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!
Indeed which proves the point that millions of passengers are prepared to pay those high fares and the industry is not 'being killed' because people can't afford / aren't willing to pay them.
No; they have to pay the high fares, if they are commuting into London, and driving is not practical or a far worse alternative.
I suspect the majority of people, who have a real choice between rail and car, will take the latter, and not just because of the high cost of fares.
The industry won't be killed because the profitable commuter market isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but let's not kid ourselves that those commuters are happy with the cost just, because they commute by rail.
They are likely about as happy with the cost of rail fares as they are at the level of tax they are paying; it is something they have to do. Trying to minimise or avoid it exchanges one set of issues with another, so they put up with it.
Many people aren't happy with the cost of living in the UK in general; the cost of transport is just one of many things people have to put up with but don't relish.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Which is compatible with reducing our carbon footprint, encouraging more sustainable modes of transport and encouraging people out of their cars because our roads are rammed full, oh hang on ...
Externalised costs being absent from the books is a big part of the problem.
I use the Norwich to Liverpool Street service regularly at peak and I can assure you most coaches are full, that's not to say they are capacity as I suspect you can find 10 to 15 seats through the train. Not the case with all TOCs I would guess but there isn't much capacity on most peaks I've seen on greater Anglia into London.
Is that at the full pre-pandemic timetable or have some services (peak extras for example) not come back? If trains are reasonably (but not uncomfortably) full then it looks like GA have struck the right balance.
An Anytime Return from Norwich to London works out at 55p/mile, an Off Peak Return at 27p/mile. By comparison Manchester to London Anytime is 92p/mile, Off Peak 26p/mile. So GA's peak fares aren't outrageous in that context. Perhaps someone could comment upon loadings for peak Manchester to London trains, if these are lightly loaded then that tells us that Avanti needs to reduce its peak fares to boost ridership.
...let's not kid ourselves that those commuters are happy with the cost just, because they commute by rail.
They are likely about as happy with the cost of rail fares as they are at the level of tax they are paying; it is something they have to do. Trying to minimise or avoid it exchanges one set of issues with another, so they put up with it.
Many people aren't happy with the cost of living in the UK in general; the cost of transport is just one of many things people have to put up with but don't relish.
One can distil into 'commuting (fares) are a grudge purchase', like insurance.
In UK in September 2023, based on the then exchange rates, petrol was about 40-50 per cent more expensive than in my Australian city, and yet unlike USA, Oz has never had bargain basement prices for fuel.
I doubt UK motorists think the price of petrol is terrific.
I think that's what most people want, reasonable straightforward pricing without having to have inside knowledge or doing mad things like split ticketing
But watch the howls of protest when all the mega-cheap advances disappear. As has been said loads of times, you can have simple, you can have fair, you can have cheap and you can have sustainable. Two out of four is relatively achievable; three requires a massive effort - all four is nigh on impossible. OK - at the moment we don’t really have any of them….
Those extortionate fares, many of which have increased over the years at rates set by the Government, yes? Maybe the Government should accept that it's investment that drives growth, not cost-cutting.
Unless subsidy massively increases, to provide for additional capacity, the railway needs to put off prospective passengers. If the railway priced fares at very attractive rates, there is no way it could cater for the demand. If anyone has any proposals to change the status quo, they are most welcome to be posted in the appropriate forum section.
One can distil into 'commuting (fares) are a grudge purchase', like insurance.
In UK in September 2023, based on the then exchange rates, petrol was about 40-50 per cent more expensive than in my Australian city, and yet unlike USA, Oz has never had bargain basement prices for fuel.
I doubt UK motorists think the price of petrol is terrific.
But watch the howls of protest when all the mega-cheap advances disappear. As has been said loads of times, you can have simple, you can have fair, you can have cheap and you can have sustainable. Two out of four is relatively achievable; three requires a massive effort - all four is nigh on impossible. OK - at the moment we don’t really have any of them….
The fares at peak are high to try and a put people off traveling then as there is limited capacity to handle more passengers.
Revenue deficits are different per a TOC, the ones paying into the treasury should have more freedom to add services and some cost to allow greater revenue and expand the business. Everyone should benefit from that.
I go back to the premise though that if you are running less services than before COVID then you are going to have less passengers by definition.
On the point of peak fares, the peak evening fare in West Yorkshire wasn't introduced to suppress demand - it was introduced to show that something was being done towards the national austerity drive, as I recall.
My trains on Monday are pretty quiet compared to the rest of the week, so maybe there's an argument for getting rid of peak fares on that day as well.
Either way, I'll be interested to see what happens with Scotlands withdrawal of peak fares !
But watch the howls of protest when all the mega-cheap advances disappear. As has been said loads of times, you can have simple, you can have fair, you can have cheap and you can have sustainable. Two out of four is relatively achievable; three requires a massive effort - all four is nigh on impossible. OK - at the moment we don’t really have any of them….
What mega cheap advances are those then? I don't think people love advances anyway on the whole, the whole strength of the railway vs air is that you can just rock up and get a train, but we decide to punish people who want to do that. Throw in non-stop strikes as well and they become even less attractive. I think most would be OK with base fares being reasonable with the occasional even better deal, but as you say we don't have that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No inside knowledge is required whatsoever. You simply search for the journey, select the itinerary (you may want to view fast/value/cheap options) and make the purchase.
That's not really the full picture. For example on my journey to work I can save something like £6 (from £72) by doing split ticketing. Yes, the booking engines will make suggestions etc. But then I have to be aware that my train must stop at some random station (often Baldock or Letchworth) on the way and I am fixed to one route. If there's any disruption or I want to get the faster train that doesn't stop at Letchworth I am not able to. If the ECML or the Cambridge line is blocked, I can't go via Liverpool Street. I am reasonably clued up on ticketing so I know that, but are we expecting everyone to (1) understand these restrictions and (2) understand why such anomalies exist in the first place?
My proposal is there is *one* good value fare at all times that is easy to understand for everyone. Maybe two if you want to include first class, but I'd ditch that on all but Intercity routes as well.
Unless subsidy massively increases, to provide for additional capacity, the railway needs to put off prospective passengers. If the railway priced fares at very attractive rates, there is no way it could cater for the demand. If anyone has any proposals to change the status quo, they are most welcome to be posted in the appropriate forum section.
My view is that we need to work out what we want to do with the railway and what it is for. Either it is a run as a profitable business with minimal help from the state in which case most of it will have to go, or it is run as a proper public service. I'd lean towards increasing subsidy and getting it closer to the latter. The situation we have at the moment seems to please nobody.
Well this is the problem isn't it. Revenue is down so people are not buying the ones that are not good value. My proposal is that something needs to be done to change the widespread perception that rail is bad value for money (leaving aside reliability for the moment). I don't know exactly what, I'm just suggesting that rail's current approach of "do nothing, hope for the best" isn't working.
One fare at all times would both make it impossible to manage demand/raise maximum revenue at peak times, but would also make it impossible for TOCs to offer cheap fares to earn extra revenue at times of low demand. Why shouldn’t people have the choice between an expensive and flexible ticket and a much cheaper but less flexible advance? That approach broadens the appeal of rail for different categories of passengers, and also enables revenue to be earned from different market segments.
“Good value” also means completely different things to different people, as is clear from the fact that people are prepared to pay different amounts for fares depending on their priorities. What’s considered “good value” by certain passengers might also not be considered such by the tax payer.
Completely agree restrictions on luggage are increasingly necessary, and I’d expect to see more of them. 5 car 8XXs are too short, but we’re now lumbered with them, and we can’t afford to have huge amounts of luggage being carried at the expense of capacity.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Some will be at the margins, but not enough to mean that a fare increase wouldn’t be overall revenue positive.
To be clear I’m not necessarily arguing that fares should increase at higher than the rate of inflation, but it’s odd that the government is cutting costs based on “revenue shortfall”, yet has chosen to reduce revenue via a real terms fare cut. The net result is basically ruining the service for many passengers, and not providing better value for tax payers.
One fare at all times would both make it impossible to manage demand/raise maximum revenue at peak times, but would also make it impossible for TOCs to offer cheap fares to earn extra revenue at times of low demand. Why shouldn’t people have the choice between an expensive and flexible ticket and a much cheaper but less flexible advance? That approach broadens the appeal of rail for different categories of passengers, and also enables revenue to be earned from different market segments.
“Good value” also means completely different things to different people, as is clear from the fact that people are prepared to pay different amounts for fares depending on their priorities. What’s considered “good value” by certain passengers might also not be considered such by the tax payer.
I challenge you to find one person in real life that thinks fares overall are good value. As for raising maximum revenue at peak times, most people find that approach objectionable given that most people have little choice in the matter. As for taxpayer value you'll never please them because the best value for the taxpayer would be to shut down almost all of it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Those extortionate fares, many of which have increased over the years at rates set by the Government, yes? Maybe the Government should accept that it's investment that drives growth, not cost-cutting.
The other day I got from Cambuslang to Poppleton for 24 quid. I was looking at Birmingham to London for a Friday in December and found West Midlands Trains offering tickets for 8 quid, though Chiltern isn't much more than that for a faster and potentially more comfortable experience. There are many more examples of cheap Advances.
I don't think people love advances anyway on the whole, the whole strength of the railway vs air is that you can just rock up and get a train, but we decide to punish people who want to do that. Throw in non-stop strikes as well and they become even less attractive. I think most would be OK with base fares being reasonable with the occasional even better deal, but as you say we don't have that.
It depends on how you define "punish"; for York to London it's effectively an airline, with walk-up fares being almost unaffordable, and LNER are going to be "simplfying" even further so that the only flexible fares are fully flexible Anytime fares, which is apparently what people want as it's "simple" (!)
If we want to have cheap fares to travel wherever/whenever we want then we can't just lower the fares, we need to get the infrastructure in place first.
That's not really the full picture. For example on my journey to work I can save something like £6 (from £72) by doing split ticketing. Yes, the booking engines will make suggestions etc. But then I have to be aware that my train must stop at some random station (often Baldock or Letchworth) on the way and I am fixed to one route.
If it's in "fast" mode then chances are, for the vast majority of cases, you'll be given an itinerary that won't cause any issues with the return journey. If you are choosing itineraries that you are going to stick to, then there is no problem anyway. You brought up air travel earlier and air fares are similarly restricted.
It's usually going to be the case that if disruption occurs, every effort would be made to minimise the delay; the only time that I've known people be refused is where travel is with a different company. But that's nothing to do with split ticketing.
If the line is blocked, I would expect acceptance to be in place, surely? Furthermore it is no different to having a ticket with a restriction by operator, it is not an issue with split ticketing per se.
I am reasonably clued up on ticketing so I know that, but are we expecting everyone to (1) understand these restrictions and (2) understand why such anomalies exist in the first place?
My proposal is there is *one* good value fare at all times that is easy to understand for everyone. Maybe two if you want to include first class, but I'd ditch that on all but Intercity routes as well.
My view is that we need to work out what we want to do with the railway and what it is for. Either it is a run as a profitable business with minimal help from the state in which case most of it will have to go, or it is run as a proper public service. I'd lean towards increasing subsidy and getting it closer to the latter. The situation we have at the moment seems to please nobody.
Please create a thread in Speculative Discussion to detail your proposals, including how the pricing would work and what enabling works would be required to be able to provision for it.
You say that, but companies like LNER take the view that people are more interested in booking a guaranteed* seat, so rather than just let anyone randomly board any train at a cheap price and end up with huge peaks and troughs of business on any given train, the loadings be spread out, with the vast majority of trains well loaded but nearly everyone being seated*.
Now while what you say does sound appealing in theory, the reality is that the vast majority of passengers on that route do actually have pre-booked tickets and reservations and stick to their itineraries. If you want to change the system, fundamental changes are needed and your ideas on how to achieve that are welcome (in the appropriate forum section).
(* ok except in the event of disruption, or exceptional demand such as special events)
Well this is the problem isn't it. Revenue is down so people are not buying the ones that are not good value. My proposal is that something needs to be done to change the widespread perception that rail is bad value for money (leaving aside reliability for the moment). I don't know exactly what, I'm just suggesting that rail's current approach of "do nothing, hope for the best" isn't working.
Well if you don't have any proposals then fair enough; in the event that anyone actually comes up with an acceptable solution then maybe things will change, but any solution that would be remotely acceptable would require a huge investment, and not everyone is prepared to fund the railways to enable that (I would be)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What does "overall" mean? All fares? Of course no-one is going to agree to that! But of the fares I actually buy, then yes overall they are good value and I suspect that is the same for many other people.
If you want to propose an alternative to market based pricing, feel free to do so, but more and more railways around Europe are moving in that direction, not away from it.
I don’t need to stop at one - I can think of several people in my life who regularly book advances, one friend has used Lumo several times and found it astonishing value. I have overheard some passengers in first class at my operator last weekend discussing how they find advance tickets and a first class upgrade good value. Equally myself and colleagues found annual season tickets with gold cards good value when commuting in the London area (non railway jobs), so there are plenty of examples out there. Not that many passengers will rock up and pay headline fares, snd many (most?) of those how do simply won’t care about the cost because their employer will pay.
I’d suggest most people who have even the most rudimentary understanding of how businesses price their products and services would see it as sensible market segmentation.
Absent a *massive* increase in capacity, your “single fare for everybody” suggestion means either setting a low enough fare that capacity will be swamped and revenue turned away, or setting a high enough fare that trains are just about filled but most people can’t afford to use them. I’d suggest it’s totally unworkable.
Not true, because that ignores the wider economic contribution made by rail, which is the reason why it is subsidised in the first place. However there is equally no reason not to maximise revenue by segmenting the market as above, and that has been the policy of successive governments.
Is that at the full pre-pandemic timetable or have some services (peak extras for example) not come back? If trains are reasonably (but not uncomfortably) full then it looks like GA have struck the right balance.
An Anytime Return from Norwich to London works out at 55p/mile, an Off Peak Return at 27p/mile. By comparison Manchester to London Anytime is 92p/mile, Off Peak 26p/mile. So GA's peak fares aren't outrageous in that context. Perhaps someone could comment upon loadings for peak Manchester to London trains, if these are lightly loaded then that tells us that Avanti needs to reduce its peak fares to boost ridership.
Let's face it, it often can't cope with the demand at the current prices.
Not totally full Pre pandemic, basically 1 train missing on the intercity run to Norwich but I can't comment on the stoppers to Ipswich etc. although it's not directly comparable as the 745s have more seats and are longer than the 90s and mark 3 Pre pandemic.
I totally agree that greater Anglia probably have the right balance at present but my argument would be that on that route you can never get to 100% during peak without the extra train as that is the potential for approximately 600 more passengers. Not as simple as that I understand as the extra peak train would take passengers from the other services and the stoppers from Ipswich, manningtree, Colchester.
If it's in "fast" mode then chances are, for the vast majority of cases, you'll be given an itinerary that won't cause any issues with the return journey. If you are choosing itineraries that you are going to stick to, then there is no problem anyway. You brought up air travel earlier and air fares are similarly restricted.
My view is that rail travel should not be restrictive like air travel is. People's car's aren't restrictive at all and that's the main competitor to rail.
It's usually going to be the case that if disruption occurs, every effort would be made to minimise the delay; the only time that I've known people be refused is where travel is with a different company. But that's nothing to do with split ticketing.
An example for me is a few weeks ago. I got to Kings Cross wanting to get the 07:39 to Cambridge North. We get told there's a just been fatality at Royston, train not moving. I know from experience it will be multiple hours before the line is open so I go to Liverpool Street and get to Cambridge North from there instead. There is no mention of ticket acceptance. If I'd have got the split ticket I couldn't have done it as Gatwick to Baldock is not a valid route on Greater Anglia. I was OK as a had an "any permitted" Anytime.
If the line is blocked, I would expect acceptance to be in place, surely? Furthermore it is no different to having a ticket with a restriction by operator, it is not an issue with split ticketing per se.
Tickets with restriction by operator shouldn't exist either, especially when GTR make little or no effort to brand their trains correctly. I was on a GWR branded Great Northern service a couple of weeks ago. The 17:03 Cambridge North to Kings Cross is a Great Northern service and a Thameslink branded 700 always turns up.
Some do, some don't. If I'm going to Brighton for the day I'll buy a ticket from the machine, get the next train and any train I like back, and that's how it should be. Maybe things could be different for long distance intercity.
What does "overall" mean? All fares? Of course no-one is going to agree to that! But of the fares I actually buy, then yes overall they are good value and I suspect that is the same for many other people.
I don’t need to stop at one - I can think of several people in my life who regularly book advances, one friend has used Lumo several times and found it astonishing value. I have overheard some passengers in first class at my operator last weekend discussing how they find advance tickets and a first class upgrade good value. Equally myself and colleagues found annual season tickets with gold cards good value when commuting in the London area (non railway jobs), so there are plenty of examples out there. Not that many passengers will rock up and pay headline fares, snd many (most?) of those how do simply won’t care about the cost because their employer will pay.
I’d suggest most people who have even the most rudimentary understanding of how businesses price their products and services would see it as sensible market segmentation.
Absent a *massive* increase in capacity, your “single fare for everybody” suggestion means either setting a low enough fare that capacity will be swamped and revenue turned away, or setting a high enough fare that trains are just about filled but most people can’t afford to use them. I’d suggest it’s totally unworkable.
Not true, because that ignores the wider economic contribution made by rail, which is the reason why it is subsidised in the first place. However there is equally no reason not to maximise revenue by segmenting the market as above, and that has been the policy of successive governments.
This is (yet another) complete misrepresentation of what I’ve said. I’ve explained my views several times, but you don’t appear to be willing to engage with them.
I’ve never said “everything is fine”, but equally it’s clear with even a little thought that your “one fare for all suggestion” is unworkable for various reasons that I notice you haven’t addressed.
I’ve also never said “do nothing”. On the contrary, in my view we firstly need to move away from worrying about a “revenue gap” based on pre Covid projections that are now completely irrelevant. We also need to allow operators to develop new fare structures (again something the DfT have resisted), but any sensible strategy must surely include not deliberately suppressing fares, while simultaneously using said revenue gap as an excuse to starve the industry of funding.
But watch the howls of protest when all the mega-cheap advances disappear. As has been said loads of times, you can have simple, you can have fair, you can have cheap and you can have sustainable. Two out of four is relatively achievable; three requires a massive effort - all four is nigh on impossible. OK - at the moment we don’t really have any of them….
If you made it like LNER have done (single tickets at half the cost of the current return), then offer 3 tickets:
- any time (i.e. any train)
- off peak (most trains but not the busiest)
- advanced (only on one train)
Then offer your can pay the difference (+10% if done after boarding) if you change to a more expensive ticket (although the industry wins with the advance tickets which are upgraded as they wouldn't be re-offered).
That's simple, it's fair, there's scope for it to be cheap and there's scope for our to be sustainable (one way tickets become a lot more viable so potentially attract more people to the network, and whist those currently making one way trips will benefit, read reduce income, the overall numbers doing this are probably fairly limited).
The one sight variant you may wish to add is that for low value tickets (say less than £5, which would typically be neighbouring stations) that you only offer a return (although price it at the current single price). You may get an oddity in a few places where two returns (one for the first pair and one for the second) for travelling two stations up the line is a little cheaper than two singles, but probably fairly rare and probably wouldn't make much difference to the total income received.
I do. It was noticable when it peaked but has since come down substantially from that peak. For long distance travel it is cheap compared to the equivalent journey by rail, nearly a factor of two in my case when I want to visit family.
Some will be at the margins, but not enough to mean that a fare increase wouldn’t be overall revenue positive.
To be clear I’m not necessarily arguing that fares should increase at higher than the rate of inflation, but it’s odd that the government is cutting costs based on “revenue shortfall”, yet has chosen to reduce revenue via a real terms fare cut. The net result is basically ruining the service for many passengers, and not providing better value for tax payers.
I'm not sure that increasing fares by less than inflation qualifies as a real terms cut. Surely this assumes that people's incomes have increased by the rate of inflation which not everyone's has ! For most of us who haven't had an inflationary increase in income, a six or seven percent increase is still an increase (moreso when considered against disposable income).
This will all have an effect on peoples discretionary travel, which is now making up over 50% of revenue.
and LNER are going to be "simplfying" even further so that the only flexible fares are fully flexible Anytime fares, which is apparently what people want as it's "simple" (!)
I'd expect nothing less of a government initiative. A variation of Jim Hacker's three articles of civil service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly; it's more expensive to do them cheaply; it's more democratic to do them in secret.
Fares should be meeting in the middle, £300 is a rip-off and £2 advances serve no purpose.
Usually where people come a cropper is on the return. They've selected an itinerary for the way out but picked Trainline's misleading "Open Return" option for coming back. Then they blindly clicked on the first option on the list which was a split that relies on the train calling somewhere with a two hourly service and they don't notice that one part is a Day Return so when they turn up to come back on Tuesday the ticket has disappeared.
What does "overall" mean? All fares? Of course no-one is going to agree to that! But of the fares I actually buy, then yes overall they are good value and I suspect that is the same for many other people.
The thing is that no one remembers the cheap fares they got, they remember the one time that they were fleeced for that Manchester to London Anytime ticket. As Mark Smith says, we have both the most expensive tickets in Europe and the cheapest.
My view is that rail travel should not be restrictive like air travel is. People's car's aren't restrictive at all and that's the main competitor to rail.
An example for me is a few weeks ago. I got to Kings Cross wanting to get the 07:39 to Cambridge North. We get told there's a just been fatality at Royston, train not moving. I know from experience it will be multiple hours before the line is open so I go to Liverpool Street and get to Cambridge North from there instead. There is no mention of ticket acceptance. If I'd have got the split ticket I couldn't have done it as Gatwick to Baldock is not a valid route on Greater Anglia. I was OK as a had an "any permitted" Anytime.
Your argument isn't so much against split tickets, but also against operator specific tickets, and more. But the solution to that argument is more acceptance and more advertisement of acceptance.
Tickets with restriction by operator shouldn't exist either, especially when GTR make little or no effort to brand their trains correctly. I was on a GWR branded Great Northern service a couple of weeks ago. The 17:03 Cambridge North to Kings Cross is a Great Northern service and a Thameslink branded 700 always turns up.
That's a whole new argument and again your proposals should be posted in a speculative discussion thread, where they can be debated properly.
As for the GN/TL services, these are all brands of the same train company. Yes you could argue the brandings of GTR should be simpliied but again that's for speculative discussion please.
Some do, some don't. If I'm going to Brighton for the day I'll buy a ticket from the machine, get the next train and any train I like back, and that's how it should be. Maybe things could be different for long distance intercity.
Machines that don't offer an itinerary are being phased out. If you want all tickets to be valid on all trains then that requires provision for this, such as increased capacity, which is beyond the scope for this thread.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd expect nothing less of a government initiative. A variation of Jim Hacker's three articles of civil service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly; it's more expensive to do them cheaply; it's more democratic to do them in secret.
Fares should be meeting in the middle, £300 is a rip-off and £2 advances serve no purpose.
Indeed I feel that Off Peak / Super Off Peak etc do have a place but the problem is that when people like @ar10642 demand simplification and fewer resrtrictions, the solution the Government comes up with is to abolish everything but the Anytime and Advance fares (each are "simple" as you can either get ANY train or just ONE train [per leg])
So it is a case of people need to be careful what they wish for.
The thing is that no one remembers the cheap fares they got, they remember the one time that they were fleeced for that Manchester to London Anytime ticket. As Mark Smith says, we have both the most expensive tickets in Europe and the cheapest.
We do indeed; most people pay the lower price with big businesses and richer people paying the higher prices. Lowering the price that business users pay for Manchester to London means a lot of cheap fares in (say) Merseyside have to go up to compensate.
One business paying 100 quid instead of 300 quid means 200 people on tight budgets paying 2 quid now have to pay 3 quid.
I don't think the people who demand change understand the real world implications.
Put your gross salary in when you book a ticket and it charges you as a quota of what you earn. Then a cleaner will always get sub-£10 Advances especially for short journeys, and a CEO will get something more approaching the Anytime price!
I'm not sure that increasing fares by less than inflation qualifies as a real terms cut. Surely this assumes that people's incomes have increased by the rate of inflation which not everyone's has ! For most of us who haven't had an inflationary increase in income, a six or seven percent increase is still an increase (moreso when considered against disposable income).
This will all have an effect on peoples discretionary travel, which is now making up over 50% of revenue.
It’s undoubtedly a real terms cut, at least in the generally understood economic meaning of the term. Of course it’s also true many peoples’ incomes have fallen in real terms recently, but average wage growth across the wider economy has also been about the highest on record.
The supply and demand would work but the constricting factor is the infrastructure, open access operations struggle to get train paths at popular times. This was the folly of privatisation as originally envisioned, I can't get a profitable path on any main line as they are all taken by the franchise operators therefore no competition that way. The reason the franchise system worked was that there was risk and reward, running more trains meant more income but with the Structure now you don't even get that incentive for the operators.
Greater Anglia Hare fares are a good example on how to attract leisure travellers onto the railway but commuter traffic it is reliability, I was always a car man but since I've started commuting to London I'll more readily look at the train for other journeys as well given that in reality I've only had 2 delays so far since April.
It’s undoubtedly a real terms cut, at least in the generally understood economic meaning of the term. Of course it’s also true many peoples’ incomes have fallen in real terms recently, but average wage growth across the wider economy has also been about the highest on record.
Indeed I feel that Off Peak / Super Off Peak etc do have a place but the problem is that when people like @ar10642 demand simplification and fewer resrtrictions, the solution the Government comes up with is to abolish everything but the Anytime and Advance fares (each are "simple" as you can either get ANY train or just ONE train [per leg])
Unfortunately the government have just decided to scrap most of what was left of the largest civils project in Europe. Had HS2's Eastern Leg gone ahead it would have resulted in a decent capacity boost for York-London and cheaper fares.
But you can't put the cart before the horse; something that requires investment can't be done until the investment is agreed. The root cause must be addressed before you do anything else.
If something has a known concequence, you can't just advocate for doing that thing, regardless of knowing that concequence, if you don't like what the concequence would be.
You can't just compare the most recent period, we've had a period of very high inflation over the last two years and wages have been significantly lower (see below chart):
In July 2026, wages in the UK grew slightly faster than inflation, with price rises last outpacing weekly earnings growth in July 2023.
www.statista.com
Also, don't forget, the above chart shows CPI which doesn't include housing costs (which are being increasingly hiked up by increasing interest rates).
This is the backdrop against which the railway needs to build its leisure market.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But you can't put the cart before the horse; something that requires investment can't be done until the investment is agreed. The root cause must be addressed before you do anything else.
If something has a known concequence, you can't just advocate for doing that thing, regardless of knowing that concequence, if you don't like what the concequence would be.
Getting back to passenger numbers, it'll be interesting to see which stations and main/branch lines record growth in excess of each operator's median when the individual station patronage figures are (hopefully) released just before Christmas 2023.
I was super pleased to see so many branch line two-car 'units' (my country would call it a railcar) having good patronage in September 2023.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm not sure that increasing fares by less than inflation qualifies as a real terms cut. Surely this assumes that people's incomes have increased by the rate of inflation which not everyone's has ! For most of us who haven't had an inflationary increase in income, a six or seven percent increase is still an increase (moreso when considered against disposable income).
This will all have an effect on peoples discretionary travel, which is now making up over 50% of revenue.
Perhaps, but if residents/tourists prioritise travel over other items of expenditure by regarding travel as an 'essential' not a 'discretionary' item, leisure travel may well still boom.
Or you could forget the railway and drive instead. Cheaper, faster, more flexible and you don't have to put up with other passengers who haven't washed or will not shut up.
Getting back to passenger numbers, it'll be interesting to see which stations and main/branch lines record growth in excess of each operator's median when the individual station patronage figures are (hopefully) released just before Christmas 2023.
I was super pleased to see so many branch line two-car 'units' (my country would call it a railcar) having good patronage in September 2023.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Perhaps, but if residents/tourists prioritise travel over other items of expenditure by regarding travel as an 'essential' not a 'discretionary' item, leisure travel may well still boom.
I'm sure that some will (and I am one who does prioritise rail travel in my own "basket of goods").
However overall, leisure travel is inevitably going to be more sensitive to high costs, so a railway relying on leisure for 50% of its revenue will need to be careful about price increases in the current economic climate.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Or you could forget the railway and drive instead. Cheaper, faster, more flexible and you don't have to put up with other passengers who haven't washed or will not shut up.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
