Fare increases - folk don't like them

[Dave1987]

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.

Putting the wires up requires a hefty initial up front cost. And with Diesel prices going through the roof I would have thought every rail user would be happy to see this happen. Also Electric trains are quieter and accelerate brake better....etc etc. You are falling into the trap everyone seems to fall into, looking at the here and now and not looking 10-20 years ahead. We are already 30 years behind the rest of europe with our rail network which is why huge sums of money need to be invested now and that has to come from somewhere!

 

[dstrat]

Why are they 'far better' ?

How have they contributed to increasing revenue? More people use the train - and we certainly can't say that is due to the fares policy!

How do they reduce costs? If anything they replicate administration costs with the decentralisation of management.

Significant parts of the railway seem to be running fairly indifferent stock and services to what would have been seen under BR.

Network Rail which maintains the infrastructure is essentially a nationalised operation.

A well run public body could do anything that the private operators are doing right now, it just wouldn't have millions leaking out each year.

Article on 50 mil to virgin below:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2ef05a2-0ee9-11e2-9343-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Gq0BHfgP

 

[radamfi]

It is often argued that users should pay a large portion of the cost of the railways. However, that would only be a valid argument if you include future users as well. It seems a lot of the costs of modernisation are falling on the shoulders of people who currently use the trains.

 

[dstrat]

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.

Yes. The only reason I believe it is so complicated, is so that money that is escaping out of the system is obscured. To those watching out for the 'red man' or whatever, this isn't conspiracy talk, this is standard practice for any project that sees public funds ultimately put in private hands for whatever it may be.

You overcomplicate things to the point that people miss the bread and butter of what is going on. A private firm only does business if it thinks its going to make money out of it!

Bizarre contracts that cover the operator's arses in the case they fail to achieve figures they want?

Complex arrangements where companies that own the stock are allowed to get a cut..for simply 'owning' the stock?

What I simply cannot fathom, is why people think that the listed groups that operate this companies would run it for charity of the nation. They don't, they only serve to enhance their bottom line. Thats the whole point of companies listed on stock exchanges. To think that Brian Stagecoach Souter would EVER run a service for services sake is madness; he is a money grabber through and through; and the worst thing about it is he gets his mint from the bott om of the bottom, poor sods in this country who are subjected to his public transport arrangements.

 

[Goatboy]

You are falling into the trap everyone seems to fall into

You mean the trap of judging what they pay TODAY on what they receive TODAY?

'Well, my train ticket is expensive and the service is crap but it's fine - in 15 years time I might have a train thats powered by a different fuel'


That'll go down well at Paddington in the evening peak today.

 

[Greenback]

Yes. The only reason I believe it is so complicated, is so that money that is escaping out of the system is obscured.

Yes, I agree with that supposition too!

 

[Dave1987]

You mean the trap of judging what they pay TODAY on what they receive TODAY?

'Well, my train ticket is expensive and the service is crap but it's fine - in 15 years time I might have a train thats powered by a different fuel'


That'll go down well at Paddington in the evening peak today.

Well I hate to get into a political argument on here but a certain government thought that car travel was going to be the future of britains economy so pumped serious amounts of money into the road network. The wires should have gone up accross the country 30 years ago and we are only just catching up now. If you dont want them to put the wires up and keep using diesel trains give it another 10 years and you will be screaming at the price of rail travel because the price of diesel will be through the roof and you will then say why did we need invest in Overhead wires 10 years ago. Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

[Ascot]

I'm not too concerned about fare increases this year as with all the LM delay repay it reduces the ticket to last years price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tbtc]

'Desperate'? Oh please, it's a discussion on an internet forum about railways. I don't tihnk anyone is getting 'desperate')

It makes your point look pretty weak when you have to exaggerate that much to try to make it.

If the 40p ticket was 60p it would probably still be purchased. I've mentioned it before but as delighted as I am with the £7.50 Advance Single I have from Birmingham to Euston, it is bonkers cheap. I'd still have bought it at twice the price. As would almost everyone. I bet there is nobody who would consider £15 one way to London too expensive. So remove the comedy-cheap fares and put the extra revenue generated into reducing the higher fares.

Yield management is not an exact science and its not always right - its impossible for it to always be right. Otherwise you'd never find anyone on a wedged Voyager with a cheap Advance. Which you do - frequently (Provided they are lucky enough to travel between two stations XC actually offer Advance Fares from which don't cost almost as much as a walkon single, obviously).

If TOCs could happily double the cheapest ticket prices and see no loss in sales then I'm sure they would, believe me (aren't the same TOCs being criticised for being too greedy on this thread?).

Some of the cheapest fares are there because that's all that some people will pay (and also because, let's be honest, advertising the small quota of cheapest tickets is good cheap advertising for the railways - it works for airlines etc).

Do you realise something? A season ticket from Colchester to London Liv St costs about £5492 a year. That is £105.61 a week, which is £15 a day. Tell me how you could possibly drive to and from London and park for that much?? Answer is you CAN'T, so stop shouting that rail fares are excessive because they aren't!

The problem is that people consider the train cost as a lump sum like the £5,492. It's like that "Doctor" Gillian McKeith programme where she showed people all of the junk food they ate in a week/ fortnight/ month (can't remember) on one table - it looked obscene. But people don't eat that all at once. Similarly, they don't pay their motoring costs all at once - they pay £50 to fill up the car every week or so, they pay a couple of hundred quid for an MOT (and the inevitable repairs), they pay for upkeep/ RAC/ speed camera charges/ parking tickets... drip drip drip. Rail always looks more expensive in comparison (even when it isn't).

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

How many people never use their season ticket at the weekends?

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.

There have always been some profitable routes - the money for which is used to subsidise other routes. The money taken out in TOC profits is not enough to prop up unprofitable TOCs like ATW and Northern though.

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.

Is that adjusted for inflation?

If not, that's meaningless.

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

Well, there are generally more seats on a 313 - and one of the main practical benefits of electrification is longer trains (e.g. Pacers replaced by 319s).

I think that Mr Public will appreciate that when it happens.

 

[dstrat]

Is that adjusted for inflation?

If not, that's meaningless.

It is. In real terms of todays money, the subsidy for BR can be placed around ~£1.14bn, whilst today the subsidy is ~£4bn.

Total passenger revenues 1992 --> 2011 up by ~3 times, whilst subsidy up by ~4 times.

 

[DarloRich]

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?

You have to look beyond the balance sheet figures I am afraid. There is so much clever accounting involved in running a massive portfolio of interlinked companies.

I simply do not buy the suggestion that franchise owners would make a loss on their franchise. There is SO much money sloshing about and the system is weighted in their favour. Revenue support anyone?

How many have "handed back the keys"?

 

[Dave1987]

How many have "handed back the keys"?

National Express East Coast, Abellio certainly considered it on GEML!!

 

[HSTEd]

TOC profits are the thin end of the stick.

What about the vast armies of lawyers maintained by all and sundry to shift blame and thus costs to other bodies.

Or the enormous mess that prevents sharing of drivers and the like without enormously expensive to draw up contracts.
Or numerous parallel management chains.

Or forcing capital expenditures by network rail to be financed by overpriced "private finance" so ministers can claim that public debt is lower than it otherwise is.
Or forcing rolling stock purchases into absurdly expensive PFIs for the same reasons.

The privatised railway exists to make money for all the various contractors and companies.

 

[SWTCommuter]

How many people never use their season ticket at the weekends?

Of course some people are going to get more value out of a season ticket than others but if you are going to estimate a typical daily rate it, makes more sense to base it on the number of journeys a typical worker would make rather than simply dividing by 365. You could add a number of journeys to allow for weekend leisure journeys but, by the same token, you could also subtract some to allow for days the ticket is unused due to sickness or attending meetings away from the route covered by the ticket. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Goatboy]

It makes your point look pretty weak when you have to exaggerate that much to try to make it.

I did it for comedic effect. This is a light hearted discussion forum not a government policy making group.

In future I'll make sure I provide real-world examples to keep you happy.

Some of the cheapest fares are there because that's all that some people will pay

I doubt this somehow.

(and also because, let's be honest, advertising the small quota of cheapest tickets is good cheap advertising for the railways - it works for airlines etc).

This, however, I absolutely do not doubt. Infact this is exactly why they exist.

The problem is that people consider the train cost as a lump sum like the £5,492. It's like that "Doctor" Gillian McKeith programme where she showed people all of the junk food they ate in a week/ fortnight/ month (can't remember) on one table - it looked obscene. But people don't eat that all at once. Similarly, they don't pay their motoring costs all at once - they pay £50 to fill up the car every week or so, they pay a couple of hundred quid for an MOT (and the inevitable repairs), they pay for upkeep/ RAC/ speed camera charges/ parking tickets... drip drip drip. Rail always looks more expensive in comparison (even when it isn't).

I appraise road v rail costs when deciding to make a journey properly. I know the pence per mile marginal cost of running the car - ie tyre wear, fuel useage and estimated cost per mile of unscheduled maintenance. It's then easy to count the exact cost of making a particular journey by car or by rail. If it's less than the train, I'll use the car unless I particularly want to use the train (ie, this is the rail-geek in me talking here), if it's more expenisve then I'll leave the car at home unless the convenience it offers me at the destination offsets the additional cost.

Using this formula, many train fares are excellent value and I enjoy using rail as part of a sustainable transport mix. But many are very poor value and so the car comes out instead, contributing to the already heavy road use, fuel use and CO2 emissions - simply because its sometimes cheaper for me to selfishly sit in my comfortable, quiet and convenient car alone than it is for me to use public transport. This situation is daft.

It seems some people on here think the railways are either expensive or they are not. Hence we go round in circles because somebody will say its a ripoff and somebody else will say but no, Ticket A is very cheap. Then somebody else will say rail is great value and somebody else will say but no, Ticket B is very expensive.

The reality is that the railway has a messy fare structure containing both comically cheap and comically expensive fares.

 

[island]

Can someone answer a simple question?
Do TOCs have the flexibility to not raise prices AT ALL (or even reduce them)? Or do they have to raise them to match the RPI+1% cap overall?

TOCs can change prices as they like, subject to not raising regulated prices above the cap over all the buckets and not raising any individual flow by (IIRC) 5% more than the cap.

not everyone can obtain a credit card. Is a direct debit arrangement beyond us?

That is an issue, but with it nearly impossible to revoke most season tickets if someone were to stop paying, I can see why TOCs would be reluctant to do it this way.

Southern do DD payments for monthly seasons, and they give you a free month if you buy 11 in a row. However, that's not as good as an annual season as that gives you 2 free months.

I think British trains are missing a trick in not providing many early bird season tickets. The Dutch give you unlimited travel off-peak for £80 per month. It is better than it sounds as you can get away with leaving before 0630 but arriving, say, at 0800, and you only have to wait until 1830 to leave in the evening. That is a great option for long distance commuters who are willing to stagger their journey to save money.

Southeastern and FTPE offer early bird season tickets.

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

Annual Season tickets issued within the Network Area if either start or end is within the Area are issued as Gold Cards; doesn't have to be within the area.

It is often argued that users should pay a large portion of the cost of the railways. However, that would only be a valid argument if you include future users as well. It seems a lot of the costs of modernisation are falling on the shoulders of people who currently use the trains.

Quite a good point.

Of course some people are going to get more value out of a season ticket than others but if you are going to estimate a typical daily rate it, makes more sense to base it on the number of journeys a typical worker would make rather than simply dividing by 365. You could add a number of journeys to allow for weekend leisure journeys but, by the same token, you could also subtract some to allow for days the ticket is unused due to sickness or attending meetings away from the route covered by the ticket. Swings and roundabouts.

For the purpose of delay-repay, Southeastern has a policy that season tickets are assumed to be used every weekday for a return journey, and one return journey every fourth weekend.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course some people are going to get more value out of a season ticket than others but if you are going to estimate a typical daily rate it, makes more sense to base it on the number of journeys a typical worker would make rather than simply dividing by 365. You could add a number of journeys to allow for weekend leisure journeys but, by the same token, you could also subtract some to allow for days the ticket is unused due to sickness or attending meetings away from the route covered by the ticket. Swings and roundabouts.

Indeed. I'm always amused when people (including McNulty) suggest offering a five day season ticket to provide a supposedly cheaper alternative to the passenger, when TOC's probably calculate the cost of an existing 7 day season on the basis that the majority won't use it all seven days.

At least the extra two days are a tangeable potential benefit to the commuter regardless of the ticket cost, whereas any nominal fare reduction achieved through offering a five day season will soon be eaten up by inflation.

 

[Nick W]

Do you realise something? A season ticket from Colchester to London Liv St costs about £5492 a year. That is £105.61 a week, which is £15 a day. Tell me how you could possibly drive to and from London and park for that much?? Answer is you CAN'T, so stop shouting that rail fares are excessive because they aren't!

Actually that's £21 per day if you work on *every* Monday to Friday per year and £24 with 6 weeks holiday.

I used to be able drive from Ipswich to London* (parking at Leytonestone) for £12 petrol, £1 parking and £4 tube fare. So that would make it £15 from Colchester not including others costs, or £20 on a Monday-Friday.

This was a 1.3l petrol Yarris, capable of 60MPG. I dare say that a smaller, 2nd hand diesel would be able to, including running costs, meet the £24 per day target. Particularly if you add on another £6 per day for public transport to Colchester station and from Liverpool Street. Of course if four people lift shared, you'd undercut the railway massively!

But even if I doubled the fuel cost to account for all car costs, that would make it £30 a day. So for £6 per day extra compared to the railway, you could own and drive a massive metal box around and use large amounts of oil. The railway should be at least half the price, maybe even a quarter because of the economy of scale, the fact that the train is in use all day and the fact that the energy costs are shared!

*Actually most Saturdays I drove Ipswich - Colchester, Colchester-Braintree, Braintree-London and London - Ipswich, but the £12 figure is based on a journey from Ipswich.

 

[Butts]

Perhaps members would care to comment on the fact the cheapest Airfare between Edinburgh and Birmingham is £29.99 - the same as it was FIVE YEARS AGO (excluding the APD rises).

This is despite the fact there is one operator rather than the three who used to fly the route.

Are Airlines more efficient than TOC's ?

 

[island]

And how about the cheapest rail fare? Because I know you're better than to compare airline tickets booked four months in advance with walk-up train tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To answer my own question, the cheapest VT advance fare from Birmingham Intl to Edinburgh was £18 in NFM01 (Sep 08 to Jan 09) and is now £16.50. £1.50 LESS. Not counting Railcard discounts.

 

[Goatboy]

And how about the cheapest rail fare? Because I know you're better than to compare airline tickets booked four months in advance with walk-up train tickets.

XC only Advance at £22, or a Virgin only one for £16.50.

Though in the case of the XC ticket I'd be amazed if anyone has ever actually managed to buy one. Edinburgh is a particular bugbear of mine, I'd dearly like to go there by train but each time it works out almost half the price to just drive so thats exactly what I've done the last two times

 

[GNER 91128]

Channel 4 news did a good compirison of walk up fares throughout Europe. You can go more than double the distance in mainland europe for the same price.

 

[Butts]

And how about the cheapest rail fare? Because I know you're better than to compare airline tickets booked four months in advance with walk-up train tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To answer my own question, the cheapest VT advance fare from Birmingham Intl to Edinburgh was £18 in NFM01 (Sep 08 to Jan 09) and is now £16.50. £1.50 LESS. Not counting Railcard discounts.

Your forgetting Megatrain which is only £1.50 (although not available 5 yrs ago)

Only 1st Class Train Fares are equivalent to an Air Fare

 

[Goatboy]

Channel 4 news did a good compirison of walk up fares throughout Europe. You can go more than double the distance in mainland europe for the same price.

Somebody will be along in a moment to tell you how totally irrelevent it is because Europe is different, and also we have better liveries on our trains or whatever it is this week that means every fare in the UK is apparently good value.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your forgetting Megatrain which is only £1.50 (although not available 5 yrs ago)

No journeys have been found for the date selected

No matter what date you choose, for Birmingham to Edinburgh.

 

[Flamingo]

Channel 4 news did a good compirison of walk up fares throughout Europe. You can go more than double the distance in mainland europe for the same price.

So move to Europe, then.

 

[GNER 91128]

So move to Europe, then.

Huh?

I'm just stating a fact that was on the news. :roll:

 

[radamfi]

So move to Europe, then.

The UK is in Europe.

 

[Flamingo]

There are lots of reasons why rail travel is differently priced in Europe, it needs a more complex comparison than walk-up prices.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Only 1st Class Train Fares are equivalent to an Air Fare

Why?

The UK is in Europe.

I believe whenever such a phrase is used, it means mainland Europe. Unless of course you were being pedantic.

 

[Butts]

No matter what date you choose, for Birmingham to Edinburgh.

I managed one a few years ago but caused a huge "scandal" on RailUK Forums by getting off at Wolverhampton (on EDB to BHM) and switching to a SAD train which is where I wanted to go
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why?

Because it is a 1st Class Service (45mins)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are lots of reasons why rail travel is differently priced in Europe, it needs a more complex comparison than walk-up prices.

Agreed, on the Continent could you get the equivalent of a First Class Ticket from Falkirk to Morpeth (via NCL) for £10 with a Newspaper, Breakfast and Free Wifi thrown in (as I did before x-Mas)