Fare rise, same excuse!

[ANorthernGuard]

London Waterloo passenger numbers dropped by 10 million per annum between 2007/08 and 2009/10. Kings Cross is one of the few London stations that hasn't seen a year on year fall in the last three years.

The stats show that London rail travel has been affected the most by the recession and it has resulted in First Great Western and South West Trains applying for financial support due to lower than expected passenger numbers, while operators like Northern and TPE have had higher than expected passenger numbers and have had subsidies cut because of it.

Passenger numbers are picking up now but 2008 was 3 years ago, operators have had the chance to make changes to ticket types, promotions and the number of advance tickets available to help boost passenger numbers.

Probably the wrong word to use. Pre-Metrolink conversion of the Sale line 4 car DMUs were common place running a 20 minute frequency at peak times.

Peak times are a bit of an issue the Chester-Stockport services are less popular than the Chester-Manchester services and the evening through trains from Manchester aren't well timed.

Thats really splitting hairs JC, 20 years is an eternity on the railway, I have spent around 10 years up and down that line and spoke to the old hands we all agree every line we do is far busier (in recent memory to appease JC lol)

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Yes fare revenue has to pay as high a proportion of investment and operating costs as possible in order to avoid burdening the general taxpayers too much.
The situation is the same even in countries where the rail service is still wholly or largely nationalised.
What most of these countries do not have is a layer of parasites such as Souter and Lockhead (sorry-retired parasite!) creaming off a large percentage in "dividends" for essentially doing SFA.
That's what makes people angry - the knowledge that a large proportion of what is being screwed out of them is simply going straight to subsidising these innefficient, low quality con-merchants rather than paying rail workers wages or for improved infrastructure and trains.

And it is also this problem which forces up other costs. Recent industrial disputes on the Railways about pay have largely been as a result of this problem. As I understand it, the main cause behind the TPE pay dispute (and resultant strike) this year was because Revenue at TPE increased dramatically, revenue at First Group from the rail division increased, the directors at both levels gave themselves an above inflation pay rise, but decided to offer the staff on the front line - who earn them all the dosh - a well below inflation pay rise.

Situations like this force up the costs of running the railways - which will of course result in fare increases.

In BR days, while there were of course regional and area managers there surely cannot have been so many levels of managers, directors etc etc all trying to cream off more and more money each year.

 

[kylemore]

And it is also this problem which forces up other costs. Recent industrial disputes on the Railways about pay have largely been as a result of this problem. As I understand it, the main cause behind the TPE pay dispute (and resultant strike) this year was because Revenue at TPE increased dramatically, revenue at First Group from the rail division increased, the directors at both levels gave themselves an above inflation pay rise, but decided to offer the staff on the front line - who earn them all the dosh - a well below inflation pay rise.

Situations like this force up the costs of running the railways - which will of course result in fare increases.

In BR days, while there were of course regional and area managers there surely cannot have been so many levels of managers, directors etc etc all trying to cream off more and more money each year.

The feeling must be that even in corrupt Britain this situation cannot go on for ever and that they (crooks such as stagecoach/first) must screw as much out of it before the gravy train hits the buffers! (pardon the pun)

 

[thedbdiboy]

Having the most inefficient railways in Europe doesn't help, but the passengers and taxpayers have to pick up the tab for that.

I'm giving up my job in central London. It's not longer worth it with no pay rises for 3 years and trains going up.

It depends on how youy define inefficient. In my BR days the organisation was always being accused of inefficiency - indeed that was given as one of the reasons for privatisation. In fact, BR was actually very efficient at getting a quart out of a pint pot, which is why so much rolling stock was old, stations shabby etc.

The railway of today is generally transformed compared to 20 years ago, standards are much higher for stations and rolling stock - but it has come at a great cost. I'm not saying money is never wasted, but the real issue is whether it is over-specified in the first place (and I'm not suggesting an answer, just saying that you get what you pay for). Also, with the multi-organisation structure now in place there is no room to hide or lose costs - everyone wants paying in full for their bit.

Oh, and BR fare increases were every bit as painful as the current ones. The only time fares went down was in the early years of privatsiation, as a sort of bribe....and that had to be reversed because obviously you can't keep cutting the money you get from fares without the subsidy going up!

 

[yorksrob]

The railway of today is generally transformed compared to 20 years ago, standards are much higher for stations and rolling stock - but it has come at a great cost. I'm not saying money is never wasted, but the real issue is whether it is over-specified in the first place (and I'm not suggesting an answer, just saying that you get what you pay for). Also, with the multi-organisation structure now in place there is no room to hide or lose costs - everyone wants paying in full for their bit.

I always find the point about rolling stock a bit of a red herring. Certainly, if you look at the railway at the time of privatisation there was also a fair bit of rolling stock that was quite old - but then again there was a great deal that was relatively new. If you look at the network now, there has been a lot of investment in trains since then (you would have hoped so since it has been over fifteen years !) but there is still a hell of a lot of "legacy" stock around which will be around for many years to come.

 

[chris89]

No supprise at the cost increase really.

But for the journey i normally do has had a 'bigish' increase compared to the last increases.

Wolverhampton - Edinburgh Waverly: With an 16 - 25 Railcard.

Was £67.90 Will become £71.90. Route is of course via the WCML with Virgin Trains.

Not a big increase and to see the person at the end of it to me is well worth it

Chris

 

[Greenback]

I always find the point about rolling stock a bit of a red herring. Certainly, if you look at the railway at the time of privatisation there was also a fair bit of rolling stock that was quite old - but then again there was a great deal that was relatively new. If you look at the network now, there has been a lot of investment in trains since then (you would have hoped so since it has been over fifteen years !) but there is still a hell of a lot of "legacy" stock around which will be around for many years to come.

Indeed, the rolling stock is pretty much as much of a mixed bag as it was in 1992.

I wonder whether the standards of new rolling stock are really higher as seen through the eyes of the average traveller? We know that changes in the law mean that higher specifications are set for new trains, but I would argue that from the point of view of the average traveller, the onboard environment has not really improved in terms of comfort, at least as far as seating and lighting are concerned.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, the rolling stock is pretty much as much of a mixed bag as it was in 1992.

I wonder whether the standards of new rolling stock are really higher as seen through the eyes of the average traveller? We know that changes in the law mean that higher specifications are set for new trains, but I would argue that from the point of view of the average traveller, the onboard environment has not really improved in terms of comfort, at least as far as seating and lighting are concerned.

I must admit, for me I find a lot of more modern rolling stock more claustrophobic and less comfortable than even traditional high density designs (having a particular dislike of airline seating). But then I suppose some people prefer the lack of draughts on newer air conditioned stock.

I suppose as much is down to personal taste and standard of maintenance as the actual age of the train itself.

 

[jon0844]

If I look at some of the old stock from the 70s and 80s, I really do wonder if the stock built in the 90s and 00s will ever last as long.

Of course, a shiny new train looks nice. If it's well ventilated and sound proofed, with comfortable seats, then the general public will prefer them. Modern trains generally look very sleek from the outside, and they may be safer too.

But when I travel on a 313, which is 35 years old, and I am not sure I've ever been on one that has actually broken down personally, or I sit on a refurbed HST, I do think that rolling stock isn't really a big problem for most people (Pacer users excepted). What people need are trains that of a sufficient length or frequency, not brand new stock - especially when old stock can be given a proper refurbishment and not just a refresh.

I do always wonder how we need to raise fares when usage is increasing, as there always seems to be a natural increase in revenue from the extra people buying tickets! I also think that we need to continue to look at how much money is wasted by the high prices to get relatively simple work done.

 

[tbtc]

If I look at some of the old stock from the 70s and 80s, I really do wonder if the stock built in the 90s and 00s will ever last as long

Hopefully they won't need to last significantly longer than they were designed to.

 

[YorkshireBear]

3p of everyones pound spent on railways goes as profit to the railways. For Coca Cola it is 27p of every pound. Yet train companies are made to look greedy? Bit of a ridiculous world to be honest.

 

[asylumxl]

3p of everyones pound spent on railways goes as profit to the railways. For Coca Cola it is 27p of every pound. Yet train companies are made to look greedy? Bit of a ridiculous world to be honest.

I was under the impression a percentage goes as profit, and as such with fare increases this would become a larger amount per person?

 

[tbtc]

3p of everyones pound spent on railways goes as profit to the railways. For Coca Cola it is 27p of every pound. Yet train companies are made to look greedy? Bit of a ridiculous world to be honest.

I agree that the margins for running TOCs aren't *huge*. People like to quote the millions of pounds taken in profit, but its all relative. A sum of money needs context to be meaningful (£1m profit is a lot for a corner shop, £1m profit for Tesco is insignificant).

Maybe the question should be "how much of my £5 fare goes to the TOC in profit"? That's a lot more "real" than the overall figure, as I could then see how much they "cost" me.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I was under the impression a percentage goes as profit, and as such with fare increases this would become a larger amount per person?

Percentages in terms of profit arnt going up for TOCs as far as i am aware. My point was as a round about figure. 3% of your rail ticket is profit whereas 27% of your coke bottle is profit for them, so how come TOCs are portrayed as greedy but Coca Cola arn't?

 

[Lampshade]

Percentages in terms of profit arnt going up for TOCs as far as i am aware. My point was as a round about figure. 3% of your rail ticket is profit whereas 27% of your coke bottle is profit for them, so how come TOCs are portrayed as greedy but Coca Cola arn't?

Coca Cola is providing a luxury item, merely a product, and we all know Coca Cola is pretty greedy anyway, it's just when it comes to companies like Coke/Nestlé/Disney etc, it's almost as if it's expected of them, so it's not like it's an enormous outrage.

TOCs are providing a service - yes you can go on about how privatisation means they exist to make money etc etc etc but the crux of the matter is the railways are a public service. 3p in every Pound would mean XC were making £30-odd profit on that ludicrous £1000 fare they had a few years ago.

 

[starrymarkb]

True - 50% of the fare goes to Network Rail with another large chunk to the Rosco..

 

[dk1]

Well it's a common thing within British society it seems. The same thing is happening on a larger scale with the welfare state, people want good free healthcare, they want good free schools, they want good state pensions and they want various other bits a bobs that we have, but none of them want to pay the taxes necessary to actually fund all of this adequately...

How very true. When people moan about paying for council services I always tell them how happy i am to pay. We get superb service here from all the local authorities. Ok there is always going to be something that someone thinks is wasting a few pennies of their payment but on the whole we are very very lucky & i begrudge nothing. As we type i am putting a tenner in the Chrimbo card for the Bins boys & girls

 

[tbtc]

Coca Cola is providing a luxury item, merely a product, and we all know Coca Cola is pretty greedy anyway, it's just when it comes to companies like Coke/Nestlé/Disney etc, it's almost as if it's expected of them, so it's not like it's an enormous outrage.

TOCs are providing a service - yes you can go on about how privatisation means they exist to make money etc etc etc but the crux of the matter is the railways are a public service. 3p in every Pound would mean XC were making £30-odd profit on that ludicrous £1000 fare they had a few years ago.

That hypothetical fare that nobody bought?

3p in the £ means 15p on my £5 ticket. How much do the ROSCO get out of that £4.97? How much do Network Rail get? How much goes in pension contributions/ insurance/ bureaucracy?

Fact is, costs have gone up by *significantly* more than 3% since privatisation - there are many more costs that could be trimmed/ waste...

 

[jon0844]

I do actually feel sorry for the TOCs some times. They do make a profit, but nowhere near as much as other people in the chain - yet being the face of the railway, who gets all the blame?

 

[yorksrob]

It may well be only 3p in the pound, but that's 3p from a loss making public service which still has to be made up from somewhere and which will attract the attention of the powers that be.

 

[asylumxl]

That hypothetical fare that nobody bought?

3p in the £ means 15p on my £5 ticket. How much do the ROSCO get out of that £4.97? How much do Network Rail get? How much goes in pension contributions/ insurance/ bureaucracy?

Fact is, costs have gone up by *significantly* more than 3% since privatisation - there are many more costs that could be trimmed/ waste...

I'm not saying TOCs are greedy, but let's put it in perspective.

Let's think of a station such as London Waterloo where all trains are operated by one TOC. Your average commuter will probably buy a ticket or season ticket where the majority of revenue will go to SWT. Think how many people commute in and out of Waterloo each day and do so almost every day of each year. Then think how much their tickets/season tickets cost, and then work out 3 percent of that. It's not a small amount. The money is in the sheer bulk of customers.

Let's also not forget there are ways of generating revenue for the TOCS other than through the sale of tickets.

 

[Markdvdman]

It is annoying as more people are using the railways but standards are going downhill!!!

The Valleys Lines are a flaming joke and that is a FACT! Trains break down with regularity - so the new stock rubbish is a lie as it will not happen until 2018!

West Wales is a joke and all - never enough carriages, and FGW trains are always delayed.

Signal faults are incredibly common causing massive delays.

The point is, the fare increases will NOT resolve ANY of the above issues, so I am going to have to spend £2200 or near enough next year instead of this year and face worse issues as it will only get worse not better!

 

[martinsh]

3p of everyones pound spent on railways goes as profit to the railways. For Coca Cola it is 27p of every pound. Yet train companies are made to look greedy? Bit of a ridiculous world to be honest.

When my train ticket costs the same as a bottle of Coca Cola, then I won't brudge the "train companies" 27% profit !

 

[Holly]

I'm afraid these complaints ignore the uncomfortable fact that railways require something like a £5 billion subsidy per year, and the government has no money.

As compared with British Rail losses of £1 billion in the last year, if memory serves. Seems like a publically owned railway was a much better deal all around.
For 99% of the people that is.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not saying TOCs are greedy, but let's put it in perspective.

Let's think of a station such as London Waterloo where all trains are operated by one TOC. Your average commuter will probably buy a ticket or season ticket where the majority of revenue will go to SWT. Think how many people commute in and out of Waterloo each day and do so almost every day of each year. Then think how much their tickets/season tickets cost, and then work out 3 percent of that. It's not a small amount. The money is in the sheer bulk of customers.

Let's also not forget there are ways of generating revenue for the TOCS other than through the sale of tickets.

...but even if you got rid of profit making companies (and still managed to run the railway just as efficiently, despite no incentive) then you'd only save 3% of the costs, which is about half the inflationary rise on an average ticket.

Yup, for all the FAT CAT headlines, the "cost" of these profits are about half the cost of one year's ticket rise.

If you want to cut costs then surely you could save more money by looking at the money going to ROSCOs (for every million pounds worth of new train they buy, how much will they make back over thirty years worth of "rent"?) or the money going to layers of bureaucracy or poor management by Network Rail/ DFT etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As compared with British Rail losses of £1 billion in the last year, if memory serves. Seems like a publically owned railway was a much better deal all around.
For 99% of the people that is.

Are you taking fifteen years of inflation into account?

 

[table38]

 

[asylumxl]

...but even if you got rid of profit making companies (and still managed to run the railway just as efficiently, despite no incentive) then you'd only save 3% of the costs, which is about half the inflationary rise on an average ticket.

Yup, for all the FAT CAT headlines, the "cost" of these profits are about half the cost of one year's ticket rise.

If you want to cut costs then surely you could save more money by looking at the money going to ROSCOs (for every million pounds worth of new train they buy, how much will they make back over thirty years worth of "rent"?) or the money going to layers of bureaucracy or poor management by Network Rail/ DFT etc.

Like I said in a previous post on this topic, a lot of money could be saved if the government didn't spend money on idiotic schemes, and I appreciate the way the privatised system was set up is diabolical. But what I'm trying to say is, when you put it into perspective 3% out of a large sum of money is still not an amount to be sniffed at. Furthermore, if the 3% profit stays the same throughout the fare increase this is still a small increase in profit for the TOC.

I appreciate they aren't taking most of the money from fares, but despite the low percentages they still make decent profit otherwise they would not bother bidding for franchises.

 

[tbtc]

Like I said in a previous post on this topic, a lot of money could be saved if the government didn't spend money on idiotic schemes, and I appreciate the way the privatised system was set up is diabolical. But what I'm trying to say is, when you put it into perspective 3% out of a large sum of money is still not an amount to be sniffed at. Furthermore, if the 3% profit stays the same throughout the fare increase this is still a small increase in profit for the TOC.

I appreciate they aren't taking most of the money from fares, but despite the low percentages they still make decent profit otherwise they would not bother bidding for franchises.

I accept that the total sum taken in profits sounds like a huge figure, but every national figure in the multi billion world of railways sounds massive.

As a daft example, if you said that Network Rail spent £100,000 on tea/coffee for staff last year then that sounds like a scandal. But then if you explained how many staff they employ and that meant about £3/ year on coffee/tea in a year (the price of one Starbucks drink) per employee then suddenly that big figure appears tiny.

I try to perceive big figures like TOC profits in terms of the "cost" to me - a few pence on each journey - which is why I'm not that angry (esp compared to what the rest of my ticket price pays for)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As someone who works that line I can honestly say its never been busier, The Duo ticket is a complete success (annoys people in Dec on Sat & Sun tho when they cannot get one) and it quite a reliable route (considering 142's and Leaf Fall) with the help of the MCRUA it has been getting more publicity and Northern are doing their utmost to strengthen services, In fact all the routes I work (and I do alot) have all seen there numbers increase quite amazingly over the last 10 years, there are a few tickets (especially in the TfGM area) like Rangers, Cheap Evening Returns Accompanied Child etc. that make tickets and travel alot cheaper, maybe other areas should consider throwing something into the pot so to speak

I've no problem with cheaper tickets like these (though they must make your job a lot harder, remembering them all and their validity...). We've used Duo tickets before to make single journeys with (due to lack of "period" return, its cheaper to buy a Duo than a full priced single), which sounds daft, but I'm not complaining!

However I don't agree with using stats from lines with discounted tickets like these to compare to stats from lines without such discounts - if London termini saw a fall in passenger numbers whilst Manchester termini rise that sounds significant, but its an unfair comparison if one is counting full priced ticket holders whilst the other counts "bargain" fares (including people like me who buy Duos and only go one way, but are presumably counted twice in the stats).

 

[Holly]

I'm afraid these complaints ignore the uncomfortable fact that railways require something like a £5 billion subsidy per year, and the government has no money.

As compared with British Rail losses of £1 billion (sic - £1.1billion) in the last year, if memory serves. Seems like a publically owned railway was a much better deal all around.

...Are you taking fifteen (sic) years of inflation into account?

In 2010, the relative worth of £1.1bn from 1993 is:
£1.8bn using the retail price index
£1.6bn using the GDP deflator
£2.1bn using the average earnings
£2.3bn using the per capita GDP
£2.4bn using the share of GDP
Source - http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/

So it's fair to say that the privatised railways cost the British tax payers roughly 2.5 times what a nationalised railway costs. Of course if fares are a lot cheaper (inflation adjusted) now than then - then the extra income taxes might make the less spacious coaches more bearable.

 

[nedchester]

In 2010, the relative worth of £1.1bn from 1993 is:
£1.8bn using the retail price index
£1.6bn using the GDP deflator
£2.1bn using the average earnings
£2.3bn using the per capita GDP
£2.4bn using the share of GDP
Source - http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/

So it's fair to say that the privatised railways cost the British tax payers roughly 2.5 times what a nationalised railway costs. Of course if fares are a lot cheaper (inflation adjusted) now than then - then the extra income taxes might make the less spacious coaches more bearable.

The idea of privatising the railway was to make the railway less of a burden to the taxpayer and exactly the opposite has happened.

For it's size BR was quiet efficient whereas now we have each TOC with it's own management structure and accountancy structure which by it's very nature is going to be more costly than one single company.

If I was the government looking to cut the deficit then I'd look at renationalising but that going to happen as it would go against the grain and also would upset some shareholders.....