Fare increases - folk don't like them

[jon0844]

Interesting seeing the post about Bob Crow. He hates being asked about his own salary and his council house. Interesting the way he states that no TOC has ever invested their own money into the rail network even though the panorama on Beeb 1 stated chiltern are investing millions in their line including building Warwick parkway. Be is a bit of an idiot really!

Just as many people believe Richard Branson is God, I am sure there are plenty of people who like to believe everything Bob Crow says is true. When you see someone you respect/worship saying something, you probably believe it. Same goes for politicians - the liar is the one that isn't a member of the party you support.

Looking at Bob tonight, he seems to be either getting very old or is looking rather unwell. I hope he isn't thinking his next plan of attack is to go for the motorist and blaming everything on them, as I expect many rail users (especially commuters) do own a car and use the train because it's the most sensible option in most cases.

He also made some rant about higher rail fares forcing people back into their cars, then later saying (when told rail is more popular than it has ever been so that can't be happening) that high fuel prices are making more people use the rail. He then thought to save himself by saying that if fuel prices fell, people would stop using the train.

Now, while that might be true I think it's fair to say that fuel prices won't be going down anytime soon - or not significantly. And higher fuel costs are going to be adding further costs to the railway too. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there is zero tolerance, to the extent that trains will be held to deal with fare dodgers (anathema in his country under present management rules).

If only that was done here. Sure, for a few days/weeks/months you'd have moans from other passengers about being a jobsworth and 'is it worth it for just a few quid' but, given time, everyone on the train would be tipping the person up to get the money out.

And they'd also be holding the person without a ticket to blame, not anyone else. Then the tide might finally turn.

We have so many people here who can say 'And what are you going to do about it?' and know full well that the answer is 'erm, not a lot' because we have our priorities so wrong.

 

[Flamingo]

Bob, unfortunately, is unable to string a coherent argument together. However, he does know where the bodies are buried (metaphorically) so I expect he'll be around for a long time yet. I think he has the best interests of the railway at heart, at least he has more of a stake in it running well than McNulty does.

(The only time I ever saw him, he was sitting in 1st class, for what it's worth.)

 

[jon0844]

I think now that people have eaten all the turkey, got board with their presents, board with the family, the reality of waiting for credit card bills to arrive dawns upon them and they go back to their boring desks they just want to moan about anything and everything, give them all a free course of prozac with their new Gold Card or a discount of one with there next SVR and it would all be over soon.

But yes once again silly season comes round to drag the rest of us down as well. :-x

I always want to ask these people why they're moaning about the fare increases published today as surely they bought their ticket the day before and paid the 2012 price? I was always a year behind on my season ticket renewal, with one exception - that one year where fares fell (yet nobody ever mentioned that on the news today that I could see).

If you couldn't get your employer to loan you the money, there have been many other suggestions on here (like the interest free credit card borrowing) and getting an annual ticket saves you two months straight away - also at last year's rates, as against perhaps going for a monthly DD where you get one month free but have to pay the higher rate a year earlier...

Just using your common sense can save you a few hundred quid easily (possibly a lot more) and as you know what the rates will be for 2014 (the 2013 fare!) you could even put some money aside to prepare in advance. I wonder how many commuters have thought about that, besides moaning...?

 

[Flamingo]

If only that was done here. Sure, for a few days/weeks/months you'd have moans from other passengers about being a jobsworth and 'is it worth it for just a few quid' but, given time, everyone on the train would be tipping the person up to get the money out.

And they'd also be holding the person without a ticket to blame, not anyone else. Then the tide might finally turn.

We have so many people here who can say 'And what are you going to do about it?' and know full well that the answer is 'erm, not a lot' because we have our priorities so wrong.

I'm convinced that about three months would do it. It'll never happen, though, as the will is not there, either political or from the TOC's. The current system means it is being contained to what somebody has decided is "an acceptable level", or at least a high enough proportion of people are paying enough money to give an adequate revenue stream, so there is no stomach for the complaints and Daily Mail headlines (let alone the threads on here and MSE of the "Boo Hoo, I got caught, what'll I do?" variety).

 

[Dave1987]

Bob, unfortunately, is unable to string a coherent argument together. However, he does know where the bodies are buried (metaphorically) so I expect he'll be around for a long time yet. I think he has the best interests of the railway at heart, at least he has more of a stake in it running well than McNulty does.

(The only time I ever saw him, he was sitting in 1st class, for what it's worth.)

I love watching him squirm especially when a journalist asks him a difficult question . He thinks the railways should be re nationalised but hasnt come up with a good reason why yet. Seems to try and pin everything on the Tory/Lib Dem govt.

 

[Flamingo]

Seems to try and pin everything on the Tory/Lib Dem govt.

Well, he has got a point there

 

[jon0844]

BBC News is just starting its 10 o'clock news. There's vox-pops from passengers, and they sound exhuasted, fed up and bored by price rises without improvements to service. Now if we accept that there has been improvements to service, why are passengers feeling as though nothing is happening?

Or in other words, why is the PR so bad within the industry that progress can't be identified ?

I can't imagine how many FCC users on GN can genuinely moan, as the recent timetable changes and the new 321s and 313s have resulted in it being near impossible not to get a seat, even if might mean getting a service a bit earlier or later, or daring to walk down to use the extra carriages etc.

Taking a seat on a 3+2 train isn't great, which is why people choose to stand when there are seats available. That's not quite the same thing though when you hear them saying they are forced to stand every day. Nobody is forcing them to stand - they're voluntarily choosing to do so!

There's no longer a service in or out of King's Cross in the top ten worst/busiest services now - which has to be a pretty big achievement.

But people are still happy to moan about FCC, and not just the Thameslink side anymore.

 

[Dave1987]

Well, he has got a point there

Now now Mr Labour supporter (i pressume) again I dont wish to start a political argument but i hate labour so will so the argument right there

 

[jon0844]

I love watching him squirm especially when a journalist asks him a difficult question . He thinks the railways should be re nationalised but hasnt come up with a good reason why yet. Seems to try and pin everything on the Tory/Lib Dem govt.

I think he should be made to come up with some actual costings to prove his case. Sure, he doesn't have to do all the calculating himself - but stop just saying it will solve everything.

He's not for taxpayers funding things they don't use by the sound of it (going by his anger at having to fund motorists polluting the environment) so that's going to be quite tricky for one.

You will still need to pay staff, including management, so the wage bills will be high. Members of the RMT will still want their pay rises and protections, so that's going to also be quite tricky.

So maybe we get the potential reduction of those huge profits made by the TOCs (excluding the TOCs that are losing money, like Chiltern, and don't expect to break even until 2013/4 so have actually taken on a risk of their own as I presume the whole idea was of a privately run railway).

However, if a state-run railway can't make a profit, how does it invest in the future? I can only see that it would eventually begin to suffer as the infrastructure began to crumble, and then the railway would have to go begging to the Government for a hand-out, only to be given scraps.. and things would very quickly begin to go to pot. Forget all the major capital projects, we'd be finding ourselves unable to fund the existing network and I'd still like to know how we could get the huge cost of Network Rail down considering that's the one aspect that is effectively state-run...

...But I suppose when this happens, we could always try and privatise the railway again.

 

[jon0844]

I love watching him squirm especially when a journalist asks him a difficult question . He thinks the railways should be re nationalised but hasnt come up with a good reason why yet. Seems to try and pin everything on the Tory/Lib Dem govt.

He WAS told that not even Labour wanted to renationalise and couldn't answer as to who the public should vote for. Still, at least he didn't suggest voting Communist!!

Edit: FWIW, I am not anti-union. I'm a union member myself (different industry, mind) but I don't feel Bob Crow represents members very well - and there are people who agree, believe it or not!

 

[johnnychips]

Well, he has got a point there

Labour were just as bad (I vote for them, mostly). I just cant believe how s*** they were on transport, education and wars, when they did do quite a few good things.

 

[Flamingo]

The NHS was working very well under the last Govt however, and the current "reforms" had nothing to do with "fixing" it, and everything to do with splitting it up so as to justify privatisation of the bits that cold be profitable. There was no mention of the NHS in their election manifesto.

 

[PR1Berske]

The NHS was working very well under the last Govt however, and the current "reforms" had nothing to do with "fixing" it, and everything to do with splitting it up so as to justify privatisation of the bits that cold be profitable. There was no mention of the NHS in their election manifesto.

The NHS was not working well under the last government at all. If it were, they wouldn't have agreed PFI schemes, privatising cleaning contracts or creating new targets for almost every facet of health provision, would they?

I am conscious of this being off topic but feel it needs to be made.

 

[Dave1987]

Look I really DONT want to start a politics argument on a rail forum. But all I know is Labour spent spent spent spent spent like there was no tomorrow and never planned for a rainy day, anyway end of politics please

 

[johnnychips]

Completely agree with you, having had the pleasure of Norwich PFI hospital a few times, but what are we going to do about the trains? I know, lets's build loads more in Britain to increase employment and relieve congestion ... oh!

 

[Starmill]

If it's our attitude vs German attitude that's the problem (and this fits the "Branson is god" issue too), brothers, indulge me this anecdote.

I made two MAN-EUS returns in November, on advance tickets. By chance, or by other means, of a possible 4 onboard checks, the total carried out was... 0. Of course, both stations are unbarriered, across the two journeys, no checks were conducted at Manchester, and only 1 in London, on departure.

Hmm.

Not that I'm complaining. This is from the firm which does 300% refunds for customer service issues.

 

[PR1Berske]

Look I really DONT want to start a politics argument on a rail forum. But all I know is Labour spent spent spent spent spent like there was no tomorrow and never planned for a rainy day, anyway end of politics please

It's a point worth making , because it's true

Labour's time in office was economic illiteracy at its most blatant. They spent and spent and spent, but without making the necessary reforms, so the money went nowhere constructive.

The railway industry in 13 years of Labour rule suffered "managed decline", of which they seem to be abjectly proud.

 

[jon0844]

The last Goverment excelled in finding ways to offset costs for another day (when they've long scarpered). Of course, I don't believe the Tories would have been any different if they'd remained in power - and the dreaded PFI word still seems to be popular now as it no doubt will be in future years and another change in Government.

The fact that someone in power today wants quick results and doesn't care about next week is why we'll always be buggered. To them, PFI is like securing a massive loan that doesn't have to be paid off for a few years - so let's go spending!!

Make these people personally accountable for making huge mistakes and they might take a bit more time to rush into these 'get rich quick' type schemes that any outsider can say is risky, at best. PFI was/is every bit as dangerous as all the bad things we blamed on the bankers.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think Mr Crow needs to realise desperately that the more you speak, the less you say. I'm sure thousands, perhaps millions, would respect him more if he made one very good statement every five-ten minor issues; instead of one hyperbolic carbon copy of a speech every time anything happens.

but i hate labour so will so the argument right there

Nowt wrong with that!

 

[PR1Berske]

Completely agree with you, having had the pleasure of Norwich PFI hospital a few times, but what are we going to do about the trains? I know, lets's build loads more in Britain to increase employment and relieve congestion ... oh!

Well with that post we get into the problem we've often mentioned on this forum - the speed with which infrastructure projects are built in the UK

In the time it'll take for one station to be built in England (outside London), China will have built a new city.

 

[yorksrob]

However, if a state-run railway can't make a profit, how does it invest in the future? I can only see that it would eventually begin to suffer as the infrastructure began to crumble, and then the railway would have to go begging to the Government for a hand-out, only to be given scraps.. and things would very quickly begin to go to pot. Forget all the major capital projects, we'd be finding ourselves unable to fund the existing network and I'd still like to know how we could get the huge cost of Network Rail down considering that's the one aspect that is effectively state-run...

But the privatised railway doesn't make a profit.

It has to go begging to the Government now, so how it would cope would depend as now (and as it did when the railways were nationalised) on how much the Government is willing to invest in/subsidise the railway.

Put it this way. Rail magazine, which is generally a cheerleader for privatisation, tots up the amount of private investment in the railway each year. This tends to be in the hundreds of millions of pounds, as opposed to the billions put in by the state. Taken against this, the percentage profits taken by the various private companies, though small in comparison to supermarkets, for example, aren't so insignificant.

 

[jon0844]

Why are some TOCs claiming that they're paying premiums and actually making a loss then?

Wouldn't the money from the Government (and nobody has said that this doesn't still happen under a privatised railway have they?) still be needed, or is a nationalised railway somehow able to reduce all of the costs and still maintain the same - or supposedly better - service?

 

[Dave1987]

Why are some TOCs claiming that they're paying premiums and actually making a loss then?

Wouldn't the money from the Government (and nobody has said that this doesn't still happen under a privatised railway have they?) still be needed, or is a nationalised railway somehow able to reduce all of the costs and still maintain the same - or supposedly better - service?

The biggest problems with re nationalising is:

1) the treasury would never want the railway back on its books because of the huge expenditure
2) harmonising all the various conditions of each area would costs loads

 

[yorksrob]

Why are some TOCs claiming that they're paying premiums and actually making a loss then?

Wouldn't the money from the Government (and nobody has said that this doesn't still happen under a privatised railway have they?) still be needed, or is a nationalised railway somehow able to reduce all of the costs and still maintain the same - or supposedly better - service?

The point is that some TOC's are paying premiums. But some are not. Not to mention the fact that the railway doesn't just consist of TOC's but Network rail as well. The entire split between railway infrastructure and TOC is an artificial construct designed to make some bits of the railway appear profitable.

As for the second part of your post, even McNulty admitted that large numbers of interfaces between different companies lead to additional costs.

 

[BestWestern]

I just want to throw something out there

BBC News is just starting its 10 o'clock news. There's vox-pops from passengers, and they sound exhuasted, fed up and bored by price rises without improvements to service. Now if we accept that there has been improvements to service, why are passengers feeling as though nothing is happening?

Or in other words, why is the PR so bad within the industry that progress can't be identified ?

Unfortunately I think it's actually trying to overdo the PR that has led to much of the apathy. The railway has done itself no favours by insisting that every line closure and rail replacement bus is for 'improvements', rather than just plain old 'essential maintenance work'. So the punters have to suffer a painfully slow ride where they can't bring their bike or their buggy and with no luggage space, calling at every station taking forever, only to find that when the trains are back their journey is exactly the same as it was before, despite the 'improvements' that caused them so much aggro.

There are the big flagship projects; Reading remodelling, Crossrail, Thameslink etc, but they can drag on for so long with passengers suffering so much grief beforehand they fail to appreciate the end result. How many people travelling Reading-London are really going to care that much that Reading has a new station? Even with better services etc, will they really think it worth the big fair rises? I suspect probably not to be honest, in most cases at least. Trains will still be busy, people will still be standing, there will still be disruption on such a congested network.

Travel in the UK is getting expensive, it's an unfortunate fact but here to stay.

 

[EM2]

In the time it'll take for one station to be built in England (outside London), China will have built a new city.

Because unlike China, in this country we like to give the populace an opinion on matters that are likely to directly affect them, rather than evicting them from their homes and forcibly relocating them.

I think one reason people begrudge fare rises is because, to the layman, a lot of improvement is invisible. Who notices renewed overheads or a resignalling scheme? They probably only notice the change from jointed track to CWR because they don't get the clickety-clack any more.
Unless it's their trains or their stations, they just don't see.

 

[yorksrob]

The biggest problems with re nationalising is:

1) the treasury would never want the railway back on its books because of the huge expenditure
2) harmonising all the various conditions of each area would costs loads

Well, privatising the railway was undoubtedly a huge mistake. Whether renationalising now is the answer, I'm not at all sure. We are where we are. It might cause less upheaval to reform the current structure in some way.

 

[BestWestern]

Because unlike China, in this country we like to give the populace an opinion on matters that are likely to directly affect them, rather than evicting them from their homes and forcibly relocating them.

Very true. Also, the cities China might have built will be lethal deathtraps, whereas one can be fairly certain a UK railway infrastructure project is going to be safe!

You cannot avoid the fact that project costs are far too high in the UK however.

 

[johnnychips]

I haven't read all the pages on this thread - but do other countries have so many commuters travelling such long distances as the UK? Solution: Devolve as many government agencies as possible.

 

[billio]

Why are some TOCs claiming that they're paying premiums and actually making a loss then?

Wouldn't the money from the Government (and nobody has said that this doesn't still happen under a privatised railway have they?) still be needed, or is a nationalised railway somehow able to reduce all of the costs and still maintain the same - or supposedly better - service?

Bearing in mind Starbucks etc., I wonder to what extent these companies are making a true loss or small profit rather than a a figure engineered through accounting practices which shift profit to other parts of the overall business ?. We have no idea.

The problem is that the cost of UK railways has risen significantly since privatisation and these costs appear to be significantly above those in other Europeam countries. Government has failed to scrutinise and control these costs and now follows a policy that shifts more and more of these extra costs from the public purse to the traveller.

What opportunity does the traveller have in understanding why rail travel costs so much ?. What controls do they have in refusing to pay what they perceive as unreasonable charges ?. Regular rail travellers are dependant on rail and often have virtually no means to use an alternative mode of transport, at least in the short-term. They therefore have no way of directly impacting on the income of the franchise companies and virtually no impact on infrastructure, rolling stock and other costs. The situation is out of control and will only get worse.

No wonder rail travellers are upset. A nationalised system would at least provide more transparency to illustrate where costs occurred and where profit was being made. The accounts of East Coast should be making clear exactly why fares are rising and why train travel costs what it does. Rebuilding a nationalised system on the basis of this information would not necessarily exclude private operations and investment but it should make it clear to the public what the costs and profits are and how they can be reasonably controlled.