• 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!

Fare increases - folk don't like them

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,263
Location
Yorks
But the railway can't really use these clever tricks. Costs go up. Wage bills go up. Fuel costs go up. Can anyone tell me what things get cheaper, to suggest that there might be a way to fund price cuts? I see Network Rail as the biggest drain time and time again - and the place to make savings - but that doesn't seem to be happening. If it was, and costs were reducing all the time, I'd be far easier to convince that a nationalised railway could work.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

This distinction between supposedly profitable TOC's and an unprofitable infrastructure is an entirely artificial construct.

The railway as a whole is clearly not making a profit at the moment. Maybe there are savings that can be made on Network Rail. Alternatively, maybe the access charges paid by TOC's aren't covering the cost of the infrastructure.

By a similar token, just because a TOC may be turning a profit, how are you so sure that there aren't savings which could be made within that TOC which could help to bring down overall costs.

What if Government decided that Network Rail would not get any direct investment, but that it should instead charge all of it's costs to TOC's, with the Government paying for all investment through TOC subsidy ? At a stroke, the artificial argument of "profitable" TOC's and unprofitable infrastructure would be swept away.

It's all just different ways of cutting up the same cake, which is that the railway doesn't cover all of its costs and requires Government subsidy and investment to perform its social role. This would be the same regardless of who nominally owns it.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
Empty :lol:

The Sheffield Midland - Lincoln service is always full to bursting with passgengers, passgengers between Sheffield & Worksop have been asking for an every 30 minute service for years due to the demand

as for the other lines i.e Brigg , Barton , Spalding etc etc they are not full as the service provided is on a anti-social timetable in most cases

However on your point of subsidising Lincolnshire, you will find this is the fault of Network Rail , their are so many signal boxs in Lincolnshire that the staffing costs are far too much, this of course is then passed on to the T.O.C's who pop them onto the fares

Sheffield to Worksop isn't in Lincolnshire though, is it?

The actual lines within Lincolnshire are relatively quiet - hence the 153s - there aren't the population areas that other parts of the country have, hence Lincolnshire always having a poor case for improvements.

If the benefits of investing in improving the signal boxes would guarantee a sufficiently large increase in passenger numbers then it would happen.

NX rail division (so NXEA and c2c) made profits of £43m post-premiums in 2011 on a margin of 6.3%. First Rail division was £55.7m. How many 321 refurbs, 172 carriages, station re-builds or whatever would that pay for if it stayed within the industry?

I suppose the question is "would a nationalised railway have made those profits".

There may be a lot less incentive to act so efficiently under a nationalised organisation (hence the issues with Network Rail, where costs appear to be going up partly due to little incentive to manage them).
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,906
Location
0036
As I see it, going by my mostly off-peak travel now in the week; we have far too many trains running in the peaks to cope with the immense number of commuters that seem to be growing every year.

Run that by me again?
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,844
Location
UK
Run that by me again?

Now that most of my travel is off-peak, but still in the week (not the weekends, which despite often having less services are usually quite a lot busier) I am regularly using trains near empty.

And yet we have to have loads of extra trains sitting at depots because of the increasing demands in the peaks. More stock needed to make 12-car trains, leaving more trains at the depots and the need to find more room to store them.

If we could get people to stagger their journeys, the peaks could become more manageable - but more and more money is needed to keep commuters going, buying extra carriages and platform lengths (and power upgrades, signalling improvements etc) for just a few hours.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
Now that most of my travel is off-peak, but still in the week (not the weekends, which despite often having less services are usually quite a lot busier) I am regularly using trains near empty.

And yet we have to have loads of extra trains sitting at depots because of the increasing demands in the peaks. More stock needed to make 12-car trains, leaving more trains at the depots and the need to find more room to store them.

If we could get people to stagger their journeys, the peaks could become more manageable - but more and more money is needed to keep commuters going, buying extra carriages and platform lengths (and power upgrades, signalling improvements etc) for just a few hours.

The problem with this is that it means that commuters have to pay the full cost of any new/additional trains (since these aren't getting used at other times) - something that they don't always appreciate.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,887
Location
Fenny Stratford
Now that most of my travel is off-peak, but still in the week (not the weekends, which despite often having less services are usually quite a lot busier) I am regularly using trains near empty.

And yet we have to have loads of extra trains sitting at depots because of the increasing demands in the peaks. More stock needed to make 12-car trains, leaving more trains at the depots and the need to find more room to store them.

If we could get people to stagger their journeys, the peaks could become more manageable - but more and more money is needed to keep commuters going, buying extra carriages and platform lengths (and power upgrades, signalling improvements etc) for just a few hours.

Well good luck in getting employers to change the working day. I know some do offer forms of flexible working but the difficulty the communter faces is that his boss expects him in the office between the hours of 0830 and 1700
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,844
Location
UK
The problem with this is that it means that commuters have to pay the full cost of any new/additional trains (since these aren't getting used at other times) - something that they don't always appreciate.

Exactly. And once every train is maximum length and there's not a single path free (and the network has so much dual redundancy that it can virtually guarantee that nothing can cause a delay that messes it all up) then that's your lot without another astronomical amount of investment needed.

And still for the rest of the day, trains will be going around carrying fresh air.

Well good luck in getting employers to change the working day. I know some do offer forms of flexible working but the difficulty the communter faces is that his boss expects him in the office between the hours of 0830 and 1700

I know. That's the real problem. The problem that, if it could be addressed in some way, could relieve the pressure on the railways (and the road network) far more effectively than just building out of the problem. Is it okay that some employers are stuck in their ways and can't see a way to improve things for the employee (in that a less tired/stressed employee getting in a bit later might be considerably more productive?).

In my last job, I was the Editor of a magazine that went to press every four weeks. I also ran the website, forum, social media - pretty much all on my own.

For a lot of the time (bar press week for the print magazine) I could have happily worked from home, or coming in for less hours and when needing to go to events. I'd probably still have come in to London almost ever day, but often at off-peak times (despite having my annual ticket). It would still be more convenient for me.

My employer trusted me to carry on from home (I essentially did the whole mag on my own, managing a few freelancers, so if I didn't work then nothing happened) but they didn't trust other staff and said if they let me work from home, they'd have to let them work from home.

Despite me saying they could tell the others to sod off and negotiate their own arrangements, it never happened. Eventually I quit (not because of the commuting but other reasons relating to how much extra work I was expected to do and a new MD that I couldn't work with because he was basically in to strip the company of every asset for his own gain). Now I work from home for my new employer, and travel in to London or wherever as and when I need to.

To be fair, to many employers, people I've known over the years would sit at home and do bugger all most of the day. Which is why I can see that the idea of home working is not likely to be commonplace. However, everyone who works for the company I am at now is fine - and we all communicate regularly via Skype, and meet up for company events to see each other face to face. It's not for everyone, but it should certainly work for more people than do it at the moment.

Staggered working hours, with a set 'core' might be a more practical solution or extending flexible working hours, not getting rid of them. It's then up to the commuter to pick the best travel times.

In my work, I rarely try and contact people very early in the day or later in the afternoon (unless it's important) and most of my communication is by email so the person I am trying to reach can be anywhere they want. I am sure there are many other people in offices in similar circumstances, and I can even work on the train with my mobile data connection giving access to all my work files stored in the cloud.

In fact, everything I write is backed up in the cloud. Every photo and video I take is backed up. I can access my contacts, calendar, email in the cloud and so on. Every spreadsheet, document - in the cloud. Most businesses could do this, but are either reluctant to do so, or don't fully understand how to do it.

I wonder how many of the new start ups in and around tech city will structure their businesses. I wonder about lot of new companies in the future?

Maybe one day this problem will be solved, instead of having 8-track lines running 24 carriage triple deck trains into London in the morning peak!!

I know not every job/profession can go for flexible working, home working etc.. and not every business could relocate out of London (does everything need to be in town?) but it's the ones that can that should.
 
Last edited:

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,217
What if Government decided that Network Rail would not get any direct investment, but that it should instead charge all of it's costs to TOC's, with the Government paying for all investment through TOC subsidy ? At a stroke, the artificial argument of "profitable" TOC's and unprofitable infrastructure would be swept away.

It's all just different ways of cutting up the same cake, which is that the railway doesn't cover all of its costs and requires Government subsidy and investment to perform its social role. This would be the same regardless of who nominally owns it.
Well put, sir. As you say, no matter how you cut the cake, the railways as a whole do not make money! :lol:
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
Well put, sir. As you say, no matter how you cut the cake, the railways as a whole do not make money! :lol:

And that is the long and short of the whole thing. The railways (as a whole) are not profitable. Either we charge customers more, or we subsidise them through taxation. You can divvy it up into profitable and unprofitable sections, but the sum of its parts is overall unprofitable.
 
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
790
Location
Brigg Line
Sheffield to Worksop isn't in Lincolnshire though, is it?

The actual lines within Lincolnshire are relatively quiet - hence the 153s - there aren't the population areas that other parts of the country have, hence Lincolnshire always having a poor case for improvements.

If the benefits of investing in improving the signal boxes would guarantee a sufficiently large increase in passenger numbers then it would happen.

As you will know the Sheffield Midland - Worksop service is served mainly by Lincoln Central services , only a few stop short at either Worksop or Retford High Level.

As I will say again the timetable for rural services in Lincolnshire is shocking, their is the Doncaster - Gainsborough - Lincoln - Sleaford - Spalding - Peterborough service which is well used but again a poor timetable is putting passgengers off using it.

And of course their is my friend the Brigg line , where people are screaming out for the Monday to Friday service to come back after 20 years.

Network Rail has opened the new Lincoln PB replacing a number of boxs in the area to reduce cost, if this is rolled out across Lincolnshire then the burden from fare payers from other lines will come down.

At the end of the day Lincolnshire needs a propper railway system as " regional routes " are the backbone of any railway system
 

Pugwash

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
336
Staggered working hours, with a set 'core' might be a more practical solution or extending flexible working hours, not getting rid of them. It's then up to the commuter to pick the best travel times.


Except you then have to have schools that have flexible hours, so people can work,

It might be easier just to employ train drivers on split shifts so they only work in the peak.
 

Goatboy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,274
It's all just different ways of cutting up the same cake, which is that the railway doesn't cover all of its costs and requires Government subsidy and investment to perform its social role. This would be the same regardless of who nominally owns it.

But it remains fact that currently some of the 'costs' in the railway are profit to shareholders of privately owned companies. In a non-profit organisation, this profit would be surplus and back into the system.
 

Flamingo

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2010
Messages
6,806
But it remains fact that currently some of the 'costs' in the railway are profit to shareholders of privately owned companies. In a non-profit organisation, this profit would be surplus and back into the system.
Or surplus costs due to inefficiencies, depending on your political ideology. The mantra about introducing "private sector" methods into everything from the NHS to the Armed Forces is that the private sector is more efficient and can do things cheaper. (It's not true, but it appeals to a certain type of politician).
 

Goatboy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,274

Trouble is though thats just ONE route. I've often made the point that some of the rail network has great fares whereas other parts have terrible fares.

Lets repeat the excercise for another route of similar type and distance. We'll also pick another route of much shorter distance. Lets go for Birmingham to Newcastle and Birmingham to Bristol.

12pm, 1 month out:

Birmingham to Newcastle. A big variation in fares. The closest to 12pm is the 12:03 at £46.50 one way. So, this is more expensive than any of the examples in the Seat61 article. It is as much as £87 on the 13:03 and £97 on the 15:03.

So, in this example, all available Advance fares are considerably more expensive than any of the chosen examples in the article and 4 times more expensive than the London to Sheffield example given.

Birmingham to Bristol. Less than half the distance, remember. Closest to 12pm is the 12:20. It is £42 one way. Despite being less than half the distance of any of the examples in the article it is more expensive than any of them. But in sake of fairness, the following train is currently £19. So, similar price to the fares in the article. But HALF the distance and it doesnt even involve a capital city.

Lets move onto the perhaps most important example - most people dont know they want to travel a month in advance but most do know at least the day before. It's this one that really dictates how much things cost.

12pm, tommorrow.

Birmingham to Newcastle: £77.50, cheapest fare. The UK fare is therefore more expensive than any of the other continental examples in the article.
Birmingham to Bristol: £47 on the closest train to 12pm, though the subsequent train has a £24 fare. Not bad, but still more expensive than the London to Sheffield example showing how unrepresentative the chosen example was.

Walkon, outside peak

Birmingham to Newcastle: £100 offpeak single. Nice. Triple the cost of two of the continental examples given. TRIPLE. £102 for an offpeak return, so better value I guess.

Birmingham to Bristol: £50 one way - so more expensive than all continental examples - but £50.40 offpeak return. Makes the Advance fare offered look frankly pathetic but it's still 50 quid for a return trip between two cities not even 100 miles apart.. £47 for an Advance non flex ticket or £50 for a far more flexible Offpeak RETURN? No prizes for guessing who sets the fares on this route. Quite why anyone would buy the Advance is beyond me.


So there we go. Depending on the routes you pick the entire article gets given a totally different slant. In the examples I've given, the UK journey is considerably more expensive in every example. A rather different picture. On some routes you can get some stunning Advance Fares that offer fantastic value. The Sheffield line is one of these. However on others there are either no Advance tickets available or so few allocated you never see the lower fares.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,263
Location
Yorks
But it remains fact that currently some of the 'costs' in the railway are profit to shareholders of privately owned companies. In a non-profit organisation, this profit would be surplus and back into the system.

That is a valid point.

I think when Rail Magazine does its annual tot-up of private investment in the railway, it would be useful if it could tot up the amount of private profits taken from the railway alongside.

In the context of a railway which currently doesn't cover it's infrastructure costs, it would be hard to see any private profits over and above private investment as being anything other than a bribe to the private sector to stay involved.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
(It's not true, but it appeals to a certain type of politician).

Now, is that a fact, or just your own political ideology? :)

Personally, I think that's actually a rhetorical question. If there was a genuine right answer to this, we wouldn't have politicians pulling us back and forth. In theory, a private railway should be able to deliver cost savings over a national one, but a national railway doesn't have shareholders to pay. I still believe that either model could work, it's just the crock of a system we currently have, which is the worst of both worlds, where the problem lies.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,902
Location
Mold, Clwyd
One of the sound-bites from yesterday was from a guy who said he had "not seen any meaningful improvement in services".
He was standing in front of St Pancras, with the new King's Cross entrance in front of him.
Has he not noticed the colossal sums spent in the last 5 years on these stations, HS1/Javelin/Eurostar services and the Underground station?
Plus another shed-load of cash being spent currently on the Thameslink route and new trains?
It's just possible he had travelled from somewhere like Derby or Grantham, in which case (give or take) the trains are the same as 20 years ago.
Their time will come, and they are already by any standard high-class services, and have been extensively refurbished.

Another commuter deception is to begrudge every £1 the railway takes from them, but to forget the (tens of) thousands their property has increased in value by being easily commutable from London.
Nobody forces people to commute 50-100 miles to and from work.

I have been researching a trip in the south of France: St Raphael to Nice, 40 miles, hourly stoppers and TGVs.
Standard fare €11.40 or about £20 return. There are no cheap returns (like SVR, CDR).
Sometimes a TGV advance single at €10 undercuts the standard fare, but you are limited to a specific train.
This is about the same distance as Chester-Manchester, where the maximum return fare you will pay is £17, with cheaper options available.
It's not always cheaper abroad.
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
One of the sound-bites from yesterday was from a guy who said he had "not seen any meaningful improvement in services".
He was standing in front of St Pancras, with the new King's Cross entrance in front of him.
Has he not noticed the colossal sums spent in the last 5 years on these stations, HS1/Javelin/Eurostar services and the Underground station.

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment, if he's just arrived at The Cross on some dirty old FCC commuter train that was packed to the rafters, he probably hasn't seen any meaningful improvement in services. He's not making intercontinental train journeys into Europe, he just wants to get to work from his home in Arlesey. And why should he give a monkey's about how much glass and chrome has gone into making either KGX or STP look all shiny and modern if it doesn't benefit his commute in any way? He probably goes straight from the train and into the tube and never bothers to look at the pretty concourse anyway!
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment, if he's just arrived at The Cross on some dirty old FCC commuter train that was packed to the rafters, he probably hasn't seen any meaningful improvement in services. He's not making intercontinental train journeys into Europe, he just wants to get to work from his home in Arlesey. And why should he give a monkey's about how much glass and chrome has gone into making either KGX or STP look all shiny and modern if it doesn't benefit his commute in any way? He probably goes straight from the train and into the tube and never bothers to look at the pretty concourse anyway!

What does any rail passenger count as meaningful improvements? Apart the dreaded power sockets and wifi :oops:
 

Goatboy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,274
This is about the same distance as Chester-Manchester, where the maximum return fare you will pay is £17, with cheaper options available.
It's not always cheaper abroad.

And it's also roughly the same distance as Birmingham to Cheltenham, where the maximum return fare you will pay is twice that at £35 ;)
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
17,906
Location
0036
Now that most of my travel is off-peak, but still in the week (not the weekends, which despite often having less services are usually quite a lot busier) I am regularly using trains near empty.

And yet we have to have loads of extra trains sitting at depots because of the increasing demands in the peaks. More stock needed to make 12-car trains, leaving more trains at the depots and the need to find more room to store them.

If we could get people to stagger their journeys, the peaks could become more manageable - but more and more money is needed to keep commuters going, buying extra carriages and platform lengths (and power upgrades, signalling improvements etc) for just a few hours.

OK, now I get it. By "there are far too many trains running in the peak" you mean "there should be fewer trains because there shouldn't be as many passengers" rather than "there are far too many trains for existing demand", which is how I read it first.
 

Goatboy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,274
What does any rail passenger count as meaningful improvements? Apart the dreaded power sockets and wifi :oops:

Different passengers will presumably have different ideas of what counts as a meaningful improvement.

For a long distance infrequent traveller, wifi and power sockets might well be one.

For a daily commuter, a seat on a clean train would be a meaningful improvement.

I can quite imagine how your average London commuter couldnt give a stuff how posh the Eurostar terminal looks :p
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
What does any rail passenger count as meaningful improvements? Apart the dreaded power sockets and wifi :oops:

Improved journey times?
New/refurbished trains with renewed seating?
Higher frequency?
New destinations served?
Longer trains with more seats?
Catering provision?

Those are the ones that come off the top of my head...
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
Different passengers will presumably have different ideas of what counts as a meaningful improvement.

For a long distance infrequent traveller, wifi and power sockets might well be one.

For a daily commuter, a seat on a clean train would be a meaningful improvement.

I can quite imagine how your average London commuter couldnt give a stuff how posh the Eurostar terminal looks :p

Doesn't really help when people trash the inside of the trains with all their rubbish. I've seen how they come in at night and believe me the state passengers leave them in uuggghh. Sick everywhere, beer and wine all over floor to say just a few.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Improved journey times?
New/refurbished trains with renewed seating?
Higher frequency?
New destinations served?
Longer trains with more seats?
Catering provision?

Those are the ones that come off the top of my head...

Higher frequency impossible on quite a few lines, a lot of peak services can't get any longer, new destinations served need lines ripped up replacing!
 

Westboy

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
35
Doesn't really help when people trash the inside of the trains with all their rubbish. I've seen how they come in at night and believe me the state passengers leave them in uuggghh. Sick everywhere, beer and wine all over floor to say just a few.

You have a really quite patronizing view of passengers don't you? Displayed across multiple comments.

I sincerely hope you don't have a customer facing role.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
5,078
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
What does any rail passenger count as meaningful improvements? Apart the dreaded power sockets and wifi :oops:

I have a relatively easy commute into London compared to most and these are the main gripes;

455/456s very often no heat, 455s are terrible for this apart from the motor vehicle which tends to have minimal heat coming through.
455 seats are awful. 455 'refresh' seems to be no more than painting the handrails. I'm so used to 321s the 456 seats are fine by me!
Sets never cleaned at terminal turnaround, in PM still Metro's knocking about.
PM peak train seats often covered in pigeon excrement as they've locked one in as the units sit in the platform all afternoon.
Two minutes added to journeys from December TT - no reason given or appearing obvious. Its very slow at 21 mins PTT for 6 miles.

Small things to fix in the main, nothing revolutionary required...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Doesn't really help when people trash the inside of the trains with all their rubbish. I've seen how they come in at night and believe me the state passengers leave them in uuggghh. Sick everywhere, beer and wine all over floor to say just a few.
So? Thats hardly something new or impossible to clean up. They should be being cleaned at every turnaround.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top