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

[Fawkes Cat]

Given this disparity, a national railcard would be a fairly minimal attempt to address that disparity (but a most welcome one nevertheless).

So you want a national railcard even though it won't actually do much good?

 

[AM9]

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.

I didn't mention health, but on the subject of deprived communities, don't run away with the idea that they are all outside the SE, the most deprived street in the UK is said to be in Jaywick, Essex, and there are plenty of very deprived communities in London and its environs, mainly driven by the extremely high cost of housing, which for those who don't have typical London incomes, is an eternal struggle. Then there's the local pollution issues in the inner city areas, where at least one death has officially been credited to traffic emissions.

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.

Ah, that old one, - well, virtually all the capacity of the London and Home county mainline rail approaches, be they 2, 4 or 6 track wide are fully committed in the peak hours. The tube also carries crush loaded trains every day.
Of course this means that there is spare capacity between and outside the peaks so in order to get some return on the high investment in infrastructure and rolling stock which needs considerable maintenance, in 1986, Chris Green introduced the Network Card to encourage travel using spare capacity which had a considerable benefit to the railway. I doubt that there is much of a similar opportunity elsewhere in the UK network.

Given this disparity, a national railcard would be a fairly minimal attempt to address that disparity (but a most welcome one nevertheless).

I doubt it, - see my last sentence in the above response paragraph.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 16:32 ==

So you want a national railcard even though it won't actually do much good?

I think he wants a national railcard so that he pays less.

 

[yorksrob]

So you want a national railcard even though it won't actually do much good?

Well, it wouldn't do much to provide a public transport network as comprehensive as that in London and the South East.

It would, however do plenty good in providing affordable public transport to residents in the regions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 17:37 ==

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.

This is the tail wagging the dog - public services need to be demand led.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 17:50 ==

I didn't mention health, but on the subject of deprived communities, don't run away with the idea that they are all outside the SE, the most deprived street in the UK is said to be in Jaywick, Essex, and there are plenty of very deprived communities in London and its environs, mainly driven by the extremely high cost of housing, which for those who don't have typical London incomes, is an eternal struggle. Then there's the local pollution issues in the inner city areas, where at least one death has officially been credited to traffic emissions.

You're missing my point. I spent my formative years in Kent and am well aware of the presence of deprived communities in the South East.

My point was that we judge fairness on outcomes, not the amount of money put in. If you put twice as much funding in a deprived are but the outcome is still worse, you've not achieved "fairness".

Ah, that old one, - well, virtually all the capacity of the London and Home county mainline rail approaches, be they 2, 4 or 6 track wide are fully committed in the peak hours. The tube also carries crush loaded trains every day.
Of course this means that there is spare capacity between and outside the peaks so in order to get some return on the high investment in infrastructure and rolling stock which needs considerable maintenance, in 1986, Chris Green introduced the Network Card to encourage travel using spare capacity which had a considerable benefit to the railway. I doubt that there is much of a similar opportunity elsewhere in the UK network.

I doubt it, - see my last sentence in the above response paragraph.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 16:32 ==

Well, the North might not need quite the same level of infrastructure as the South East. It could possibly do with enhancements to mirror need, but whilst there are areas of crowding at off peak times, there are also less used services, much like in the South East.

Let's not forget, we're talking about a gap of 10 - 20% of the population, some of whom won't be interested in frequent rail travel anyway, so perhaps the sky won't fall in.

The Scottish decision to abolish peak fares hasn't led to the system grinding to a halt.

I think he wants a national railcard so that he pays less.

Well, I don't see the large numbers of posters on here enjoying subsidised and often heavily subsidised rail travel offering to give it up.

 

[JonathanH]

The RMT have today set out an idea for a 2.5% fare cut paid for by taxing the profits of the rolling stock companies, to assist with the cost of living.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/levy-profits-of-privateer-train-owners-says-rmt/

Levy profits of privateer train owners, says RMT

25 August 2026

RMT Press Office:

The UK’s largest rail union RMT called for a cost-of-living levy on the profits of train rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCO’s) as new figures reveal that dividends have more than trebled.

Eversholt which owns much of the UK’s rail rolling stock has recently announced that it has paid a dividend of £200 million, up from £60 million the previous year.

Combined with the £111 million dividends already announced by another train owner, Angel, the profits could pay for a 2.5 per cent fare cut. A third ROSCO Porterbrook is yet to announce its dividends.

RMT general secretary said that Andy Burnham was right to say that we must have greater public control of the essentials in life.

“This must mean taking action to rein in the profits of the offshored corporate giants who own our trains.

“A 100 per cent cost of living levy on this year’s profits would be the equivalent of a 2.5 per cent fare cut and would provide immediate relief for passengers.

“It would also be a step toward stopping the corporate raiding of our rail system, controlling costs and ultimately nationalising our rolling stock as part of an integrated publicly owned railway.

“We will be campaigning for this position through amendments to the Great British Railways Bill when the legislation begins in the lords after summer recess and this will be a key union demand in the forthcoming budget,” he said.

 

[NCT]

My point was that we judge fairness on outcomes, not the amount of money put in. If you put twice as much funding in a deprived are but the outcome is still worse, you've not achieved "fairness".

Your personal idea of fairness.

 

[Bald Rick]

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).

I’m not presupposing that, no. You suggested that 14% of the population use rail at least once a week. I think that’s a bit high, but let’s go with it. Assuming that proportion is consistent across the country, we know that 70% of all national rail journeys are made entirely in London and the South East, which means that 4.2% of the population uses rail at least once a week for a journey that has at least part outside LSE. We also know that roughly half of all journeys are made in peak times (where, presumably, such a railcard would only be valid, and assuming that applies across the regions then only 2.1% of the population would benefit in a meaningful way. And that assumes that the 2.1% don’t have access to sny sort of rsilcard, which of course a decent number will do.

I hpe this shows that the number of people benefit in a meaningful way is relatively small.


There is a hitch, though, and that is that one third of the 30% of all journeys not made entirely within LSE are long distance, and that brings in the big money, and as has been said before, people who travel long distance frequently are more likely to be higher earners and in the ABC1 socio economic groups. Additional discounts on those fares will be quite costly to the taxpayer. So whilst such a railcard would benefit a rather small (and typically higher income) proportion of the population, it would benefit each of them quite a lot.

Trying to compartmentalise people into who travels in what region at what time you end up with mental gymnastics.

No, it’s simple arithmetic.

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.

No, it isn’t. In fact it’s the opposite. It is “why spend money that benefits only a very small proportion of the population, and not a particualrly needy part of it at that”.

For clarity the Network Rail card in the south east is net positive for revenue beca) there is lots of spare capacity off peak to fill up (not so much the case in much of the regions), and b) there is a lower prevalence of special offers / advanced fares / etc, simply because of the existence of the network rail card. In other words, there are orher ways to attract rail users in the reguons through price that don’t require the administration of the railcard.

This is the tail wagging the dog - public services need to be demand led.

This proposal is the tail wagging the dog you‘re right.

 

[JonathanH]

For clarity the Network Rail card in the south east is net positive for revenue beca) there is lots of spare capacity off peak to fill up (not so much the case in much of the regions), and b) there is a lower prevalence of special offers / advanced fares / etc, simply because of the existence of the network rail card. In other words, there are orher ways to attract rail users in the reguons through price that don’t require the administration of the railcard.

Is that really true? The Network Railcard must surely cannibalise revenue on Saturday mornings, and in the weekday evening peak for longer journeys. For the Network Railcard to be net positive, there must be 50% more journeys happening than would be happening at the undiscounted fare which seems a little incongruous.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that really true? The Network Railcard must surely cannibalise revenue on Saturday mornings, and in the weekday evening peak for longer journeys. For the Network Railcard to be net positive, there must be 50% more journeys happening than would be happening at the undiscounted fare which seems a little incongruous.

I’ll have to double check.

 

[Magdalia]

This is the tail wagging the dog - public services need to be demand led.

Tell that to the queues in Accident and Emergency!

In any public service where the supply is inelastic, it will be supply led not demand led. That particularly applies to any service that relies on infrastructure that takes a long time to plan and build, be that a railway or a hospital.

And people need to wake up to the fact that it is coming for water too.

And be careful what you wish for. On the railway, a lot of demand is very price sensitive, and, if the railway charged the full cost of such journeys, there would be very little demand at all.

 

[eldomtom2]

For clarity the Network Rail card in the south east is net positive for revenue beca) there is lots of spare capacity off peak to fill up (not so much the case in much of the regions), and b) there is a lower prevalence of special offers / advanced fares / etc, simply because of the existence of the network rail card. In other words, there are orher ways to attract rail users in the reguons through price that don’t require the administration of the railcard.

If the railway really is offering those outside London a better deal as you seem to be claiming then it is best advised to prominently advertise that fact, considering the public perception of the railways is that they are heavily London-biased and provide a much better and more value-for-money service there than in the regions.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m not presupposing that, no. You suggested that 14% of the population use rail at least once a week. I think that’s a bit high, but let’s go with it. Assuming that proportion is consistent across the country, we know that 70% of all national rail journeys are made entirely in London and the South East, which means that 4.2% of the population uses rail at least once a week for a journey that has at least part outside LSE. We also know that roughly half of all journeys are made in peak times (where, presumably, such a railcard would only be valid, and assuming that applies across the regions then only 2.1% of the population would benefit in a meaningful way. And that assumes that the 2.1% don’t have access to sny sort of rsilcard, which of course a decent number will do.

I hpe this shows that the number of people benefit in a meaningful way is relatively small.

Have you ever stopped to consider why travel is so heavily skewed towards the South East ? Working age people outside of the South East simply don't have access to the level of railway service that those in the South East already do. Admittedly, that geographical reality isn't going to change any time soon.

However, you seem to be arguing that because railway usage is already heavily skewed by railway services being worse in the regions, instead of trying to alleviate that, we should instead be confounding that skewed outcome by denying working age passengers outside of the South East the sort of discount that they would get in the (statistically) more affluent South East.

If you don't mind me saying so, that seems like an extraordinary position to take. At least by extending the same discount to working age people elsewhere we might at least begin to attract some more of those people to the railway to offset that skew.

There is a hitch, though, and that is that one third of the 30% of all journeys not made entirely within LSE are long distance, and that brings in the big money, and as has been said before, people who travel long distance frequently are more likely to be higher earners and in the ABC1 socio economic groups. Additional discounts on those fares will be quite costly to the taxpayer. So whilst such a railcard would benefit a rather small (and typically higher income) proportion of the population, it would benefit each of them quite a lot.

We can continue in the pretence that people on lower incomes never have reason to travel beyond their next village, however throwing all the money at bus discounts ignores the fact that people on lower incomes still have friends and relatives they need to visit elsewhere in the country.

And what about middle income households who are "just about managing" ? It suits various narratives to suggest that people using long distance trains are high earning toffs, however reality is that the majority of people in the country sit in the middle income range and also need affordable transport to get by.

No, it’s simple arithmetic.

No, it isn’t. In fact it’s the opposite. It is “why spend money that benefits only a very small proportion of the population, and not a particualrly needy part of it at that”.

For clarity the Network Rail card in the south east is net positive for revenue beca) there is lots of spare capacity off peak to fill up (not so much the case in much of the regions), and b) there is a lower prevalence of special offers / advanced fares / etc, simply because of the existence of the network rail card. In other words, there are orher ways to attract rail users in the reguons through price that don’t require the administration of the railcard.

However we got here, it's clearly a nonsense to leave a small subsection of the population denied access to discounted rail travel for no good reason other than being left out by default.

For the comparatively small cost of implementing it, we might as well bite the bullet and enjoy the benefits as a nation of having a simplified railcard scheme that's available to all and which truly benefits the accessibility of the network to the whole population.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 08:21 ==

Tell that to the queues in Accident and Emergency!

In any public service where the supply is inelastic, it will be supply led not demand led. That particularly applies to any service that relies on infrastructure that takes a long time to plan and build, be that a railway or a hospital.

And people need to wake up to the fact that it is coming for water too.

And be careful what you wish for. On the railway, a lot of demand is very price sensitive, and, if the railway charged the full cost of such journeys, there would be very little demand at all.

I'm not sure what arguments you've been reading but I've always argued the benefits of having public transport that's consistently competitively priced for the population. I don't understand why a vocal section of this forum consistently argue that working age, working class people should be denied that (for example by arguing against a national railcard, for the removal of off-peak fares etc).

There are people who would be content with the railway being a rich man's toy. I'm not one of them.

 

[stuu]

Have you ever stopped to consider why travel is so heavily skewed towards the South East ? Working age people outside of the South East simply don't have access to the level of railway service that those in the South East already do. Admittedly, that geographical reality isn't going to change any time soon.

Because London. Fundamentally there is no alternative to train travel into Central London, and the the volumes of people doing so dwarf everywhere else in the country. People quite happily drive into other city centres around the country. There's nothing more to it than that

 

[JonathanH]

I don't understand why a vocal section of this forum consistently argue that working age, working class people should be denied that (for example by arguing against a national railcard, for the removal of off-peak fares etc).

I think it is simply because a national railcard is not, objectively, the way to achieve those aims. For instance, the Northern Explorer ticket now caps the price of a day's off-peak travel on Northern services at £35, advance fares offer discounts targetted at less busy trains, various day tickets limit prices in the conurbations, without necessarily cannibalising revenue where it matters.

We should allow the railway to innovate to fill capacity without overloading it where that capacity is already full.

 

[AM9]

Because London. Fundamentally there is no alternative to train travel into Central London, and the the volumes of people doing so dwarf everywhere else in the country. People quite happily drive into other city centres around the country. There's nothing more to it than that

Fundamentally, choices made by the government in the '60s regarding transport development meant:

1) a large increase in fast roads into the centres of many cities and larger towns, particularly the midlands and the north​

2) a similar experience was planned into London, e.g. the M4 and even M1 but that proved too expensive and would result in the unnecessary dumping of large volumes of traffic in fully developed residential and light industrial areas​

3) the presence of multiple major rail routes into central London, including a distributor network of metro railways, (i.e. LT Underground, East, West and North London Lines and a web of Southern metro links) that rendered most trunk routes beyond the North (A406) and South (A205) circular roads unnecessary.​

Like it or not, London is vastly different to any collection of settlements elsewhere in the UK, and it isn't going to change much in the forseeable future.

 

[yorksrob]

Because London. Fundamentally there is no alternative to train travel into Central London, and the the volumes of people doing so dwarf everywhere else in the country. People quite happily drive into other city centres around the country. There's nothing more to it than that

There is the fact that if there is a better train service, people are more likely to use it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 12:56 ==

I think it is simply because a national railcard is not, objectively, the way to achieve those aims. For instance, the Northern Explorer ticket now caps the price of a day's off-peak travel on Northern services at £35, advance fares offer discounts targetted at less busy trains, various day tickets limit prices in the conurbations, without necessarily cannibalising revenue where it matters.

We should allow the railway to innovate to fill capacity without overloading it where that capacity is already full.

The Northern Explorer (as an example) doesn't sufficiently achieve those aims - it doesn't even cover the geographical area, let alone all the services in it.

Advance purchase is at the gift of the train provider, so can't be said to provide consistent value.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 12:59 ==

Fundamentally, choices made by the government in the '60s regarding transport development meant:

1) a large increase in fast roads into the centres of many cities and larger towns, particularly the midlands and the north​

2) a similar experience was planned into London, e.g. the M4 and even M1 but that proved too expensive and would result in the unnecessary dumping of large volumes of traffic in fully developed residential and light industrial areas​

3) the presence of multiple major rail routes into central London, including a distributor network of metro railways, (i.e. LT Underground, East, West and North London Lines and a web of Southern metro links) that rendered most trunk routes beyond the North (A406) and South (A205) circular roads unnecessary.​

Like it or not, London is vastly different to any collection of settlements elsewhere in the UK, and it isn't going to change much in the forseeable future.

It's still no justification for deliberately excluding a small section of the working age population from travel discounts afforded by railcard schemes.

 

[stuu]

There is the fact that if there is a better train service, people are more likely to use it.

To a certain extent clearly, but for a lot of people public transport is a distress purchase, they only use it if they have to. This doesn't include anyone on this forum, but it really is a thing.

 

[styles]

To a certain extent clearly, but for a lot of people public transport is a distress purchase, they only use it if they have to. This doesn't include anyone on this forum, but it really is a thing.

Clearly the goal isn't to get 100% of journeys made by public transport. There will always be those averse to it, or indeed those journeys where it isn't practical.

But when people are complaining about the traffic on the M6 yet walk-up return train fares from London to Manchester costs £386, it does highlight the need for increased capacity and more affordable fares. For context, in my decade old diesel, this would cost about £70 return, plus £12.50 for the ULEZ because it's a filthy old diesel.

It should be remembered that running a car is also expensive. MOT, service, VED, fuel, insurance, capital cost, and either you get a banger and spend more on repairs or you get a newer car and trade increased reliability for higher lease/purchase costs. There's a significant portion of the population who struggle with transport costs because running a car isn't cheap yet rail fares are through the roof. The bus fare cap is a welcomed policy but it isn't universal, and sometimes bus services are too unreliable.

Moving people from cars to public transport, including the railways, is good for the environment, good for lungs, and if the political will is present - good for the wallet.

 

[AM9]

Other non SE regions are available.

If my statement is "demonstrably false" please inform me of where I may obtain my national railcard so I can access the sort of discounts every other demographic seems to have access to.

Simple, - move to south of Birmingham where the NSE card cuts off. You'll then see all the other differences that those south of the boundary 'enjoy'.

 

[styles]

Simple, - move to south of Birmingham where the NSE card cuts off. You'll then see all the other differences that those south of the boundary 'enjoy'.

It's hard to imagine a worse place to live than Birmingham (or its suburbs) in my opinion.

 

[AM9]

It's hard to imagine a worse place to live than Birmingham (or its suburbs) in my opinion.

Actually I was referring to the northern extremities of the Network card area, e.g Worcester, Banbury, Long Buckby, Bedford, Huntingdon, Kings Lynn and Manningtree, all of which (except Kings Lynn, are south of Birmingham. Apologies if you've been traumatised by my not too good description of what I meant.

 

[styles]

Actually I was referring to the northern extremities of the Network card area, e.g Worcester, Banbury, Long Buckby, Bedford, Huntingdon, Kings Lynn and Manningtree, all of which (except Kings Lynn, are south of Birmingham. Apologies if you've been traumatised by my not too good description of what I meant.

Fair point. I'll accept Manningtree as an acceptable place to reside

 

[AM9]

Fair point. I'll accept Manningtree as an acceptable place to reside

Be careful, Manningtree's a bit near Clacton.

 

[Starmill]

There are loads of trains which are very poorly loaded, but which cost a lot if you want to travel on them.

Some examples from Mondays - Thursdays:
0502 York to Manchester Airport
0530 Wakefield Kirkgate to Manchester Piccadilly
0504 Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston
0914 Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston
0418 Chester to Birmingham International

And so on. Really there are endless examples these are just ones I've seen. Cheap ticket deals are usually avoided on services like these because they come with risk that they will soften yeild so much that the train being fuller will reduce revenue. I would like to see that flipped and more bums on seats at least attempted. This isn't a particularly good cost of living measure but being more keen on selling seats at unpopular times is one of the few ways to achieve better repeat business without spending more money on infrastructure.

 

[NCT]

There is the fact that if there is a better train service, people are more likely to use it.

All else being equal, but all else isn't equal.

If most trip ends are between car dominated suburbs and office/retail parks off motorways then making rail cheap isn't going to increase rail demand. Rail works best when there is a high concentration of knowledge workers that would benefit most from agglomeration where land use prohibits car commuting.

Those are the fundamentals that need to be addressed first. You can't subsidise your way towards parity of outcome.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have you ever stopped to consider why travel is so heavily skewed towards the South East ?

Yes, I’ve studied it, for both my degrees and professionally through my work.

It's hard to imagine a worse place to live than Birmingham (or its suburbs) in my opinion.

Middlesborough says hello (sorry @ainsworth74 !)

 

[eldomtom2]

All else being equal, but all else isn't equal.

If most trip ends are between car dominated suburbs and office/retail parks off motorways then making rail cheap isn't going to increase rail demand. Rail works best when there is a high concentration of knowledge workers that would benefit most from agglomeration where land use prohibits car commuting.

Those are the fundamentals that need to be addressed first. You can't subsidise your way towards parity of outcome.

Well the question then becomes "is the North equal to the Southeast in terms of passengers per station per homes/jobs within X distance of the station?".

 

[styles]

Middlesborough says hello (sorry @ainsworth74 !)

Aw no I like Middlesborough!

 

[Sonic1234]

It should be remembered that running a car is also expensive. MOT, service, VED, fuel, insurance, capital cost, and either you get a banger and spend more on repairs or you get a newer car and trade increased reliability for higher lease/purchase costs.

A lot of people aren't rational in the economic sense, most humans are emotionally driven. With the exception of fuel, these are fixed costs which are paid annually (or once at the time of purchase for the capital cost of the car) and are quickly forgotten. People moan about the cost of insurance, pay it and a week later forgot what they paid, so it never factors into their journey planning.

Even the spreadsheet pros struggle to price a car journey, to the average guy a car journey costs a lowball estimate of the cost of petrol for a long trip and free for a short trip (excluding any parking charges). A couple of TfL bus fares to the supermarket seems extortionate when the alternative is "free".

 

[ainsworth74]

Middlesborough says hello (sorry @ainsworth74 !)

I mean I think we get a bad rep and it's not as bad as it seems.

But at the same time... Looks at the news...

 

[styles]

A lot of people aren't rational in the economic sense, most humans are emotionally driven. With the exception of fuel, these are fixed costs which are paid annually (or once at the time of purchase for the capital cost of the car) and are quickly forgotten. People moan about the cost of insurance, pay it and a week later forgot what they paid, so it never factors into their journey planning.

Even the spreadsheet pros struggle to price a car journey, to the average guy a car journey costs a lowball estimate of the cost of petrol for a long trip and free for a short trip (excluding any parking charges). A couple of TfL bus fares to the supermarket seems extortionate when the alternative is "free".

Indeed.

Although London is an interesting example, as a majority of Londoners report not having access to a car. If there were ever an example of, "Build it and they will come." (especially if priced half-reasonably), TfL buses are probably a great example!