The cost of living agenda - how should the railway contribute ?

[yorksrob]

We now have a new Prime Minister and he is quite rightly (IMO) prioritising cost of living issues in policy. The question is, how should the passenger railway contribute to this agenda.

We already have a freeze on regulated fares - I'm not sure how sustainable this is in the long run as any subsidy would just expand over time.

It would be wonderful to see an Austrian style climate ticket or German style Bahn Card, however I fear that that these might be a stretch too far for our London focused rulers.

Some sort of extension of the Network Card nationwide - would be great for leisure travel, helping to take the kids out and meet friends and family.

Or is the Scottish approach more sensible - helping long suffering commuters by abolishing peak fares ? Would such a thing even be possible in the South Eastern commuter market.

Maybe some sort of tax incentive towards rail travel might work, although this doesn't feel immediate enough to me to reach the electorate.

One alternative might be to expand the LNWR approach by having different fares structures for different markets (obviously attempts by the DfT to destroy value for passengers such as abolishing off-peak fares need to be quashed as soon as possible).

What are the forum's ideas for the PM about how the railway can help alleviate the cost of living crisis.

 

[Haywain]

The fares freeze appears to have been an appropriate cost of living measure.

 

[yorksrob]

The fares freeze appears to have been an appropriate cost of living measure.

Yes, that is useful. On the plus side, it's immediate and available to (I think) all passengers including long suffering commuters.

On the minus side, one could argue that we already have some high baked in fares, therefore is less help to those who already struggle to afford the railway.

I've added a poll btw.

 

[JonathanH]

Travel is already something that people facing the worst of a 'cost of living crisis' can't countenance. The help they need is to afford to put food on the table, pay for heating and cooking, and for basic essentuals.

That much is clear from the story on the BBC website today -

'I can't afford to turn the oven on': 7.4m households struggling to buy essentials

As Andy Burnham promises “breathing space” for households, millions are unable to buy items such as clothing, heating and food.

www.bbc.co.uk

Four years into the cost-of-living crisis, almost two-thirds of low-income families say they struggle to buy essentials such as clothes, heating and food, according to anti-poverty charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF).

A record 62% of those families were unable to afford an essential item in the past six months, the charity found.

Any help needs to be targeted at those in need, with those with the broadest shoulders paying more. The railway should be looking to return as much money as possible to the Treasury coffers, by targetting any offers at genuine spare capacity and ensuring revenue is maximised, so that the money can be spent by the government on greater needs.

A fair amount of rail travel is among people with disposable income, going to events and activities. That is not part of a 'cost of living crisis'. By all means target subsidies at the less well off and those struggling on lower incomes, but there really isn't any justificaton at all for spending taxpayer subsidies on the more affluent.

There are valid arguments that people who do low income jobs in the public interest should be helped with cheaper commuting costs, but by the nature of their income, those users don't commute long distance. The bus cap, although again poorly targeted does help many of those people. It would have been good to see the bus cap targetted at the less well off instead of being a blanket subsidy.

 

[James H]

Predictably the Government hasn't really got the credit for the existing fares freeze - so many responses on social media to the bus fare cap asking 'what about train fares?'

 

[yorksrob]

Travel is already something that people facing the worst of a 'cost of living crisis' can't countenance. The help they need is to afford to put food on the table, pay for heating and cooking, and for basic essentuals.

That much is clear from the story on the BBC website today -

'I can't afford to turn the oven on': 7.4m households struggling to buy essentials

As Andy Burnham promises “breathing space” for households, millions are unable to buy items such as clothing, heating and food.

www.bbc.co.uk

Any help needs to be targeted at those in need, with those with the broadest shoulders paying more. The railway should be looking to return as much money as possible to the Treasury coffers, by targetting any offers at genuine spare capacity and ensuring revenue is maximised, so that the money can be spent by the government on greater needs.

A fair amount of rail travel is among people with disposable income, going to events and activities. That is not part of a 'cost of living crisis'. By all means target subsidies at the less well off and those struggling on lower incomes, but there really isn't any justificaton at all for spending taxpayer subsidies on the more affluent.

There are valid arguments that people who do low income jobs in the public interest should be helped with cheaper commuting costs, but by the nature of their income, those users don't commute long distance. The bus cap, although again poorly targeted does help many of those people. It would have been good to see the bus cap targetted at the less well off instead of being a blanket subsidy.

I'm not convinced of that argument, personally. Lower income households need to visit relatives etc, and aside from the very lowest income households, there is surely a political imperative to assist households up to the "JAM's" (Just about managing).

The news on the bus fares cap illustrates that public transport is an essential for those who don't drive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Predictably the Government hasn't really got the credit for the existing fares freeze - so many responses on social media to the bus fare cap asking 'what about train fares?'

I admit, I was a little sceptical at first as I was worried that non-regulated fares might go up, however to give the Government its credit - I've not noticed anything like that happen.

I guess to Joe public, a fares freeze isn't as eye-catching as a reduction somewhere (which is what the £2/3 bus fare was in many cases).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Any help needs to be targeted at those in need, with those with the broadest shoulders paying more. The railway should be looking to return as much money as possible to the Treasury coffers, by targetting any offers at genuine spare capacity and ensuring revenue is maximised, so that the money can be spent by the government on greater needs.

I hadn't thought about an income related fares discount so I've added it to the poll.

There are dangers of such an approach backfiring amongst upper working class voters though. Working in the public sector I used to hear the phrase "you pay in all your life and get nothing" in relation to means-tested things, so I'm inclined to think that cost of living support ought to be spread more widely.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I've voted for "Nothing." Not because everything's hunky dory, but because all of the suggestions require additional subsidy to pay for them and that ultimately has to come from taxpayers.

No such thing as a free lunch, as the saying goes!

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I've voted abolish peak fares because that would benefit me the most
In reality I think we'll see the fares freeze hold.

 

[Tetragon213]

Fare Freeze makes the most sense, but I can also see tax incentives working well. A scheme similar to that Cycle to Work thing but for public transport would be a very good idea imo.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

Abolishing peak fares would deal with a lot of fare anomalies, issues around differing restriction codes, 'cliff edge' trains etc I'd also remove any time restrictions on railcards.

Finally, 'proper' single leg pricing (half the price of current return fares) so that people don't feel ripped off for single journeys, or journeys that span multiple days but only have Day Returns available.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

These are things that we'd like to see introduced by politicians for political purposes - which means that they should be deliverable and seen to be successful in the next three years (i.e. before the last possible date for the next general election). So practically speaking, of the proposed options, that only leaves the fare freeze - everything else will take too long to do. They might fit into a manifesto ('vote for us and we'll do this') but that's a rather different question.

But one other small thing that could be done (and which could also be dressed up as a visible step to GBR as one railway) would be to have an easily available, booking-fee-free ticketing website. Of course, we here know that this is what all (?) TOCs already offer - but rebranding one of the websites as GBR ticketing and then promoting it quite hard would give the message that no one needs to pay the fees demanded by Trainline, keeping fares down to the (frozen) price on the box and without anything added to it. Even if Trainline respond by cutting/eliminating their booking fees, that would still have a small positive impact on the amounts paid by voters customers.

 

[speedy1]

Nothing.

We can't encourage more use on a railway that fundamentally can't be sufficiently expanded due to NIMBYs/BANANAs, can't keep shrubbery off the overhead lines, can't provide enough carriages for many journeys, can't cope with heat waves etc.

Predictably the Government hasn't really got the credit for the existing fares freeze

Too right. A temporary pause in being slapped in the face (years of multiple rises per year, some being above inflation pre 2020) isn't much to celebrate. A real-term decrease would have been newsworthy

 

[spyinthesky]

I voted for other, as I see reducing a nationalised railways income will just see it fall apart.
I don’t have the answer but I would hazard a guess that those on low incomes generally don’t travel so far to see relatives or commute long distances.
For myself there is very little incentive to use the train, mainly because of where I chose to live.
Short journeys should be the first to benefit from any price changes and linked with the local buses for example a simple distance related day rider.
Long distance and Inter City travel would have to suffer the increases imo.

 

[styles]

I put other.

I think Railcards should be abolished. People can still take advantage of discounts, just without the faff and cost of buying and carrying a Railcard beforehand. There may be a couple of Railcards which make sense to retain due to eligibility proof, but on the whole passengers should be able to take advantage of discounted fares without buying a Railcard in advance. This will also reduce the need for penalties when people's Railcards expire or whatever.

The complexity of the fares system need reducing. There will always be some complexity, but the current state of affairs is absurd.

When I travel between Wales and Scotland, split tickets can save over 50%.

26-30 Railcards have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays, but TVMs instead of selling an £8 undiscounted ticket will offer a £12 'discounted' ticket.

16-25 Railcards also have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays... except in July and August. So a 25 year old gets a cheaper ticket on their morning commute in the summer, while a 26 year old doesn't.

Actually age-based railcards are valid for a fixed period at the time of purchase, so a 26-30 Railcard is actually valid until the day before your 32nd birthday.

The legislation makes it an offence to travel on a 16-25 ticket when you hold a 26-30 Railcard even though the price is the same. This is stupid, to the point that the regulator had to intervene to stop people being taken to court for criminal offences when the railway wasn't even losing money.

That's before we even get into split tickets, rovers, GroupSave, TOC-specific group discounts, rangers, regional Railcards, SuperFares, ScotRail Kids For A Quid, Club Avanti, LNER cashback, the fact that mature students can get a 16-25 railcard, Scotland NEC, Unizones, GTR money back guarantee, XC feeless Advance ticket changes, PlusBus, Nothern Duo, gold cards, RailMaster, Rail & Sail, flexipasses, GA pregnant passenger first class upgrades, SeatFrog, carnets, season tickets, flexi passes, etc etc.

Some on the forums will challenge this view and say well how would you reduce complexity without raising fares, but I'm not a fares expert. I'm an ordinary passenger with a higher than average interest in train travel, who gets asked by friends and family all the time about finding the best fares and even I struggle, so the average passenger is often getting shafted in favour of a fares system which requires a PhD to find the best value in.

If the government is serious about helping the cost of living, and the climate crisis, then reducing fares on underutilised services would make sense, and probably even generate a net positive income position. On some services the limited size of the train also puts people off - I was out and about during the Edinburgh Fringe last year staying along the Borders railway line, and ScotRail and still punting 3 carriage services on the normal schedule, when all of the platforms can accommodate 6 carriages, possibly even 7, though they tend to be 2x3 car services when they do run them. The trains were absolutely rammed, which is good in that clearly people are opting for public transport, but I was also considering driving or taking the bus because train services when you're packed in like sardines in the height of summer are not comfortable. Whether they buy/lease more rolling stock, or they temporarily rent it from a charter company or whatever, they need more of it. It's the same along the north Wales coast line during the summer when people are heading to the beaches and caravan parks for their holidays; the trains are absolutely rammed, and 1h+ journeys stood in crowds on trains with poor AC is just not very attractive, and again, I'd be considering driving.

 

[JonathanH]

Abolishing peak fares would deal with a lot of fare anomalies, issues around differing restriction codes, 'cliff edge' trains etc I'd also remove any time restrictions on railcards.

Short journeys should be the first to benefit from any price changes and linked with the local buses for example a simple distance related day rider.
Long distance and Inter City travel would have to suffer the increases imo.

One approach may be to increase fares on weekend mornings, to deal with the "Saturday morning problem", perhaps by as much as 20%, particularly where there is a lot of discretionary leisure travel, to allow a reduction on short distance weekday commuting fares, but leaving longer distance weekday commuting fares largely unchanged. Such a move could be reasonably redistributive.

I think the problem with all of these initiatives is that no one can really put a finger on what is a reasonable cost of travel. Trains are full on some routes and at some times of day, but there are still calls for those trains to be cheaper to use. Price isn't necessarily the best approach to ration use, but anything else is much more complex.

It should however be remembered than when off-peak fares are the same as peak fares, there is a psychological sense that the off-peak fare is 'missing' or overpriced.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Other - once GBR is launched there should be free travel for everyone who works on the railway to compensate for the low pay and poor conditions they often have to put up with, regardless of whether they're safeguarded or not.

 

[spyinthesky]

Other - once GBR is launched there should be free travel for everyone who works on the railway to compensate for the low pay and poor conditions they often have to put up with, regardless of whether they're safeguarded or not

To and from work, I agree but I don’t want to subsidise your leisure travel.

 

[sh24]

Any measures that reduce the subsidy freeing up cash for other sectors. Easy when you say it like that.

 

[Swedenorer]

The railways can do little directly since only 2% of all journeys annually use this mode.

 

[yorksrob]

I've voted abolish peak fares because that would benefit me the most
In reality I think we'll see the fares freeze hold.

Abolishing peak fares is currently leading the poll, so there must be a few of us commuters on the forum !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Nothing.

We can't encourage more use on a railway that fundamentally can't be sufficiently expanded due to NIMBYs/BANANAs, can't keep shrubbery off the overhead lines, can't provide enough carriages for many journeys, can't cope with heat waves etc.

I'd say that's maybe a little over-pessimistic. Not every path is occupied by a standing room only, full length train. There's a discussion to be had around which of the positive options will exacerbate overcrowding the least.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Abolishing peak fares is currently leading the poll, so there must be a few of us commuters on the forum !

I feel like removing the peak entirely might be too far, but on long distance trains I think removing the evening peak might go a long way, see the 222/810 thread for InterCity services being much busier the moment peak ends.
Maybe a removal of evening peak times would spread that demand over a couple hours as people might get food out before heading north to avoid the 17:XX trains which would surely be the busiest.

 

[yorksrob]

I put other.

I think Railcards should be abolished. People can still take advantage of discounts, just without the faff and cost of buying and carrying a Railcard beforehand. There may be a couple of Railcards which make sense to retain due to eligibility proof, but on the whole passengers should be able to take advantage of discounted fares without buying a Railcard in advance. This will also reduce the need for penalties when people's Railcards expire or whatever.

The complexity of the fares system need reducing. There will always be some complexity, but the current state of affairs is absurd.

When I travel between Wales and Scotland, split tickets can save over 50%.

26-30 Railcards have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays, but TVMs instead of selling an £8 undiscounted ticket will offer a £12 'discounted' ticket.

16-25 Railcards also have a minimum fare of £12 before 10am on weekdays... except in July and August. So a 25 year old gets a cheaper ticket on their morning commute in the summer, while a 26 year old doesn't.

Actually age-based railcards are valid for a fixed period at the time of purchase, so a 26-30 Railcard is actually valid until the day before your 32nd birthday.

The legislation makes it an offence to travel on a 16-25 ticket when you hold a 26-30 Railcard even though the price is the same. This is stupid, to the point that the regulator had to intervene to stop people being taken to court for criminal offences when the railway wasn't even losing money.

That's before we even get into split tickets, rovers, GroupSave, TOC-specific group discounts, rangers, regional Railcards, SuperFares, ScotRail Kids For A Quid, Club Avanti, LNER cashback, the fact that mature students can get a 16-25 railcard, Scotland NEC, Unizones, GTR money back guarantee, XC feeless Advance ticket changes, PlusBus, Nothern Duo, gold cards, RailMaster, Rail & Sail, flexipasses, GA pregnant passenger first class upgrades, SeatFrog, carnets, season tickets, flexi passes, etc etc.

Some on the forums will challenge this view and say well how would you reduce complexity without raising fares, but I'm not a fares expert. I'm an ordinary passenger with a higher than average interest in train travel, who gets asked by friends and family all the time about finding the best fares and even I struggle, so the average passenger is often getting shafted in favour of a fares system which requires a PhD to find the best value in.

If the government is serious about helping the cost of living, and the climate crisis, then reducing fares on underutilised services would make sense, and probably even generate a net positive income position. On some services the limited size of the train also puts people off - I was out and about during the Edinburgh Fringe last year staying along the Borders railway line, and ScotRail and still punting 3 carriage services on the normal schedule, when all of the platforms can accommodate 6 carriages, possibly even 7, though they tend to be 2x3 car services when they do run them. The trains were absolutely rammed, which is good in that clearly people are opting for public transport, but I was also considering driving or taking the bus because train services when you're packed in like sardines in the height of summer are not comfortable. Whether they buy/lease more rolling stock, or they temporarily rent it from a charter company or whatever, they need more of it. It's the same along the north Wales coast line during the summer when people are heading to the beaches and caravan parks for their holidays; the trains are absolutely rammed, and 1h+ journeys stood in crowds on trains with poor AC is just not very attractive, and again, I'd be considering driving.

I agree with your points regarding complexity.

Certainly streamlining the railcard offers around something that's available to all would alleviate that.

I quite like the simplicity of the groupsave offer. I'd be inclined to standardise its terms and roll it out Nationwide.

 

[SaltAndVinegar]

I’d like to see the practice of single fares being priced so close to the equivalent return be abolished, and have singles be half the price of returns. Eg £120 return, £110 single…. Or £10 return, £9.80 single. When I go to visit family I’ll often do a single journey between two major stations on my way there, but be dropped off on the way back, and feel ripped off as it cost marginally less than a return.

Not everyone wants to make a return journey by rail, or may want to go back by a different route without essentially paying for a return journey twice.

Some form of railcard or loyalty programme for the 30-60 age range would be good too. I wouldn’t even mind if it was more expensive than the 16-25/26-30, as it would be for some people an improvement on what they are paying for fares now.

 

[yorksrob]

One approach may be to increase fares on weekend mornings, to deal with the "Saturday morning problem", perhaps by as much as 20%, particularly where there is a lot of discretionary leisure travel, to allow a reduction on short distance weekday commuting fares, but leaving longer distance weekday commuting fares largely unchanged. Such a move could be reasonably redistributive.

Proposals to introduce net increases to fares are off-topic for this discussion.

 

[JonathanH]

I feel like removing the peak entirely might be too far, but on long distance trains I think removing the evening peak might go a long way, see the 222/810 thread for InterCity services being much busier the moment peak ends.
Maybe a removal of evening peak times would spread that demand over a couple hours as people might get food out before heading north to avoid the 17:XX trains which would surely be the busiest.

However, who is being subsidised by such a move?

Why would taxpayer money be spent on something which does not feed down to the people who really need to be supported? It might be noted that recent changes to fares involving single leg pricing increase the cost of evening peak travel on short distance services which are more important from a 'cost of living' angle.

 

[yorksrob]

I feel like removing the peak entirely might be too far, but on long distance trains I think removing the evening peak might go a long way, see the 222/810 thread for InterCity services being much busier the moment peak ends.
Maybe a removal of evening peak times would spread that demand over a couple hours as people might get food out before heading north to avoid the 17:XX trains which would surely be the busiest.

Yes, on longer distance routes evening peak does seem like more trouble than its worth.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Any measures that reduce the subsidy freeing up cash for other sectors. Easy when you say it like that.

Subsidy for transport is already a relatively slim slither of national expenditure. If we were to increase income, I'd rather see the benefit reinvested into better public transport.

 

[spyinthesky]

The railways can do little directly since only 2% of all journeys annually use this mode.

As it is a cost of living thread, are the other 98% of journey makers happy with the railways £20b+ of public money?
Would they rather keep a couple of hundred quid and still not use the railways?
Statistics are a wonderful thing

 

[yorksrob]

As it is a cost of living thread, are the other 98% of journey makers happy with the railways £20b+ of public money?
Would they rather keep a couple of hundred quid and still not use the railways?
Statistics are a wonderful thing

Just because 2% of journeys are rail doesn't mean that only 2% of the population use rail.

I'm sure I saw a statistic somewhere that around half the population use the railway at least a few times a year, meaning that they may well value it for specific purposes.

Also, a lot of the 98% of journeys will be "nipping out for a pint of milk" type journeys, so not really comparable with rail suited distances.

 

[spyinthesky]

Just because 2% of journeys are rail doesn't mean that only 2% of the population use rail.

I'm sure I saw a statistic somewhere that around half the population use the railway at least a few times a year, meaning that they may well value it for specific purposes.

In reality that was my point of how statistics are used.
Where I work (400+staff) nobody uses the railway on a daily basis. Of the people I directly work with (25) only 2 of us ever use the railways.
If we did a similar poll with non-users, what would the options be?

 

[yorksrob]

In reality that was my point of how statistics are used.
Where I work (400+staff) nobody uses the railway on a daily basis. Of the people I directly work with (25) only 2 of us ever use the railways.
If we did a similar poll with non-users, what would the options be?

It would depend on the question. I suspect that even amongst occasional and non-users the results of an "Are you happy with the railway's £20bn of public money" question might be quite different from a "Do you think your local railway line/station should be closed to save money" one.

Either way, it's out of scope of my poll !