The joy of separate railway enterprises (complex fares in France)

[rvdborgt]

An authority can directly operate only for small networks AFAICR

There are more exceptions possible. We recently had this discussion here:

Hauts-de-France contract won by SNCF voyageurs

Just announced, contract over €3bn, covers lines Paris - Amiens, Lille, Beauvais, Calais, Lyon, Maubeuge etc The Hauts-de-France region has finalized one of the largest regional rail contracts in Europe, marking a new milestone in the liberalization of passenger rail transport in France. The...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[NCT]

Sure, it's the case but it is convenient that they use the status to brag that TGV is OA with full on ad campaigns that basically say, due to the the fact it's unsubsidized, they need to actively rip off travellers while running the least amount of trains possible

Which is why competition can't come soon enough.

 

[signed]

Which is why competition can't come soon enough.

If the FRP didn't exist we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. The least amount of trains would be ran, but we wouldn't face unchecked fare rises.

 

[The exile]

Even the Deutschlandticket discriminates between local and IC services, even if they are all government-run.

Though that is merely a continuation of a distinction that every rail-using German would accept as the “natural way of things” (‘twas ever thus)

 

[NCT]

The least amount of trains would be ran

Why is that a good thing?

I would rather 4tph carrying 3000 passengers paying £50 each, than 2tph carrying 1500 passengers paying £25 each, because 2tph is all that the state could afford to subsidise.

 

[signed]

Why is that a good thing?

I would rather 4tph carrying 3000 passengers paying £50 each, than 2tph carrying 1500 passengers paying £25 each, because 2tph is all that the state could afford to subsidise.

I never said it was a good thing, I said this in relation to the French way of doing things.

 

[NCT]

I never said it was a good thing, I said this in relation to the French way of doing things.

So the FRP has led to a better outcome. Thank you.

 

[The exile]

If the FRP didn't exist we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. The least amount of trains would be ran, but we wouldn't face unchecked fare rises.

Neither of those things follows - they are (or can be) both consequences of other political decisions.

 

[NCT]

The technicals mandate fragmentation. In principle, that is costly and damaging on a systemic level..
Yes, there might be some small wins. Like an open access operator. But even when an open access operator is well regarded for its local users (perhaps like Hull Trains), it is in principle, costlier than the gains because of what the system as a whole loses.

Why should a supreme power tell Hull thou shall not have intercity trains?

See how East mids losing its 222's has become a nightmare. The railway operators have little to no lee-way to manage the fleets because they can be contracted elsewhere. If you keep the whole fleet, while the new one is bedded in properly, you pay a fortune in leasing fees, meaning the tax payer and fare payer is ripped off by the system.

Why shouldn't Scotland have commercial certainty?

Track access charges, as invented and mandated in 440/1991, mean that adding a carriage to a busy train now often needs a buisness case, rather than just a logical public service fulfillment.

Like a certain PKP that's desperately short of rolling stock and doing all it can do block new entrants?

A large portion of track maintenance is a variable function of the amount of traffic it carries. It pays to transparently and accurately capture marginal costs and marginal revenues. Otherwise you end up in the ADIF situation where their HSL maintenance was not adequate for the level of traffic.


Going back on topic. Are you in favour of stripping IDF of its devolved railway powers? If not, then your points are all irrelevant.

The problem is France doesn't (yet) have a who-agnostic rules based railway. In large parts that's because a certain vested interest called SNCF has been blocking the creation of one.

 

[signed]

So the FRP has led to a better outcome. Thank you.

Has it? No, will it? Unlikely to no.

It is that crazy expensive to run in France.

As far as I am aware, SNCF didn't start running more trains on Paris-Lyon just because Trenitalia came online. Trenitalia's operation is shambolic and won't breakeven any time soon especially if they hyperfocus into running a farsical London-Paris-Milan operation, and is only saved by FS absorbing the debts.

Competition can help when on fair ground, but France isn't fair ground.

There are very little lines in France that will sustain competition once subsidies run out, IMO only Paris Bordeaux/Toulouse/Nantes/Rennes and Paris Lille because they have such extreme gap between demand and supply.

SNCF will not order new trains in the number that would be needed (they barely ordered enough to replace 30+yo stock) and will scapegoat that under the OA nature of TGV. They would rather send trains to Italy than handle the domestic network.

They made multiple billions in profit accross the group, and revenue of Voyageurs alone grew by 2% last year. They have the funds to do it, but they won't, and I would be very surprised if competition changes anything.

Especially on the regional side, with FRP, you end up with the worst of both worlds, extreme fragmentation (there is a company founded for every lot in a given region) and unnecessary privatisation of public assets on top of the existing issue of SNCF being SNCF.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going back on topic. Are you in favour of stripping IDF of its devolved railway powers? If not, then your points are all irrelevant.

Arguably it would make sense to have a national fares system mandated on them within which they set the actual prices, like the UK has. Transport for Wales and ScotRail can set their fares as they want, but they all exist within a single system with through fares between any two points which can be retailed by any retailer (and the option of splits with the same protection), and they to all intents and purposes have to accept interavailable fares where they are set outside of Wales (with some that enter England obviously set by TfW).

The UK is as good a piece of evidence as you can get that you can devolve things without overly fragmenting them.

The idea of not being able to buy a ticket to Bletchley from Shrewsbury station because it only has TfW TVMs would be analogous - and it would be ludicrous.

There is of course one exception to this happy situation - Transport for London, where the station is operated by London Underground, though goodness knows why there are no "big railway" TVMs at this small number of stations, it wouldn't cost much to fix the anomaly.

 

[NCT]

Trenitalia's operation is shambolic and won't breakeven any time soon especially if they hyperfocus into running a farsical London-Paris-Milan operation, and is only saved by FS absorbing the debts.

Let's see how Ilisto and Proxima get on in the next few years. Until then I'll file your point under 'you would say that wouldn't you'.

Competition can help when on fair ground, but France isn't fair ground.

So don't attack competition. Advocate making it fair.

There are very little lines in France that will sustain competition once subsidies run out, IMO only Paris Bordeaux/Toulouse/Nantes/Rennes and Paris Lille because they have such extreme gap between demand and supply.

So you've covered the lion's share of France's population and listed the most important lines. Those are the lines that drive the national GDP, those are the lines where getting supply to match the demand most matters.

SNCF will not order new trains in the number that would be needed (they barely ordered enough to replace 30+yo stock) and will scapegoat that under the OA nature of TGV. They would rather send trains to Italy than handle the domestic network.

They made multiple billions in profit accross the group, and revenue of Voyageurs alone grew by 2% last year. They have the funds to do it, but they won't, and I would be very surprised if competition changes anything.

Especially on the regional side, with FRP, you end up with the worst of both worlds, extreme fragmentation (there is a company founded for every lot in a given region) and unnecessary privatisation of public assets on top of the existing issue of SNCF being SNCF.

The beauty is the regions are no longer dependent on SNCF. The regions are able to spend their own money to specify a far higher level of service at far greater quality than SNCF were ever able or willing to deliver. The regions are no longer hostage to SNCF's 'non'. The regions have a liquid market of operators and rolling stock to draw on. There will be more rolling stock. There will be more train km. They just won't be called SNCF.

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

Arguably it would make sense to have a national fares system mandated on them within which they set the actual prices, like the UK has. Transport for Wales and ScotRail can set their fares as they want, but they all exist within a single system with through fares between any two points which can be retailed by any retailer (and the option of splits with the same protection), and they to all intents and purposes have to accept interavailable fares where they are set outside of Wales (with some that enter England obviously set by TfW).

The UK is as good a piece of evidence as you can get that you can devolve things without overly fragmenting them.

The idea of not being able to buy a ticket to Bletchley from Shrewsbury station because it only has TfW TVMs would be analogous - and it would be ludicrous.

Exactly. Get the rules right. Don't obsess over the who.

 

[signed]

Until then I'll file your point under 'you would say that wouldn't you'.

Numbers don't lie, Fiscal Year 24, 68M€ in deficit which has only grown since starting high speed 5 years ago now. And no sign of easing up with their depot plans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. Get the rules right. Don't obsess over the who.

The rules of course WERE right before fragmentation and "global fares" started in the 1990s - TCV tickets were valid on any operator. Where the EU has gone wrong is in not mandating that sort of thing to continue even though it would take a different form (all EU railways required to retail for all EU railways, a journey made up of multiple tickets to be a single "contract of transport" regardless of it having multiple elements) - it would be hoped that this can be fixed. Though ironically it's probably the likes of SNCF who now pressure against it. Imagine DB's uproar if they had to flog Flixtrain tickets, yet that's exactly how it works in the UK.

 

[Austriantrain]

Competition can help when on fair ground, but France isn't fair ground.

There are very little lines in France that will sustain competition once subsidies run out, IMO only Paris Bordeaux/Toulouse/Nantes/Rennes and Paris Lille because they have such extreme gap between demand and supply.

SNCF will not order new trains in the number that would be needed (they barely ordered enough to replace 30+yo stock) and will scapegoat that under the OA nature of TGV. They would rather send trains to Italy than handle the domestic network.

They made multiple billions in profit accross the group, and revenue of Voyageurs alone grew by 2% last year. They have the funds to do it, but they won't, and I would be very surprised if competition changes anything.

Especially on the regional side, with FRP, you end up with the worst of both worlds, extreme fragmentation (there is a company founded for every lot in a given region) and unnecessary privatisation of public assets on top of the existing issue of SNCF being SNCF.

All of what you write is really an argument for why France is one of the prime countries in Europe that really, really need real competition.

 

[signed]

All of what you write is really an argument for why France is one of the prime countries in Europe that really, really need real competition.

Good luck with that, I'll be glad to see it, but I sure won't hold my breath.

 

[Austriantrain]

Good luck with that, I'll be glad to see it, but I sure won't hold my breath.

Well, it is a shambles now; hard to see how it could get worse (unlike the long-distance competition plans in Germany which likely *will* make things worse).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, it is a shambles now; hard to see how it could get worse

I think it would be fairly easy to argue that RENFE is worse...

 

[Austriantrain]

I think it would be fairly easy to argue that RENFE is worse...

It is. But Spain has enabled - real and fair - competition on the most important HSL, so they are in front of France here.

 

[signed]

Well, it is a shambles now; hard to see how it could get worse (unlike the long-distance competition plans in Germany which likely *will* make things worse).

It is one of the countries, for reason or red tape, where everything costs astronomical amounts more to operate due to bespoke train equipment that are basically made by a single manufacturer, track access charges are extreme... On top of SNCF Réseau being a chore to deal with.

Let's see how Ilisto and Proxima get on in the next few years

I do not see any point to Ilisto proposal, with 3 (4 with Ouigo separated) operators on LGV SE you are very near to a market saturation (on top of line and station saturation) with barely any differentiation (the law that would have forced OAs to serve Beetroots has been ruled illegal), which is the recipe for disaster.
I would say something different if they actually projected to serve where service is needed and not just the crown jewel line for the sake of the prestige. Like I see much brighter future to Velvet.

And TI, a veteran of competition handling, can't get a footing here either and has been trying with existing stock, and already existing experience with Thello, for 5 years. Renfe despite having a goldmine opportunity between Southern France and Spain, is doing typical Renfe and botching it royally.

 

[Austriantrain]

It is one of the countries, for reason or red tape, where everything costs astronomical amounts more to operate due to bespoke train equipment that are basically made by a single manufacturer, track access charges are extreme... On top of SNCF Réseau being a chore to deal with.

I absolutely don't deny that operating conditions in France are more difficult than elsewhere, but most of it is either a political choice (sky-high access charges) or an SNCF one (artificially restricting capacity by operating/ordering too few sets). The "single manufacturer" has been disproved by both Siemens and Hitachi. France now professes competition but actually hinders it - I suespect on purpose.

 

[signed]

The "single manufacturer" has been disproved by both Siemens and Hitachi.

Apart from Hitachi, the Siemens variant of KVB/TVM has taken a very long time to be certified (as installed on the Vectron that has been in certification runs since 2022)

 

[NCT]

The EU is absolutely right to face down French vested interests.

 

[Austriantrain]

I would say something different if they actually projected to serve where service is needed and not just the crown jewel line for the sake of the prestige. Like I see much brighter future to Velvet.

Being strongly opposed to cherry-picking in rail competition, I do see your point.* However, you might need to allow competitors in on the crown jewels if you want to entice them to run elsewhere too. Let's see how Velvet does; the demand is surely there, but they need to earn money.

*And obviously competition needs to be real - the cozy duopoly that TI and Italo created for themselves for a good long time for instance has nothing to do with. Still, since I do not believe that anything ever can change SNCF's culture, the only thing politics in France could do - if they wanted - is indeed to encourage competition by offering a fair environment.

 

[signed]

However, you might need to allow competitors in on the crown jewels if you want to entice them to run elsewhere too. Let's see how Velvet does; the demand is surely there, but they need to earn money.

Competitiors have been allowed on LGV SE, both Renfe and Trenitalia, which are both in a bad state at the moment.

There are much bigger and easier fishes to catch on the west side of the country, especially for competitiors that don't have physical restrictions to go there (like TI maintaining in Italy and Renfe in Spain... are no-go obviously) which is why I find illisto's project weird, at least the Lyon part, the Strasbourg part is welcome and I could see success.

 

[NCT]

Competitiors have been allowed on LGV SE, both Renfe and Trenitalia, which are both in a bad state at the moment.

There are much bigger and easier fishes to catch on the west side of the country, especially for competitiors that don't have physical restrictions to go there (like TI maintaining in Italy and Renfe in Spain... are no-go obviously) which is why I find illisto's project weird, at least the Lyon part, the Strasbourg part is welcome and I could see success.

Why is the Lyon part weird? Busy and suppressed demand usually go together. It's like Northerners refusing to believe Crossrail 2 is needed while insisting Skipton - Colne is more important.

 

[signed]

Why is the Lyon part weird? Busy and suppressed demand usually go together. It's like Northerners refusing to believe Crossrail 2 is needed while insisting Skipton - Colne is more important.

Because to really make a dent you need to have differentiation or fill a really large gap.

And if the newcomer comes to TI + SNCF TGV + Ouigo running every 15min at some hours, they barely stand a chance doing the same thing all-round, especially without proper experience in running those service. On top of the infrastructure bottlenecks that will become clear around Paris and around Lyon.

There is a major gap in service vs demand to go to Strasbourg, if you add 1-2tph to Lyon, you'll quickly get into issues and market saturation.

 

[NCT]

Because to really make a dent you need to have differentiation or fill a really large gap.

Not really. Homogeneous competition eroding away abnormal profits is a perfectly normal and desirable economic outcome.

 

[Flying_Turtle]

Academic investigation has thoroughly pointed out that fragmentation and open access passenger services has led to higher costs to the public purse and deterioration of service in rural area.
The fact is that rail operators do not pay the full economic costs of the infrastructure use but while Public operators would use the profits from profitable lines and partially internally subsidize less profitable lines, private operators just keep those profits for themselves. This means that public operators have lost important sources of revenue, which have to be toped up by someone.

 

[Austriantrain]

Competitiors have been allowed on LGV SE, both Renfe and Trenitalia, which are both in a bad state at the moment.

RENFE I can see, but why is Trenitalia in a bad state?