeable payment for freedom of the railways in a relatively limited area.

I wonder how many they sell or whether Great Yarmouth to Norwich commuters, for example, are happy to pay £2,356 for a point to point season ticket, as that is all they need. The Anglia Plus season tickets are an effective cap for passengers commuting the longest distances within an area.

Even someone going from Great Yarmouth to Norwich by bus every day for £3 each way is likely paying £1,200 a year for 200 return journeys.

Allows people with lower incomes to access many better-paid jobs within commuting distance, reducing the decline of regional towns with high unemployment.

This point is clearly valid, but there is a trade off between living costs, pay, availability of jobs, time, and infrastructure. Just making travel cheaper doesn't solve that issue, although the decline of industry has unfortunately caused a problem for employment in many places.

The many other issues with building infrastructure in the UK wouldn't be magically solved, meaning that investment may struggle to keep up with passenger growth

We could offer more well paid jobs in infrastructure, but we need the wealth generation fron other sectors to contribute the money to pay for it, and we have plenty of other priorities for spending which sit ahead of it in the queue.

 

[Farigiraf]

Those are already a sizeable payment for freedom of the railways in a relatively limited area.

I wonder how many they sell or whether Great Yarmouth to Norwich commuters, for example, are happy to pay £2,356 for a point to point season ticket, as that is all they need. The Anglia Plus season tickets are an effective cap for passengers commuting the longest distances within an area.

Even someone going from Great Yarmouth to Norwich by bus every day for £3 each way is likely paying £1,200 a year for 200 return journeys.

Few people commuting between Great Yarmouth and Norwich can afford an upfront payment of £2,356 for a season ticket in the first place.
The Klimaticket works because it keeps prices high enough that you aren't effectively giving out free money, but low enough that a lot of people on lower incomes, who otherwise couldn't afford commuting to a nearby city for a well-paid job, can fit in the monthly ~€70 commuting costs into their budget, thanks to the option to pay it in monthly installments.

For example, while a £700 Anglia GB-Ticket would on the face of it seem like just a 70% cut in commuter fares, in reality a monthly £58 covering all buses and trains to Norwich is far more accessible than an upfront £2356.

This point is clearly valid, but there is a trade off between living costs, pay, availability of jobs, time, and infrastructure. Just making travel cheaper doesn't solve that issue, although the decline of industry has unfortunately caused a problem for employment in many places.

The South Wales Metro does demonstrate how much improved access to rail can slow down the decline of ex-industrial towns. The lack of jobs in Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent or the Rhondda Valley means that if you're looking for well-paid work, chances are it's in Cardiff. Before the project, getting there involved taking a half-hourly clapped-out Pacer or Sprinter, and paying some hefty sums for season tickets.
These towns have now in practice become suburbs/satellite towns of Cardiff - modern trains and turn up and go frequencies to Cardiff City Centre makes commuting a lot more desirable. Actual fares simplification (unlike ECML 'simplification') involving PAYG and fares capping helps with the commuting costs too, though not on the level of a Klimaticket/D-ticket equivalent of course.

FYI: I'm assuming that a GB-Ticket wouldn't directly abstract money from the infrastructure budget in the long-term. While the Klimaticket/D-ticket was initially a money sink for the transport budget, over time it led to massively increased investment in rail in order to cope with the increasing demand. In Germany's case I'd say it moved the rail network out of a gradual downward spiral into steady growth - people wouldn't be complaining about DB reliability as much if they weren't taking trains in the first place!

 

[JonathanH]

Few people commuting between Great Yarmouth and Norwich can afford an upfront payment of £2,356 for a season ticket in the first place.

I'd imagine not. That is why larger employers traditionally made season ticket loans available to their workers.

The Klimaticket works because it keeps prices high enough that you aren't effectively giving out free money, but low enough that a lot of people on lower incomes, who otherwise couldn't afford commuting to a nearby city for a well-paid job, can fit in the monthly ~€70 commuting costs into their budget, thanks to the option to pay it in monthly installments.

I think everyone can agree that offering capping or annual season tickets on a monthly subscription model would be a good thing.

For example, while a £700 Anglia GB-Ticket would on the face of it seem like just a 70% cut in commuter fares, in reality a monthly £58 covering all buses and trains to Norwich is far more accessible than an upfront £2356.

Yes, but that requires someone to pay the subsidy, so that needs to be justified somehow. Woukd it be practical, for example, to pass the costs onto employers, rather than coming from central government?

The South Wales Metro does demonstrate how much improved access to rail can slow down the decline of ex-industrial towns. The lack of jobs in Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent or the Rhondda Valley means that if you're looking for well-paid work, chances are it's in Cardiff. Before the project, getting there involved taking a half-hourly clapped-out Pacer or Sprinter, and paying some hefty sums for season tickets.

Yes, it is good to see that investment in the railway.

These towns have now in practice become suburbs/satellite towns of Cardiff - modern trains and turn up and go frequencies to Cardiff City Centre makes commuting a lot more desirable. Actual fares simplification (unlike ECML 'simplification') involving PAYG and fares capping helps with the commuting costs too, though not on the level of a Klimaticket/D-ticket equivalent of course.

I imagine the hope is that money earned in Cardiff results in money spent in the smaller towns. However, weekly fare capping is still £27.60 a week from Aberdare to Cardiff, which is more than you are proposing for wider freedom on the railway.

 

[Farigiraf]

I'd imagine not. That is why larger employers traditionally made season ticket loans available to their workers.

Which are increasingly uncommon as inflation & the costs of business increase.

Yes, but that requires someone to pay the subsidy, so that needs to be justified somehow. Woukd it be practical, for example, to pass the costs onto employers, rather than coming from central government?

I'm no expert in Austrian tax law but I'm fairly sure they've found a solution to that too, which can be implemented in the UK. For one, often it's compulsory for workplaces to cover the costs of a regional Klimaticket where it's the best commuting option. Additionally, most cities have a tax to fund public transportation on medium/large businesses. This is usually used to pay for transport expansion (e.g. this is how so many French cities could pay for trams) but I'm sure it also covers the cost of subsidising local Klimatickets.

I'm wary of importing various progressive tax policies from the continent though, as we know how things usually go when a tax rise / new tax is suggested in the UK. In most cases, less sources of funding for such projects mean that there are less places where the whole plan can fall apart if there's significant local opposition.

 

[JonathanH]

For one, often it's compulsory for workplaces to cover the costs of a regional Klimaticket where it's the best commuting option. Additionally, most cities have a tax to fund public transportation on medium/large businesses. This is usually used to pay for transport expansion (e.g. this is how so many French cities could pay for trams) but I'm sure it also covers the cost of subsidising local Klimatickets.

I'm wary of importing various progressive tax policies from the continent though, as we know how things usually go when a tax rise / new tax is suggested in the UK.

It kind of falls in the 'tax on jobs' rhetoric that has accompanied the increase in National Insurance rates for employers. Employers may question why they should suddenly be paying for their staff to get to work when they haven't in the past.

We could make tax on workplace parking more common to pay for this kind of venture and even up motoring / public transport costs, but that may be seen by some as an 'attack on the motorist'.

Sort of comes to the 'what can we tax to fund benefits' issue that arose in the last week.

 

[Farigiraf]

It kind of falls in the 'tax on jobs' rhetoric that has accompanied the increase in National Insurance rates for employers. Employers may question why they should suddenly be paying for their staff to get to work when they haven't in the past.

We could make tax on workplace parking more common to pay for this kind of venture and even up motoring / public transport costs, but that may be seen by some as an 'attack on the motorist'.

Yes, the entire debate around tax in this country makes implementation of a GB-ticket functionally impossible in the current political environment as it'd likely end up as politicised as HS2. I started this thread to explore how it would work and whether it would last if it did manage to get implemented, which is a much less bleak subject to discuss

Sort of comes to the 'what can we tax to fund benefits' issue that arose in the last week.

It would certainly appear to fall into the same category as benefits for much of the voterbase (i.e. subsidising the cost of living) but in reality it's much more than that. While one of the major pros of the Klimaticket/D-ticket (there's also a similar one in Hungary IIRC, and Poland is seriously exploring the idea) projects is how they have helped increase employment & lifestyle opportunities for those who are struggling financially, they're also massively contributing to usage & public opinion of the railways on a national level, encouraging further investment in rail in the long-term.

 

[yorksrob]

A particular con is that it is simply the wrong product for the capacity and structure of our railway.

If someone lives in Great Yarmouth, for instance, it may be appropriate to offer incentives to use the train to Norwich. That doesn't have to mean they can use that incentive to travel in Manchester. Why is a 'go-anywhere' ticket the right answer to deal with the need to make travel cheaper on a more local scale?

Most road congestion is caused by people making relatively short journeys, and it is those that perhaps need to be made easier and more cost effective to make by public transport.

I think it's a red herring to suggest that our railway is so different from somewhere such as Austria.

The difference is in the political context - an Establishment in London that sees the railway as a nice to have.

The Establishment in London that is more interested in continuing the income streams of the ROSCO's

The Establishment in London, run by rich motorists chooses not to consider alternatives such as the climate ticket.

 

[The exile]

FYI: I'm assuming that a GB-Ticket wouldn't directly abstract money from the infrastructure budget in the long-term. While the Klimaticket/D-ticket was initially a money sink for the transport budget, over time it led to massively increased investment in rail in order to cope with the increasing demand. In Germany's case I'd say it moved the rail network out of a gradual downward spiral into steady growth - people wouldn't be complaining about DB reliability as much if they weren't taking trains in the first place!

I'm afraid I think you're being far too optimistic to say that "over time it [the D-Ticket] led to massively increased investment...." There hasn't been anything like enough time for the actual effect of the D-Ticket to be reflected in long-term investment plans (which are more a belated realisation that far too little [almost nothing!] has been spent on keeping the western network going since reunification and there's thirty-five years of neglect to catch up with). The (German) reports I've seen suggest that, if anything, there's been less modal shift than was hoped for. As to the massive complaints about punctuality - it's the "Fernverkehr" (IC and up) network that is the particular target of that (and the most seriously affected) - and that, of course, is not included in the D-Ticket. That distinction would, in itself, pose a big question related to any UK equivalent - what do you include and what not?

 

[Farigiraf]

There hasn't been anything like enough time for the actual effect of the D-Ticket to be reflected in long-term investment plans (which are more a belated realisation that far too little [almost nothing!] has been spent on keeping the western network going since reunification and there's thirty-five years of neglect to catch up with).

Quite a few countries' conventional rail networks have been neglected for decades. The difference is that if you're fed up about poor track conditions, expensive & convoluted fares and the general complex mess that is the French, Spanish and to an extent British rail network (outside the High Speed lines), the official advice is to drive instead. Germany has instead decided that it's worth modernising and investing in its rail network. I'm sure that straightforward, affordable ticketing (through the D-ticket) contributes significantly to achieving the high rail usage that gives German politicians faith to invest further even in the 'unprofitable' bits of the network.

It's useful to look at the alternative - looking at fares options for a journey that crosses regional French borders is a complex mess - fully LNER-style dynamic pricing and different fares schemes & discount options by region results in a standard train journey involving 1 change costing far more than you'd expect despite no flexibility. It certainly adds to the list of reasons why making a journey with local trains in France never wins against driving. It's a huge contrast to Germany or Austria even if the line itself is in a similar condition. UK rail ticketing is often just as complex, and will get even more unpredictable once walk-up tickets are abolished in more and more places.

 

[The exile]

Germany has instead decided that it's worth modernising and investing in its rail network. I'm sure that straightforward, affordable ticketing (through the D-ticket) contributes significantly to achieving the high rail usage that gives German politicians faith to invest further even in the 'unprofitable' bits of the network.

That straightforward ticketing (at a “travel to work area” level on weekdays and nationwide at weekends) has existed in Germany for decades - which is one of the reasons that modal shift hasn’t been that great. We need to get things like that straight at a local level and build up capacity on regional routes before looking at anything like a GB-ticket , which would completely overwhelm the network at pinch-points as things stand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2026 ==

. I'm sure that straightforward, affordable ticketing (through the D-ticket) contributes significantly to achieving the high rail usage that gives German politicians faith to invest further even in the 'unprofitable' bits of the network.

This is a genuine question - not a challenge - does anyone know if there are figures available for annual rail passenger km per head of population for the major European railway nations (eg GB, FR, DE, ES, IT and perhaps PL)?

 

[Farigiraf]

We need to get things like that straight at a local level and build up capacity on regional routes before looking at anything like a GB-ticket , which would completely overwhelm the network at pinch-points as things stand.

I do agree with you on this. In reality though, creating enough capacity to support the sudden increase in rail usage on the busiest of routes won't ever happen at the current rate of investment. It's fairly straightforward to increase the length of regional trains, but on lines like the WCML, HS2 is the only realistic way of creating that capacity and at this rate the first few paths on the southern WCML will be freed up in about 15 years, with phase 2A not even being funded yet. There clearly isn't the momentum nor political will to increase capacity in line with growth - current DfT strategies appear to be in line with our friends across the channel - i.e. investment in rail capacity isn't seen as worth the time and money.

The theory is that if you introduced the GB-Ticket despite these capacity issues, the chaos that would ensue may kickstart a proper rail investment pipeline. However, that's not really fair on the actual commuters: endure really bad crowding for a few years, after which your local line will get the investment it deserves, isn't a tradeoff many people would accept.

This is a genuine question - not a challenge - does anyone know if there are figures available for annual rail passenger km per head of population for the major European railway nations (eg GB, FR, DE, ES, IT and perhaps PL)?

There is but it's only for EU/Schengen countries:

It's not the best statistic in my opinion for measuring how well-used the wider transport system is, as there's no separate statistic just for regional and commuter rail.

Countries that invest billions into airline-style HSR networks can make their way up quite high on the list despite starving most other transport modes of funding. Annual transport passes aren't too useful in these countries when in the average town on a typical day there's 1 or 2 buses, a few regional rail departures, and one expensive intercity train. The annual transport pass would effectively be a subsidy of the intercity train's fares, while not growing usage on the rest of the network too much because the frequencies make it unusable for a commute.

The UK has a headstart in that most regional trains have useable frequencies for a commute, the typical barriers against a decent commute are fares, reliability and capacity.

 

[JonathanH]

That straightforward ticketing (at a “travel to work area” level on weekdays and nationwide at weekends) has existed in Germany for decades - which is one of the reasons that modal shift hasn’t been that great. We need to get things like that straight at a local level and build up capacity on regional routes before looking at anything like a GB-ticket , which would completely overwhelm the network at pinch-points as things stand.

They also exist in this country, within many of the major conurbations, but people often prefer point to point tickets nevettheless because they offer a saving.

The UK has a headstart in that most regional trains have useable frequencies for a commute, the typical barriers against a decent commute are fares, reliability and capacity.

Or is it just capacity? People generally put up with the fares, and there is no arbiter of the extent to which travel is the thing that should be kept cheap. If my Great Yarmouth person (assuming they are a lower rate tax payer) can earn an extra £5,000 by working in Norwich, they are earning enough to cover the travel cost and have some money left over.

 

[yorksrob]

Quite a few countries' conventional rail networks have been neglected for decades. The difference is that if you're fed up about poor track conditions, expensive & convoluted fares and the general complex mess that is the French, Spanish and to an extent British rail network (outside the High Speed lines), the official advice is to drive instead. Germany has instead decided that it's worth modernising and investing in its rail network. I'm sure that straightforward, affordable ticketing (through the D-ticket) contributes significantly to achieving the high rail usage that gives German politicians faith to invest further even in the 'unprofitable' bits of the network.

It's useful to look at the alternative - looking at fares options for a journey that crosses regional French borders is a complex mess - fully LNER-style dynamic pricing and different fares schemes & discount options by region results in a standard train journey involving 1 change costing far more than you'd expect despite no flexibility. It certainly adds to the list of reasons why making a journey with local trains in France never wins against driving. It's a huge contrast to Germany or Austria even if the line itself is in a similar condition. UK rail ticketing is often just as complex, and will get even more unpredictable once walk-up tickets are abolished in more and more places.

Even more reason to follow the Austrian example, and not allow the London establishment in the UK to destroy the system. The LNER anti-passenger lot ought to be seeking work in the airline industry.

 

[The exile]

I do agree with you on this. In reality though, creating enough capacity to support the sudden increase in rail usage on the busiest of routes won't ever happen at the current rate of investment. It's fairly straightforward to increase the length of regional trains, but on lines like the WCML, HS2 is the only realistic way of creating that capacity and at this rate the first few paths on the southern WCML will be freed up in about 15 years, with phase 2A not even being funded yet. There clearly isn't the momentum nor political will to increase capacity in line with growth - current DfT strategies appear to be in line with our friends across the channel - i.e. investment in rail capacity isn't seen as worth the time and money.

The theory is that if you introduced the GB-Ticket despite these capacity issues, the chaos that would ensue may kickstart a proper rail investment pipeline. However, that's not really fair on the actual commuters: endure really bad crowding for a few years, after which your local line will get the investment it deserves, isn't a tradeoff many people would accept.


There is but it's only for EU/Schengen countries:

It's not the best statistic in my opinion for measuring how well-used the wider transport system is, as there's no separate statistic just for regional and commuter rail.

A very rough back of envelope calculation brings the UK in at just under 1000 (64bn passenger km [GB only] by 69 million people [including NI]). Given the more spread-out nature of its large centres of population (and “staycation” holiday destinations) not to mention number of urban centres with developed S-Bahn networks (nothing to do with the D-Ticket), I fail to see the massive difference between our ridership figures and Germany’s implied in other posts.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It would be a mistake to think that, in Germany in particular, the D-ticket is a permanent fixture.
The original idea came from the Greens, who were in the coalition government at the time, and it proved quite difficult to get local and national approval as it damaged the revenues of all the transport authorities across Germany, with central government covering the deficit - but only on a year-by-year basis.

The political landscape in Germany is changing, as it is here, and it is uncertain if the federal government will continue to subsidise the D-ticket.
You can imagine here that a GB-ticket might become Labour, Green and Lib-Dem party policy (also SNP/Plaid), but not Tory or Reform.

It might work if introduced locally in Scotland or Wales, but England is a tough nut to crack with its volatile political situation.
In any case I think GBR has to prove itself capable of managing the existing setup before major fares restructuring is attempted.

 

[NCT]

It boils down to whether there’s appetite for even further expansion of the state to which the answer is a resounding no. Any downstream technical arguments are irrelevant.

 

[yorksrob]

It boils down to whether there’s appetite for even further expansion of the state to which the answer is a resounding no. Any downstream technical arguments are irrelevant.

The state is already going to be running the majority of the railway industry regardless. It doesn't seem much of an expansion to ensure that the state run railway is accessible in terms of affordable, genuinely simplified fares (in spite of what the small state idealogues would have us think).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It boils down to whether there’s appetite for even further expansion of the state to which the answer is a resounding no.

Your answer is a resounding no. The Left probably disagree.

As to the overall question there are a few issues with the idea for the UK, one being our lack of regional/intercity split, and another being the high cost.

I could sort of see sense and viability in a bus only version, but we have the £3 scheme instead.

 

[A S Leib]

As to the overall question there are a few issues with the idea for the UK, one being our lack of regional/intercity split, and another being the high cost.

Switzerland solves that issue by having the General Abo valid on intercity services, but also by charging £340 per month for adults. That would undercut season tickets for journeys as short as Woking to Waterloo, so I don't think the cost to passengers rather than the state (with current Treasury attitudes) would be the issue if that's used as a benchmark.

 

[renegademaster]

I feel a lower cost effort that will still win the government some praise politically and encourage internal tourism is put a fare cap of something like £40 a ticket(mabye exclude London-Scotland journeys and let Avanti and XC designate a few busier trains a day for this discount not to apply to)

That would be £8 grand if brought every working day but would stop the headlines of "£200 to Manchester!!" that pop up every couple of months. I'm not convinced in todays day and age of remote work theirs going to be some sudden influx of London Manchester commuters because of this.

 

[The exile]

Have just been reading parts of a recent report on the D-Ticket. Take up by federal state varies between 48% in Hamburg to 10% in one of the more rural states. This level has only been achieved in Hamburg because they have a) effectively abolished their own local season tickets and b) are issuing D-Tickets to all school children for their travel to school. This is costing the State of Hamburg over 100 million Euros a year for a population of under 2 million.

 

[HSTEd]

£1200 per year is so cheap that you'd have to sell ten million a year to avoid the collapse of the farebox.

I don't see 15% of the population buying them, and if they did - we'd have to fit tube interiors to everything to carry people!

Given the very large fares people see today, it won't take many journeys before the annual ticket is cheaper.

 

[yorksrob]

Have just been reading parts of a recent report on the D-Ticket. Take up by federal state varies between 48% in Hamburg to 10% in one of the more rural states. This level has only been achieved in Hamburg because they have a) effectively abolished their own local season tickets and b) are issuing D-Tickets to all school children for their travel to school. This is costing the State of Hamburg over 100 million Euros a year for a population of under 2 million.

One would have thought that having a somewhat lower take-up would make it easier and cheaper to run. I don't see the point of channelling thousands more people onto the ticket than would naturally be the case, then complaining that it costs too much.

This seems to suggest that the sky wouldn't fall in in terms of capacity if we had one here (or that German fares were more reasonable than here to begin with).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2026 ==

£1200 per year is so cheap that you'd have to sell ten million a year to avoid the collapse of the farebox.

I don't see 15% of the population buying them, and if they did - we'd have to fit tube interiors to everything to carry people!

Given the very large fares people see today, it won't take many journeys before the annual ticket is cheaper.

That depends on how far people are likely to go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jun 2026 ==

I feel a lower cost effort that will still win the government some praise politically and encourage internal tourism is put a fare cap of something like £40 a ticket(mabye exclude London-Scotland journeys and let Avanti and XC designate a few busier trains a day for this discount not to apply to)

That would be £8 grand if brought every working day but would stop the headlines of "£200 to Manchester!!" that pop up every couple of months. I'm not convinced in todays day and age of remote work theirs going to be some sudden influx of London Manchester commuters because of this.

A National railcard would be another lower cost alternative.

A full GB-ticket may be a bit of a stretch, but that's no reason for the ruling class in London to continue with an over-commercialised, eletist mess (particularly not to make it even more of a rich man's toy, as they seem determined to do).

 

[The exile]

One would have thought that having a somewhat lower take-up would make it easier and cheaper to run. I don't see the point of channelling thousands more people onto the ticket than would naturally be the case, then complaining that it costs too much.

This seems to suggest that the sky wouldn't fall in in terms of capacity if we had one here (or that German fares were more reasonable than here to begin with).

The low take up suggests it is costing a fortune without doing what it was intended to do (encourage mode shift). Most German “urban” areas already had multi-mode tickets which provided most of what people needed - sometimes with additional benefits the D-Ticket doesn’t have (such as season tickets becoming group tickets at weekends) and capacity had already been built up over years. Imagine the chaos on a summer Saturday in the Hope Valley if all Manchester and Sheffield area commuters effectively had a free ticket for weekend travel - especially if EMR counted as IC and was therefore excluded.
Our scenic routes in touristy areas are already overwhelmed quite frequently…

 

[yorksrob]

The low take up suggests it is costing a fortune without doing what it was intended to do (encourage mode shift). Most German “urban” areas already had multi-mode tickets which provided most of what people needed - sometimes with additional benefits the D-Ticket doesn’t have (such as season tickets becoming group tickets at weekends) and capacity had already been built up over years. Imagine the chaos on a summer Saturday in the Hope Valley if all Manchester and Sheffield area commuters effectively had a free ticket for weekend travel - especially if EMR counted as IC and was therefore excluded.
Our scenic routes in touristy areas are already overwhelmed quite frequently…

By your own calculations, the scheme is costing the state of Hambourg 50 euro's per person, per year. That seems pretty cheap to me, given what I pay in tax.

Put it another way, why haven't our railway providers built up capacity on lines such as the Hope Valley over the years ? Because government policy has made it easier for them to charge high fares instead. With long term good value fares, the railway provider would have to start building up capacity (how many pacers and 153's have been scrapped that could have been used to build up capacity).

Public transport is about more than just modal shift - it's about giving people the opportunity to go about their business and contribute to society and the economy.

 

[The exile]

By your own calculations, the scheme is costing the state of Hambourg 50 euro's per person, per year. That seems pretty cheap to me, given what I pay in tax.

That’s over and above a) the rest of their transport budget and b) the massive federal subsidy for the D-Ticket.

 

[HSTEd]

Put it another way, why haven't our railway providers built up capacity on lines such as the Hope Valley over the years ? Because government policy has made it easier for them to charge high fares instead. With long term good value fares, the railway provider would have to start building up capacity (how many pacers and 153's have been scrapped that could have been used to build up capacity).

Public transport is about more than just modal shift - it's about giving people the opportunity to go about their business and contribute to society and the economy.

And where will the money for this expansion come from?
You will need many many billions, and by far the cheapest capacity uplift would be Class 378 style interiors for rolling stock.

The railway already consumes subsidies comparable to spending on the road network, there is little appetite for more.