As a SE resident of working age, where’s my discount for travel out of the region?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The cost of living agenda - how should the railway contribute ?
- Thread starter yorksrob
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You don't have one. But you can console yourself with discounted travel all over the south east.
Just like in the NSE area where fares on IC trains are not discountable with a network Railcard, the same occurs eksewhere. However, many of the local and regional fares are cheaper meaning there's no overall case for a general discount.
Aside from that argument, the Network card is a commercial marketing device to improve sales of spare capacity which has to be maintained for the morning and evening peaks. There is no requirement for all regional operators to do the same as each other as a gesture of 'fairness' where the local operating conditions require a local response.
This line keeps getting trotted out, even though there are many good value walk on fares within the South East and poor value ones outwith.
This is even before we consider that wages in the South East are on average higher than elsewhere in the country, so Northern travellers might not have proportionally the same disposable income to spend on off-peak travel in the first place.
The state run/funded railway is not a "business" in any normal sense and shouldn't be planned with purely commercial considerations.
For a state funded railway, perceptions of "fairness" are likely to form very much part of the political imperative of those commissioning it.
There are 2 major misunderstandings here.
A state run and funded railway has costs that exceed revenue, the difference is funded by taxpayers. The railway is in competition with other public services for funding, and there is no bottomless pit of money to fill the gap between revenue and costs, so the railway still has an obligation to maximise revenue and minimise its financial burden on the taxpayer.
"Fairness" does not enter into it, apart from a few cases, it forms no part of the political imperative of commissioning a state funded railway. The government subsidise the railway because, if it didn't, there would be less economic output and less tax revenue. That applies especially to economic output and tax revenue in London.
This is perhaps a perspective that paints politics as more technocratic than it actually is. Governments do not just subsidise the railway because of its actual benefits; they also subsidise it because it gets them votes. Therefore, questions of "fairness" are likely to be high in politicians' minds when deciding what rail subsidy should fund, and that is especially the case when the government has as one of its stated priorities reducing the economic disparity between London and the rest of the country.
The railway has an obligation to maximise revenue and minimise its financial burden on the taxpayer - within the political parameters set by society via the Government. Government subsidises the railway for various reasons, and with an increasing cost of living crisis, "fairness" and "accessibility" in terms of people being able to afford the service, will be increasingly important.
With a shrinking workforce and a productivity crisis, the ability of the government to spend in non statutory areas is also getting more and more limited.
The parameters set by the government are unlikely to have the railway near the top of the list, especially now that it needs to spend more on defence. Those parameters will become much clearer in the budget in October.
The main pressures on cost of living are food, energy and housing, rail has a much lesser impact.
This government is also committed to devolution, which is about local choice, it isn't about fairness.
As I've said many times before, Government needs to look at where the wealth's going, starting with the balance of payments deficit.
Energy and housing are structural issues that will need long term change.
A national railcard would be an eye-catching quick win (which is also needed alongside the long term change).
Eye catching quick wins need to be cheap, and to catch lots of eyes, like the £2 bus fare.
A cost of living quick win for rail is much more likely to be a time limited cheap fare offer in January-March, when the trains are least busy.
Right now, in the aftermath of a collision, 2 derailments and 2 power outages, the government will want to attract as little attention to rail as possible.
It's not the first time rail has had bad runs of incidents. I was using trains around the time Clapham and Purley happened. Also Ladbrook Grove, Hatfield, Potters Bar etc. People still need to travel by train after these worse periods.
Cost of living quick wins need to be long enough to fit around peoples needs (the £3/£2 bus fares are a great example of this), rather than short gimmicky offers that suit the industry.
Genuine question, how much do you think would be a reasonable cost to the taxpayer of such a proposal?
Probably not much, especially if it was an off peak railcard like the Network Railcard. Away from the London Zones, it appears all off peak travellers have railcards already. Guards are shocked by the sound of scanning a non-discounted ticket.
I travelled through both Hatfield and Potters Bar less than 24 hours before the accident. People who are already travelling, and don't have the choice, do continue to travel, but the immediate aftermath of accidents is not the time to do eye catching things that put the railway in the spotlight.
Quick wins don't have to be permanent, and it is better that they are not. Open ended commitments have open ended costs.
The government are only committed to the £2 bus fare cap until December 2027.
It's difficult to come up with an exact figure without knowing what the costs would be. All I can do is bench mark against similar countries and I note that many seem to have far more generous schemes than the railcard being proposed here. If they can afford it, we can afford.
Plus, you said so yourself, we're only talking about 10-20% of the population who don't already have access to one, it would likely not include peak travel and it would come with its own income stream, so we can summise we're not talking about a vast proportion of public expenditure.
My complete guess is about a hundred million a year (based on some knowledge of the size of the market, and similar use of railcards). That assumes being limited to regional services only. If long distance services are involved, then that trebles.
I think the main issue with this is the “why”. If it is to help with the cost of living, then it is only helping a small proportion of the population (those who don’t already qualify for a railcard and travel by train off peak a lot), who will in general be less likely to need cost of living help (train users being more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups).
If on the other hand it is to stimulate demand through lower prices, then there are plenty of places where that would be counterproductive. Cross Country for example, or the South Transpennine, or summer Saturdays to the coast.
The actual "why" from the people with influence who are calling for it is mainly to give a benefit that is currently enjoyed by the most affluent and economically active region of England to the rest of it in the hopes of reducing the socioeconomic disparity between regions.
Other :
If the government get all the fares, prices shouldn't vary from the various TOC or third party, regardless of time (dynamic pricing)
Example Manchester Piccadilly has a Northern ticket machine and Avanti
The following journey as an example
20.46 Manchester To Macclesfield (Northern)
Northern £8.65
Avanti £12.70
If the government get all the fares, prices shouldn't vary from the various TOC or third party, regardless of time (dynamic pricing)
Example Manchester Piccadilly has a Northern ticket machine and Avanti
The following journey as an example
20.46 Manchester To Macclesfield (Northern)
Northern £8.65
Avanti £12.70
Perhaps in the instance of the longer distance services, if the LNER model is applied to all such routes, and advance / semi-flex fares are not eligible for the railcard discount, then the railcard discount could legitimately not apply to long distance travel.
We have a subsidy of £11 billion a year. In that context, even £300,000,000 is less than half of the 7% reduction in subsidy last year (assuming my maths is correct). Put it another way, if it had been introduced last year, it would have taken less than half a year of industry efficiencies to pay for it.
Wouldn't it be worth that to have a discount scheme that's accessible to everyone. And that's a gold plated one available for long distance travel.
I don't think regional cards are the answer. The boundary's always going to be non-sensical to someone - if someone in Yorkshire couldn't use their Yorkshire railcard to get to Manchester for example, you're killing it before you start. Restricting a national railcard to non-IC trains isn't quite as bad but comes with other problems such as crowding people onto slower trains, introducing unnecessary complication into the fares system etc.
In the context of alleviating cost of living, you shouldn't see it as assisting only a small proportion of the population. All regular rail travellers would have access to the railcard and that would be a reasonable percentage of the population (about 14% use the train more than once a week I think, according to Government)
Its time the country bit the bullet and came into line with similar countries.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I travelled through both Hatfield and Potters Bar less than 24 hours before the accident. People who are already travelling, and don't have the choice, do continue to travel, but the immediate aftermath of accidents is not the time to do eye catching things that put the railway in the spotlight.
Quick wins don't have to be permanent, and it is better that they are not. Open ended commitments have open ended costs.
The government are only committed to the £2 bus fare cap until December 2027.
I don't think I agree with that in principle.
If the railway's on a bit of a back foot, that's when you need to come out with the offers and innovations to cement it in the habits of users.
The bus fare scheme is something that should probably be adopted permanently as part of the national transport offer.
It’s not that I’m seeing it that way, it’s a fact.
And about 12% of that 14% are in the South East, or travelling at peak times.
You'd just be replacing one iniquity with another in that case.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That pre-supposes that that 12% only travels in the South East, and only travels at peak times (which obviously won't be the case).
Trying to compartmentalise people into who travels in what region at what time you end up with mental gymnastics.
For the sake of simplicity and equity, this sort of thing really has to be done on a Nationwide basis.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, this is a very important consideration.
Last edited:
The 'fairness' situation has long been addressed by the state subsidy enabling certain TOCs to run their current level of services. If that was equalised across the national network, either:
the fares on some regions would rise drastically
orservices would be cut to the few that could actually be afforded.
Going by subsidy per passenger mile or Km data over the years, many of those outside the the south-east would change significantly for the worse, Northern and Trans-Pennine being among the worst hit. The current situation of national taxpayer subsidy for those result in you getting a far better service at a lower fare if the principle of 'fairness' was applied across the board.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 5,246
OK. I'm being picky. But that's what would happen if subsidy was equalised down.
But this is the "rich get richer" issue that those wanting a national railcard want to address, where the South East gets more money because it gets more passengers relative to its population, and it gets more passengers because it gets more money.
That depends if the overall budget was the same or a political opportunity to reduce the overall rail budget was too tempting. Just to say that I'm not suggesting that it should happen, - just using it as an example that the south-east* is not bribed with subsidy at the expense of elsewhere as some posters seem to think.
* the exception here is Southeastern Rail needing a more substantial subsidy than its neighbours, I personally can't explain that.
The Network Railcard is a marketing tool to sell spare capacity, it is not a social benefit. Economically, it is similar to cheap advance fare offers by long distance operators at quiet times of the day, or budget airlines selling seats for peanuts on silly o'clock flights. Just because someone can get a cheap journey from A to B, doesn't mean that they are also entitled to a cheap journey from C to D.
Other such offers are available, Here in the Fens the Anglia Day Ranger has an even longer history than the Network Railcard.
The marketing tools vary according to the market, and the NSE market is unlike any other.
This demonstrates how London commuting is on a completely different scale to the rest of the country, necessitating a very high provision of track capacity and long trains.
I commuted to London for 30 years, and worked with lots of colleagues who also commuted by train. Most of them only used the train for commuting. Before NSE just about everyone only used the train for commuting, and lots of rolling stock and traincrew only made 2 journeys a day, a situation that barely exists outside London.
Regional offers are the answer, because they can be calibrated to match demand to supply. When the North has so much peak time commuting that it has spare capacity off peak, then it can have a Network North railcard to fill that spare capacity. Maybe that will come after the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade is delivered.
I am not sure you can so easily split "marketing tool" and "social benefit" like that. Just because something pays for itself doesn't mean it isn't a benefit, and furthermore just because something pays for itself in area A does not mean subsidies to introduce it into area B are unjustified - if they were the railways wouldn't get any subsidy!
I think that your calculation is flawed.
For example, it's recognised that deprived communities have greater health needs that cost the taxpayer more to alleviate. It doesn't follow that greater expenditure or subsidy on health in those areas is considered a fair outcome in itself. Fairness would only be achieved when those communities were benefitting from equal health outcomes, rather than a given level expenditure.
In the context of the railway, "fairness" would only be really achieved when the railway outside of the SE not only had equivalent discounts, but also equivalent infrastructure and services.
Given this disparity, a national railcard would be a fairly minimal attempt to address that disparity (but a most welcome one nevertheless).