Fare increases - folk don't like them

[dstrat]

As for investment in the infrastructure I totally agree with you that a minimum amount of profit should be used to improve the service, its all very well other people saying 'they only make 3%' but 3% of what? If its a billion quid then thats not exactly chump change!

Exactly. The argument that the train operator's profits are small and therefore negligible enough to 'not be bothered' about recouping is completely redundant and has no credibility to it.

Let's take east coast for example. They made £195.7 million in profit in 2012. All of which is apparently reinvested into the railways because it is run by the state.

£195.7 million. That could buy 39 new Class 185s. That is from the profits from a single operator (admittedly perhaps one of the most profitable) but still.

How an earth do you justify your statement now?

Instead, money is constantly siphoned away from the railway and we have crap like pacers running on what may have been the greatest railway the world had seen. Dave1987, if you think the current system is better for investment; I am sorry but I am going to have to say you are deluded.

 

[Dave1987]

How many people commute seven days a week and never take any holiday? For a more typical person working a five-day week and taking the statutory minimum 28 days holiday, the daily rate is £23.67

So how would you implement a pay as you travel system without implementing an oyster card system which is incredibly expensive. Although I believe in the very distant future a nationwide oyster card system is in the pipeline but would be hideously expensive to implement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly. The argument that the train operator's profits are small and therefore negligible enough to 'not be bothered' about recouping is completely redundant and has no credibility to it.

Let's take east coast for example. They made £195.7 million in profit in 2012. All of which is apparently reinvested into the railways because it is run by the state.

£195.7 million. That could buy 39 new Class 185s. That is from the profits from a single operator (admittedly perhaps one of the most profitable) but still.

How an earth do you justify your statement now?

Ow here we are on the Re-Nationalise the railways argument. Have you ever noticed how certain political parties make wild claims without actually providing a reasonable way to pay for it (*coughs* Labour Party *coughs again* ) Just to get into power they would all claim that they could reduce rail fare without putting in a reasonable way to pay for it, so , when they got in they would have to cut back and cut back. Before privatisation the BR infrustructure was in a horrible state and badly in need of a lot of money to bring it back up to scratch, which is why private money was brought in. (I know this as a member of my family has been quite high up in the railways for 35 years). Re nationalising the network is not the answer.

 

[radamfi]

So how would you implement a pay as you travel system without implementing an oyster card system which is incredibly expensive. Although I believe in the very distant future a nationwide oyster card system is in the pipeline but would be hideously expensive to implement.

Not sure why this is relevant. The railways know that people don't use the ticket everyday so the ticket is priced based on a standard 5 day working week. The fact that it gives free travel at the weekend is largely moot.

 

[Greenback]

Yes walk up peak fare are very expensive but I think this is designed to discourage leisure travellers from travelling during the peak as most comutters buy weekly, monthly, or season tickets.

Don't confuse walk up with peak. This line of argument is only valid if we are talking about Anytime fares.

Look at some of the walk up off peak prices for medium or long distance travel and ask yourself if they are reasonable value, or if anyone actually buys them? To me, someone who discovers some of these prices will just decide to drive instead.

 

[Dave1987]

Not sure why this is relevant. The railways know that people don't use the ticket everyday so the ticket is priced based on a standard 5 day working week. The fact that it gives free travel at the weekend is largely moot.

Season ticket holders who travel at the weekends with family (at a cheap rate) dont think its a non relevant point

And Greenback I dont consider the Off-peak walk up fares that expensive. Walk up off-peak return Colchester - London £28 or it was the last time I looked. And with that you can travel back at any time you like.

 

[Greenback]

Not sure why this is relevant. The railways know that people don't use the ticket everyday so the ticket is priced based on a standard 5 day working week. The fact that it gives free travel at the weekend is largely moot.

I agree. I look at it as a nice bonus, and I suspect I use my season more often on non working days than most people do.

I would regard a £15 weekly season as costing £3 per day, even if one week I used it every day!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Season ticket holders who travel at the weekends with family (at a cheap rate) dont think its a non relevant point

My annual season gives me no cheap rate for my family at any time.

 

[radamfi]

Season ticket holders who travel at the weekends with family (at a cheap rate) dont think its a non relevant point

But fares are a lot lower at the weekend anyway (particularly in the SE).

 

[Dave1987]

Our Gold card holders get this:

What benefits will I get?

Your Gold card will act as a Railcard giving discounts on other rail journeys for yourself and others. These include:
• 1/3 off Standard Class single and return tickets on participating train company services within the London & South-East area
• Up to three additional adults aged 16 or over travelling with you each receive a 34% discount
• Up to four children aged between 5 and 15 pay just £2
• 1/3 off a London Zones 1-6 Off-Peak Day Travelcard with additional London travel benefits
• 1/3 off Oyster Off-Peak pay as you go single fares and Oyster Off-Peak Daily price caps on National Rail, London Underground and Docklands Light Railway services in Greater London (apply at a London Underground ticket office for the Gold Card discount to be applied to your Oyster card).
• Benefits and discounts when upgrading to First Class

 

[Greenback]

Season ticket holders who travel at the weekends with family (at a cheap rate) dont think its a non relevant point

And Greenback I dont consider the Off-peak walk up fares that expensive. Walk up off-peak return Colchester - London £28 or it was the last time I looked. And with that you can travel back at any time you like.

It rather depends on which fares you select. You and I could choose fares which support our own particular point of view, but that wouldn't prove or disprove anything.

And let's not forget that there can be a difference between off peak returns and off peak day returns.

 

[Goatboy]

Only season tickets for journeys within the Network Railcard area get a Gold Card if they are annual ones.

Yet another example of fare disparity - a special railcard for those who live in a certain part of the country only. Lovely. Network SouthEast hasn't existed for almost 20 years so the original reason for such a card is not a suitable excuse two decades later.

 

[Greenback]

Our Gold card holders get this:

What benefits will I get?

Your Gold card will act as a Railcard giving discounts on other rail journeys for yourself and others. These include:
• 1/3 off Standard Class single and return tickets on participating train company services within the London & South-East area
• Up to three additional adults aged 16 or over travelling with you each receive a 34% discount
• Up to four children aged between 5 and 15 pay just £2
• 1/3 off a London Zones 1-6 Off-Peak Day Travelcard with additional London travel benefits
• 1/3 off Oyster Off-Peak pay as you go single fares and Oyster Off-Peak Daily price caps on National Rail, London Underground and Docklands Light Railway services in Greater London (apply at a London Underground ticket office for the Gold Card discount to be applied to your Oyster card).
• Benefits and discounts when upgrading to First Class

I'm well aware of the Gold Card and its benefits thanks, I used to sell plenty of them!

But they don't exist outside of the SE of England.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet another example of fare disparity - a special railcard for those who live in a certain part of the country only. Lovely. Network SouthEast hasn't existed for almost 20 years so the original reason for such a card is not a suitable excuse two decades later.

I wouldn't want it to be withdrawn as another 'benefit' of privatisation, I would simply like the same benefits to apply to anyoen who has an annual season.

Of course, it won't happen because people will buy one and use it as a railcard, which wouldn;t be so much of a problem if there was a national railcard instead...

But that is another debate for another day!

 

[jon0844]

I have no issue with a nationwide railcard, offering 1/3 off, which is included free for annual season ticket holders outside the NSE area.

 

[Dave1987]

It rather depends on which fares you select. You and I could choose fares which support our own particular point of view, but that wouldn't prove or disprove anything.

And let's not forget that there can be a difference between off peak returns and off peak day returns.

Indeed but as we both know tickets with less flexibility are cheaper. I know that the Colchester ticket office around the 09.00 mark is very very busy for people wanting off-peak day returns to London to catch the first off-peak service.

 

[Greenback]

Indeed but as we both know tickets with less flexibility are cheaper. I know that the Colchester ticket office around the 09.00 mark is very very busy for people wanting off-peak day returns to London to catch the first off-peak service.

Maybe that indicates that the off peak fare is too cheap!

Out of interest, I wonder how it compares with the off peak returns from Swindon or Reading to London?

Of course, back in the day when I worked the ticket office, it always became very busy around the off peak start time for London tickets. It was a second peak, really.

 

[W230]

As already stated several times, people are commuting much further than they used to. This in turn means they are spending more on travel. This may be because they cannot afford housing nearer where they work or perhaps because they choose to work further away in a better/higher paid job (as is often the case), as this may help to improve their career prospects.

As I understand it (feel free to correct me) the rail network is undergoing huge investment at present. It seems fair to me that those who are using the service more should end up paying for some of that cost. I assume that alot of this investment is required because the network has become run down after years of under investment (again feel free to correct me)?

If the prices are too high then vote with your feet! Travel at other times/learn to drive/take the bus/work from home/find a job closer to home/a home closer to work/go and live in the woods somewhere. Or just whinge about another fare increase...

I do agree though that the cost of rail fares when looking at other well developed european countires appears high (Germany for one).
Do they have the same level of service as we have in the UK? I'm guessing probably not. I also doubt that people commute such large distances as they do in the UK which is another serious cause of the overcrowding problem.

 

[Greenback]

As already stated several times, people are commuting much further than they used to. This in turn means they are spending more on travel. This may be because they cannot afford housing nearer where they work or perhaps because they choose to work further away in a better/higher paid job (as is often the case), as this may help to improve their career prospects.

As I understand it (feel free to correct me) the rail network is undergoing huge investment at present. It seems fair to me that those who are using the service more should end up paying for some of that cost. I assume that alot of this investment is required because the network has become run down after years of under investment (again feel free to correct me)?

If the prices are too high then vote with your feet! Travel at other times/learn to drive/take the bus/work from home/find a job closer to home/a home closer to work/go and live in the woods somewhere. Or just whinge about another fare increase...

I do agree though that the cost of rail fares when looking at other well developed european countires appears high (Germany for one).
Do they have the same level of service as we have in the UK? I'm guessing probably not. I also doubt that people commute such large distances as they do in the UK which is another serious cause of the overcrowding problem.

This is a very sensible post. I agree with almost all of it. They way we think in the UK is different to the continent, for various reasons. There is less long distance commuting abroad, and public transport is supported in a different manner to here, both in terms of financial support and in terms of service provision and usage.

I don't agree so much with the notion that users of the system should contribute greater amounts to its improvements. A better railway system will potentially bring massive benefits to the economy and to the environment, both of which will ultimately benefit all citizens, not just those who use the infrastructure that is being improved.

 

[Dave1987]

As already stated several times, people are commuting much further than they used to. This in turn means they are spending more on travel. This may be because they cannot afford housing nearer where they work or perhaps because they choose to work further away in a better/higher paid job (as is often the case), as this may help to improve their career prospects.

As I understand it (feel free to correct me) the rail network is undergoing huge investment at present. It seems fair to me that those who are using the service more should end up paying for some of that cost. I assume that alot of this investment is required because the network has become run down after years of under investment (again feel free to correct me)?

If the prices are too high then vote with your feet! Travel at other times/learn to drive/take the bus/work from home/find a job closer to home/a home closer to work/go and live in the woods somewhere. Or just whinge about another fare increase...

I do agree though that the cost of rail fares when looking at other well developed european countires appears high (Germany for one).
Do they have the same level of service as we have in the UK? I'm guessing probably not. I also doubt that people commute such large distances as they do in the UK which is another serious cause of the overcrowding problem.

You are correct the rail network is getting some serious investment. The wires are going up at a seriously quick rate, Crossrail and hopefully HS2!

HS2 will bring some much needed prosperity to the north of the country as no matter how much people whinge abou the cost of it and say just upgrade what is already there, the track is very twisty and not good for High speed rail.

All this investment doesn't come from nowhere and needs cash. On GEML we currently have the most intensive service possible, plus all the freight traffic from Felixstowe. I have seen a ducment recently with put all the improvements to the infrastructure at £350m or something along those lines who is going to pay for that?

 

[SWTCommuter]

I have no issue with a nationwide railcard, offering 1/3 off, which is included free for annual season ticket holders outside the NSE area.

There used to be one. It was called the Annual Season Ticket Holder's Railcard and gave a 50% discount across the whole of BR. Sadly it was replaced by the Gold Card when NSE was created as one of the 'benefits' of sectorisation.

 

[dstrat]

So how would you implement a pay as you travel system without implementing an oyster card system which is incredibly expensive. Although I believe in the very distant future a nationwide oyster card system is in the pipeline but would be hideously expensive to implement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ow here we are on the Re-Nationalise the railways argument. Have you ever noticed how certain political parties make wild claims without actually providing a reasonable way to pay for it (*coughs* Labour Party *coughs again* ) Just to get into power they would all claim that they could reduce rail fare without putting in a reasonable way to pay for it, so , when they got in they would have to cut back and cut back. Before privatisation the BR infrustructure was in a horrible state and badly in need of a lot of money to bring it back up to scratch, which is why private money was brought in. (I know this as a member of my family has been quite high up in the railways for 35 years). Re nationalising the network is not the answer.

Pal, the railways are subsidised 4 times more than what they were in BR days - from the tax payer. Private monies has not propped up the infrastructure around the country.

 

[Simon11]

Exactly. The argument that the train operator's profits are small and therefore negligible enough to 'not be bothered' about recouping is completely redundant and has no credibility to it.

Let's take east coast for example. They made £195.7 million in profit in 2012. All of which is apparently reinvested into the railways because it is run by the state.

£195.7 million. That could buy 39 new Class 185s. That is from the profits from a single operator (admittedly perhaps one of the most profitable) but still.

How an earth do you justify your statement now?

Instead, money is constantly siphoned away from the railway and we have crap like pacers running on what may have been the greatest railway the world had seen. Dave1987, if you think the current system is better for investment; I am sorry but I am going to have to say you are deluded.

£196m is the profit from east coast running the service however before giving east coast payments to dft for running the service. East coast only actually made £7.1m in profit, which is tiny considering investment made in a franchise. http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/10/01-labour-considers-publiclyowned-east-coast.html

 

[Westboy]

I confess I didn't renew my season ticket TAU-BRI when it expired 6 weeks ago and now drive.

It's no slower when you factor in travel to from station at either end, it's no more expensive and it is a hell of a lot more convenient and comfortable than a packed out XC voyager.

I still use rail for leisure travel, where I can reserve a seat and get good value fares in advance, but as a commuting option the rail is a pretty poor product for me nowadays.

 

[W230]

I don't agree so much with the notion that users of the system should contribute greater amounts to its improvements. A better railway system will potentially bring massive benefits to the economy and to the environment, both of which will ultimately benefit all citizens, not just those who use the infrastructure that is being improved.

Yep, I see your point. I was meaning more in terms of in these current, much tighter financial times, that rail users shouldn't expect the public to cough up the entire investment but equally a good public transport infrastructure should be well invested in by the goverment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pal, the railways are subsidised 4 times more than what they were in BR days - from the tax payer. Private monies has not propped up the infrastructure around the country.

So if the tax payer is paying more, it seems entirely fair that the end user pay a proportion extra too.

I confess I didn't renew my season ticket TAU-BRI when it expired 6 weeks ago and now drive.

A man who voted with his feet! No-one can argue with that!

 

[Dave1987]

Pal, the railways are subsidised 4 times more than what they were in BR days - from the tax payer. Private monies has not propped up the infrastructure around the country.

You do realise that TOC's pay NR track access charges which is then used to maintain and improve the network. But as was proved in a Panorama episode NR are highly inefficient! Chilterns building of Warwick Parkway prime example!

 

[dstrat]

£196m is the profit from east coast running the service however before giving east coast payments to dft for running the service. East coast only actually made £7.1m in profit, which is tiny considering investment made in a franchise. http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2012/10/01-labour-considers-publiclyowned-east-coast.html

Fair enough. These are still notable figures when aggregated. Factor in the payments by the government when franchises 'fail to achieve expected revenues' (completely barmy justification :roll such as the 50 mill given to Virgin in 2012 and these figures add up to the same salient point - money is leaving the system and away from the railway.

 

[radamfi]

When comparing the UK to elsewhere, it is sensible to note that the South East is a special case as much of the area was built specifically or to a large extent as a place for commuting to central London. There is no real parallel in western Europe. As a result, the SE is well endowed with long, frequent trains in peak hour.

It makes much more sense to compare the rest of the country with places like the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. If you do that, then trains look particularly short in the UK. There is no urban area the size of Greater Manchester in Switzerland or the Netherlands, however peak hour trains in NL or CH are regularly formed of 8 or more coaches, often with double deckers.

 

[Greenback]

Fair enough. These are still notable figures when aggregated. Factor in the payments by the government when franchises 'fail to achieve expected revenues' (completely barmy justification :roll such as the 50 mill given to Virgin in 2012 and these figures add up to the same salient point - money is leaving the system and away from the railway.

That is the only conclusion that I can come to about privatisation. It is difficult to know the details, as the way the railways are financed in this fragmented era is incredibly complicated, but it seems no one can really disupte that the industry is more subsidised than ever, and that companies such as First and Stagecoach do take money away in the form of profits.

 

[Goatboy]

You are correct the rail network is getting some serious investment. The wires are going up at a seriously quick rate

So what?

This gets trotted out lots - but one of the key benefits of electrification is LOWER operating costs. Electric trains are cheaper to run. You invest more capital and are rewarded with cheaper running costs. Thats the point. Other benefits of electric rail are side benefits, the main reason is efficiency. Yes, there are performance benefits but not of the type that would have Mr Average prepared to pay more money for his ticket in order to benefit from.

Electrification is not really that benefcial to Joe Public. Sure, it gets rail enthusiasts excited but generally speaking commuting from A to B, it matters not whether the train is diesel or electric. Travelling on a Class 313 is not exactly a world away in terms of comfort and ambience from travelling on a 150.

So the general opinion seems to be passengers should pay for projects like electrification... but will they see a fare reduction when its paid for and the benefits of lower operating cost are reaped?

Of course not.

 

[dstrat]

You do realise that TOC's pay NR track access charges which is then used to maintain and improve the network. But as was proved in a Panorama episode NR are highly inefficient! Chilterns building of Warwick Parkway prime example!

I do realise that. I don't know how it takes anything away from my point though.

So what is, your alternative....railtrack? Oh wait...

 

[Simon11]

Where did the £50m come from?

There are plenty of tocs which are actually making a loss and some that will make a loss over the course of their franchise. If there was lots of money to be made, why are there only a few companies interested in bidding for franchises?
While overall there will be money leaving the system, these private companies are far better at increasing revenue and reducing cost than a BR would thus overall seeing a gain in more money to be invested in the railways.

 

[Greenback]

Where did the £50m come from?

There are plenty of tocs which are actually making a loss and some that will make a loss over the course of their franchise. If there was lots of money to be made, why are there only a few companies interested in bidding for franchises?
While overall there will be money leaving the system, these private companies are far better at increasing revenue and reducing cost than a BR would thus overall seeing a gain in more money to be invested in the railways.

I am not convinced by this argument. Despite what was said at the time, BR was the most efficient railway in Europe. It might be argued that it was forced to be too efficient, given that some of the economies made by singling lines have had to be reversed at a much greater cost.

Ultimately, though, we can never know what it would have been like if BR had been allowed to continue.