The railway has a huge subsidy, and it was already huge 5 years ago. Furthermore, most operator subsidy goes to areas outside London. A National Railcard wasn't introduced 5 years ago because it was not a good use of taxpayers money then, and it is an even worse use now.
It may have escaped your attention, but the country as a whole has a "cost of governing crisis". Its financial position has worsened significantly in those 5 years, it has run up huge amounts of new debt, with the increased cost of the railway making a contribution to that. Since 2022, interest costs on that debt have been amplified by higher interest rates. On top of that, there are new pressures for spending, notably on defence, where Ukraine and Iran have demonstrated how poorly equipped the country is to fight a 21st century war.
I don't regard the subsidy of five years ago as a magical marker point, but as a minimum requirement to get back to, because the country has many more important things to do with that money. Get there and it won't be time to stop, but time to push on to close the gap between revenue and costs even further.
The "Establishment in London" provides huge support to transport outside London. There is the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade, and money for metro mayors mainly goes to the north of England. Furthermore, Northern as a train operator received a subsidy of 26.6p per passenger km in 2024/25, that's more than £10 for a typical 25 miles/40km journey. Passengers in the north already have their discount in the form of heavily subsidised fares.
The railway is being run for everyone. It supports economic activity from which tax revenue is generated, and then spent according to the government's priorities. The devolution agenda is shifting those priorities, and that's likely to favour well targeted local initiatives, "delivering growth in every postcode", not poorly targeted National schemes.
I support this argument completely.
Railways offer a 'service to the public', as do bus and coach companies, taxis, car hire firms, airlines and ferries and, in fact, any retail business. For these to succeed revenue has to exceed the costs. The concept of railway passenger services being a 'public service' as some in this thread suggest is a comparatively recent development in the great scheme of things and implies that the service is to be offered below cost. In fact this topic was broached in the section of the 'Beeching Report' dealing with suburban services (page 22) where it was suggested that in some circumstances a subsidy for the railways was the better value for the country:
Therefore, if the services are to be regarded as essential, the municipalities concerned must join with the railways and bus interests to evolve a co-ordinated system of services, with due regard to the economics of both forms of transport. It is, for example, illogical to operate subsidised municipal bus services in competition with unprofitable railway services, without any attempt to co-ordinate them. If, on the other hand, the services are not regarded as essential and co-ordination is not found possible, the sound commercial course is for the railways to risk pricing themselves out of the business and then, if necessary, close the services.
The right solution is most likely to be found by 'Total Social Benefit Studies' of the kind which are now being explored by the Ministry of Transport and British Railways jointly. In cases of the type under consideration it may be cheaper to subsidise the railways than to bear the other cost burdens which will arise if they are closed. If this happens, however, there should be no feeling that the railways are being propped up by such a subsidy because of a commercial failure.
So, targeted subsidies, not across the board fares reduction. Nota bene that the 'Total Social Benefit Studies' were instigated by that devilish duo of Ernest Marples and Richard Beeching. How progressive! Well I never!
One only has to look at the table below published by the House of Commons library showing identifiable expenditure on transport by region (24/25) to see the real disparity:
London had £39,981m expenditure.
South East England gets £5,995m
Yorks and the Humber had £2,768m
NE England £1,468.
The subsidy to the regional railway ought to be seen in this context.
Passengers in the regions aren't being gifted transport riches beyond the dreams of avarice, much as some on here would like to make out.
A national railcard would go a small way towards rectifying this fairly grotesque disparity and directly assist travellers in their pockets.
These results are because tax revenues raised in London, the South East and the East of England dwarf those in the rest of the country. A quick search shows that 10 years ago (newer figures may be available but I can't be a***d to spend more time looking) the Office for National Statistics showed that London benefited from a relatively high level of public spending — £12,686 per person, above the UK-wide average of £11,579 — but this was dwarfed by the extra tax revenues generated by the capital. Revenues in London are estimated to have been £15,756 per person, generating a surplus of £3,070 per head. This equates to 7 per cent of the gross value added created by the London economy in 2015.
Also the South East and the East of England also raised more in taxes than they received in spending in 2015-16 — by £1,667 and £242 per person respectively.
All other parts of the UK received more in public spending than they generated in tax revenues (my emphasis). The numbers have changed in the ensuing 10 years but the split remains.
I would also add that 'fairness' in this context seems to refer only to the
distribution of money with no thought being given to its
generation. However, earning money is
much, much harder than simply distributing it.
In order to be 'fair' to all, it would be much better if the rest of the country generated more income and therefore be more in control of its fortunes than to continue to blame 'London' and 'the Establishment' for all its woes. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot do so - bright people and nice places to live are not exclusive to the South East of England. London and the South East could then spend more on infrastructure which it needs - the tax surplus could build a new Crossrail every year...
So why not concentrate your frustrations on positive things and contribute to ways of generating more income per head in those parts of the country London cannot reach? Start a company and employ people would be one suggestion.
