2015 fare increases

[Cletus]

Surprised that this hasn't been brought up?


Regulated rail fares to increase by 3.5% in 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28842633

egulated rail fares will rise by 3.5% from January next year, following the release of July's inflation figures.

Under the formula, average fares in England and Wales are due to go up by July's RPI measure of inflation, plus 1%.

RPI - the Retail Prices Index - was 2.5% last month, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Labour accused the government of 'ripping off' passengers, but the government defended the rise.

Regulated fares have increased by more than the rate of inflation in most years since 2004.

Such fares include season tickets, "anytime" single tickets around major cities, and off-peak inter-city return tickets.

But under a "flex" rule, train companies can raise fares by 2% above the average, as long as the overall average stays at RPI plus 1%.

As a result, some fares could increase by 4.5% next year.

Labour said it would abolish the flex rule, and accused David Cameron of failing to stand up for working people.

"He's allowed train companies to sting passengers with inflation-busting fare rises of over 20% since 2010, costing them hundreds of pounds," said Mary Creagh, the shadow transport minister.

This year -2014- the government capped fare rises to keep them in line with inflation. But it is not known whether the same will happen in 2015.

The Department for Transport defended the rise.

"We fully recognise there's more to do to bring down the cost of rail travel in Britain," said Transport Secretary Patrick Mcloughlin.

"But we need to do it responsibly and we can't spend money we don't have," he said.

The Scottish Government has already said rail fares in 2015 will be capped at RPI - in other words at 2.5%.

News of next year's rise means that fares will have increased by about 25% since the coalition came to power in 2010, according to the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT).

But the government says it is committed to reducing public subsidies for the railways, and transferring more of the cost to passengers.

At the same time it wants to encourage investment.

Michael Roberts, director general of the industry body, the Rail Delivery Group, said that although rail fares had increased above inflation for a decade, the number of passengers had seen "phenomenal growth".

"Compared with fifteen years ago, we're now carrying twice as many passengers as we did then," he said. But he added that rail services were partly a "victim of that success" because there was now overcrowding on some major services.

 

[zoneking]

Fares should be linked to CPI, not RPI. Perhaps they should be linked to average earnings instead. Us commuters have to pay for the fares meaning our standard of living just to get to work is going in down.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Some spin by a Minister exploiting the name given to tickets restricted to a single train.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...by-booking-in-advance-rail-minister-says.html

She added that passengers were only forced to pay extremely high single fares if they don’t book in advance. “Around 45 per cent of tickets are now bought in advance. People don’t just rock up to the station like you and I do and pay the maximum amount,” she said.

Will someone tell her that if you want or need the flexibility to choose the train on which you travel at the last minute, that whilst you can purchase the ticket "in advance", you don't save anything?

 

[talldave]

Some spin by a Minister exploiting the name given to tickets restricted to a single train.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...by-booking-in-advance-rail-minister-says.html

She added that passengers were only forced to pay extremely high single fares if they don’t book in advance. “Around 45 per cent of tickets are now bought in advance. People don’t just rock up to the station like you and I do and pay the maximum amount,” she said.

Will someone tell her that if you want or need the flexibility to choose the train on which you travel at the last minute, that whilst you can purchase the ticket "in advance", you don't save anything?

Of course what the Minister says is actually prepared by a suitably ill-informed civil servant who also doesn't understand what they're talking about.

I buy my tickets "in advance" before I get to the station, but they'd cost the same if I bought them there.

 

[IanD]

Does anyone remember when this formula (and the 2% flex thing) was introduced?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I forgot it was that time of year, I guess I'll be looking forward to another week of "the fares only went up last month" and "it was cheaper last month" as people start to believe the fares have already changed (even though they haven't). I'll get it again at the beginning of December when these stories hit the news again (as the new fares enter the database) and then again at the start of January. The joys of working for the railway I guess, maybe I should be used to it by now, it's the same every year.

 

[Deerfold]

I forgot it was that time of year, I guess I'll be looking forward to another week of "the fares only went up last month" and "it was cheaper last month" as people start to believe the fares have already changed (even though they haven't). I'll get it again at the beginning of December when these stories hit the news again (as the new fares enter the database) and then again at the start of January. The joys of working for the railway I guess, maybe I should be used to it by now, it's the same every year.

Of course in Northern land many of us will be seeing a much larger fare increase from next month with the evening restrictions being introduced.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The transport minister on the Today programme was extremely disingenuous, talking about "buying in advance" when challenged about the £300+ fares to Manchester and the likes. When challenged on season ticket prices she simply repeated buying in advance is cheaper. It's as though the morons in DafT and the thieves in ATOC are in cahoots, isn't it?

In an election year, if the train fares go up 3.5% I'll eat my hat. Lets see what November brings, eh?

 

[bb21]

Some spin by a Minister exploiting the name given to tickets restricted to a single train.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...by-booking-in-advance-rail-minister-says.html



Will someone tell her that if you want or need the flexibility to choose the train on which you travel at the last minute, that whilst you can purchase the ticket "in advance", you don't save anything?

Any wonder why passengers always get a rough deal? :roll:

If I spout utter garbage like that in what I do and present statistics in a misleading way deliberately, I would be instantly put through the disciplinary procedure for incompetence.

 

[jon0844]

The BBC is showing a photo of the protestors (was this today or just a stock photo of something happening last time?) where once again it's all about bringing back British Rail and signs saying 'Cut Fares Not Staff'.

Odd thing is that if you wanted to cut fares, you could probably do it by cutting staff.

And, once again, it implies that this extra increase is just the extra profit the private operators will be making.

 

[muddythefish]

Rail fares are becoming a political issue and are likely to be a factor in next year's general election.

I suspect passengers have had enough. If I were Labour policy maker I would pledge to freeze fares for 5 years or the life of the next parliament.

 

[westv]

Are there any figures as to what percentage of tickets sold are "walk up" price and what percentage are AP when available on the same route?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rail fares are becoming a political issue and are likely to be a factor in next year's general election.

I suspect passengers have had enough. If I were Labour policy maker I would pledge to freeze fares for 5 years or the life of the next parliament.

Haven't rail fares been a political issue for years?
Didn't Labour start the subdidy cuts??

 

[Kite159]

The transport minister on the Today programme was extremely disingenuous, talking about "buying in advance" when challenged about the £300+ fares to Manchester and the likes. When challenged on season ticket prices she simply repeated buying in advance is cheaper. It's as though the morons in DafT and the thieves in ATOC are in cahoots, isn't it?

In an election year, if the train fares go up 3.5% I'll eat my hat. Lets see what November brings, eh?

I will join in with the hat eating if George doesn't announce something about the rail fares in election year, especially with Labour banging on about it (yet surprising if they get into power will be forgotten about pretty sharpish)

 

[Starmill]

I forgot it was that time of year, I guess I'll be looking forward to another week of "the fares only went up last month" and "it was cheaper last month" as people start to believe the fares have already changed (even though they haven't).

They will do soon though. And for passengers like me the increase could be as much as 100%. So frankly everyone moaning about a few extra quid on their already highly discounted season ticket needs to get some perspective. It could be loads worse.

 

[radamfi]

Fares should be linked to CPI, not RPI. Perhaps they should be linked to average earnings instead. Us commuters have to pay for the fares meaning our standard of living just to get to work is going in down.

Most of the time average earnings exceed inflation. It has only been the other way around in the last few years.

 

[Panda]

Most of the time average earnings exceed inflation. It has only been the other way around in the last few years.

Also, taxes have been decreasing ever so slightly over the last few years so the excuse that it's impacting commuters trying to get to work doesn't really hold water.

We all want the railways to improve - funding improvements can be done either via the government by increasing taxes (short term or long term if they choose to just go the debt route) or via rail fares. The fairer option in my view is increasing fares to pay for improvements, rather than increasing taxes. Given the distribution of people who use trains (majority of travel is in the South East and the South East is generally considered to be better off than the north - massive generalisation - I apologise for anyone who feels insulted by this), would it really make sense to increase the taxes for everyone to pay for the improvements mostly felt by people in the South East (because most rail travel takes place there - not all improvements are necessarily there :P )?

I would much rather have fare increases each year rather with consistent investment in the railways instead of under-investment with last-minute increases when the funding gap becomes too large to ignore and the system grinds to a halt.

 

[bb21]

They will do soon though. And for passengers like me the increase could be as much as 100%. So frankly everyone moaning about a few extra quid on their already highly discounted season ticket needs to get some perspective. It could be loads worse.

It's a tad unfair comparing people whose tickets will be going up by several hundred pounds with your ticket which will be going up by £2.50

Many people commuting don't have much choice, whereas many of your journeys are not out of necessity.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Plus you don't purchase all your tickets in one massive lump. Regardless of average journey cost, it is an an enormous amount to spend in one transaction.

 

[maniacmartin]

Pity the poor people who are commuting from Luton to London Thamesmead, as reported in The Metro today.

 

[Qwerty133]

Pity the poor people who are commuting from Luton to London Thamesmead, as reported in The Metro today.

Let's hope ticket offices are filled with enough 1ps for change from those £94.19 fares next year

 

[nuneatonmark]

Link

To put the railways back on track we must first rip out the waste

For those of us who have the misfortune of having to commute to work by train, the news that rail fares are going to rise another 3.5 per cent next year is a bitter pill to swallow. Being treated like cattle is bad enough; having to pay through the nose for the privilege of cancelled trains and overcrowded carriages is enraging.

Britain’s rail industry is ripe for reform. It is a bizarre mish-mash of public and private, of central planning and private enterprise, of politicised buck-passing and economic irrationality. Hardly anyone understands its costs, the details of its hybrid, semi-renationalised structure or who is really in charge and thus responsible. But while such opacity and unaccountability is unacceptable, we should resist facile solutions: arbitrarily capping rail fares, as many would like, would backfire; and fully renationalising the railways, as even many Tory voters would advocate, would be a costly mistake. Instead, we need to focus on making the industry more efficient and consumer-focused, and that means bolstering competition and tackling antiquated and restrictive practices.

The starting point of any sensible discussion of the future of Britain’s railways is to note that they remain heavily loss-making. Fares would be even more expensive, in some cases prohibitively so, in the absence of subsidies, which reached around £2.2 billion in 2012-13. If you take the train for an average 20-mile journey across the country, you will have cost the public purse £1.36. If you drive the same distance, you will have contributed a small amount. The subsidy to franchised train operators was 6.8p per passenger mile in 2012-2013, down from 7.5p per passenger mile in 2011-2012 and 10.4p in 2009-10. The good news from the perspective of long-suffering taxpayers is that their contribution is falling steadily: it was £3 billion as recently as in 2009-10. But this implies that the upwards pressure on fares will remain relentless.

There are those who don’t think that rail subsidies are a problem and would rather the cost of rail travel be spread out across the taxpaying public than actual passengers. But contrary to what the London-centric chattering classes tend to assume, few people commute by train. Car and van drivers account for 49 per cent of all distance travelled, with their passengers accounting for another 28 per cent every year. Rail accounts for just 10 per cent.

...

Central points appear to be

1. Fare rises are justified to reduce public subsidies
2. Higher earning people get most advantage from 'lower' fares so increasing them has little impact on the poor
3. On balance franchising has been good (IMO why does ANYONE call it privatisation as it is nothing of the sort) but it was wrong to 'bake in' subsidies as this meant it looked it private companies were profiteering
4. Increased competition needed

BTW, I am NOT necessarily endorsing this article!

 

[yorksrob]

We all want the railways to improve - funding improvements can be done either via the government by increasing taxes (short term or long term if they choose to just go the debt route) or via rail fares. The fairer option in my view is increasing fares to pay for improvements, rather than increasing taxes. Given the distribution of people who use trains (majority of travel is in the South East and the South East is generally considered to be better off than the north - massive generalisation - I apologise for anyone who feels insulted by this), would it really make sense to increase the taxes for everyone to pay for the improvements mostly felt by people in the South East (because most rail travel takes place there - not all improvements are necessarily there :P )?

It's an interesting point. Government complains that the railway is a "rich man's toy" which disproportionately advantages the South East, then hikes prices and starve investment on those routes that serve less prosperous regions which generally serve a more mixed profile of passengers. Recent discussions about the railway in the North and the South West attest to this.

 

[radamfi]

What is the railway for? To cut road congestion, to improve the environment, to improve the economy or for social reasons? Regarding the first two reasons, if people use their cars to avoid high train fares, then that is highly undesirable. However, do low fares make that much of a difference? In Belgium, train commuting is particularly cheap and for many people free, but congestion is still severe.

 

[jon0844]

Fortunately in the south east, the car has become a rather poor alternative to public transport for most people.

There are obvious exceptions, especially in outer London or when your travel is more circular around the perimeters, but the congestion zone, huge prices to park and fuel costs makes driving mostly something for the rich - or stupid!

 

[razor89]

Merseyrail fares going up by RPI +0, according to concession agreement apparently. Press release below:

Merseyrail is managed by Merseytravel, not by the Department for Transport, so we are not subject to the same pricing as most train operating companies. The 25-year concession agreement set at the beginning of the franchise in 2003 states that average fare rises are capped at RPI + 0%. This means that that the majority of fares are likely to increase next year by no more than 20 pence.

Our fares are among the cheapest in the country and are likely to remain so. In the latest national passenger survey (Passenger Focus, spring 2014), 70% of Merseyrail passengers were satisfied in the value for money of the price of tickets category. This is 5 percentage points up from the same poll a year before and 25 percentage points above the national average.

 

[Clip]

I have enjoyed the press on this where they are adamant that fares 'will rise' by any amount when there has been no firm commitment from the Govt on it yet - well I havent seen a nything.

 

[AM9]

I feel that the 'flex' easement that the TOCs use is the most devisive. The rules appear to say that they can vary the increases of different fares (currently by up to 2%) as long as the 'average' increase across all fares is at the headline rate. This will allow a TOC to increase the fares from the busiest stations up to 5.5% and only uplift the fares from the quietest stations by 1.5%. Given that on lines there can be a large difference between the takings in adjacent stations, this allows the average fare receipts to be way beyond the authorised figure, e.g. St Albans City has nearly 6 times the number of passengers as Radlett so if all SAC fares rise by the maximum that flex allows and RDT the minimum, then the overall increase for the pair is just under 4.8%, - hardly what the announcement leads us to believe!
That may not be typical, but I'm sure that the TOCs work it to the limit.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....IMO why does ANYONE call it privatisation as it is nothing of the sort....

In most cases it isn't franchising.:roll:

 

[ainsworth74]

I feel that the 'flex' easement that the TOCs use is the most devisive.

I seem to recall within the last few years FGW raised the prices of it's London commuter routes considerably (a ways above whatever the headline was supposed to be) whilst lowering the fares (or at least holding them steady) on a number of Cornish routes. All perfectly legimitate as the 'basket' of fare rises on FGW was bang on the increase it was supposed to be.

 

[bb21]

A popular Chinese saying goes, "You have the policy, we have the getaround."

Quite apt when describing rail ticket pricing.