Should Shapps raise rail fares in a time like this?

[yorksrob]

The railway needs to be working flat out to attract passengers once "stay at home" is buried.

Charging £30+ to get from West Yorkshire to the coast when the trains are very lightly loaded (as an example) isn't doing that.

 

[Whistler40145]

If rail fares were increased, I would expect some people would stay away from travelling by train

 

[Purple Orange]

But it's not as simple as say "just run longer trains" - there may be infrastructure limitations which prevent longer trains e.g. platform lengths, signal siting etc. Addressing those all adds to the cost.

And again, there's the cost of obtaining new trains - LNW / WMT reckoned 100 new trains was going to cost it around £ 680m - so about £ 7m a train. And how do your propose to staff additional services ? You've got inflexible and belligerent unions who won't countenance a penny of cost reduction, which means expanding rail services comes at a huge cost.

With Manchester - Birmingham, that's fine if you want to go city centre to city centre - it's not so clever if your journey is Cradley Heath to Trafford Park for example. Journeys which on the face of it are "simple" flows often aren't.

Yeah there are some infrastructure issues that need resolving, but not for 8-car services along the WCML. Nor for 6-car services on many commuter routes. The obstacles you are putting up are not very big obstacles at all.

Some journeys may always struggle to compete with the car, but many do not, and that is no reason to not have better rail services. City-centre to city-centre and Birmingham Suburb to Manchester City-Centre are very much routes that should be better served by rail. Even much of Birmingham Suburb to Manchester Suburb. I would not dream of driving to Brum from my house on the south of Greater Manchester. Wilmslow-Stockport-Birmingham or Wilmslow-Crewe-Birmingham is a much more useful and reliable route than driving down the M6.

 

[zwk500]

The railway needs to be working flat out to attract passengers once "stay at home" is buried.

Charging £30+ to get from West Yorkshire to the coast when the trains are very lightly loaded (as an example) isn't doing that.

My bold.

I think the highlighted part is the key. The railways don't need 'as many people as possible', they need to get maximum revenue from each service (up to a point). If a train runs lightly loaded, then cutting fares is likely togenerate more overall revenue. But if a train ordinarily ran packed out pre-COVID, you don't need to cut the fare. A small rise would be tolerable, as everybody understands the financial plight of just about everything right now.

This does, however, require a much more flexible ticketing system and a much more dynamic pricing policy. Peak/Off-Peak is probably going to be a less useful distinction going forward, so when the government is looking at reforming the fares system it needs to take account of how much travel patterns have changed (and they were changing pre-COVID).

 

[yorksrob]

My bold.

I think the highlighted part is the key. The railways don't need 'as many people as possible', they need to get maximum revenue from each service (up to a point). If a train runs lightly loaded, then cutting fares is likely togenerate more overall revenue. But if a train ordinarily ran packed out pre-COVID, you don't need to cut the fare. A small rise would be tolerable, as everybody understands the financial plight of just about everything right now.

This does, however, require a much more flexible ticketing system and a much more dynamic pricing policy. Peak/Off-Peak is probably going to be a less useful distinction going forward, so when the government is looking at reforming the fares system it needs to take account of how much travel patterns have changed (and they were changing pre-COVID).

That does assume that the same passengers are going to come flooding back post covid. I'm not sure that that will automatically be the case.

 

[A0]

The railway needs to be working flat out to attract passengers once "stay at home" is buried.

Charging £30+ to get from West Yorkshire to the coast when the trains are very lightly loaded (as an example) isn't doing that.

Well let's put that in context - Leeds to Scarborough is £ 34.80, it's a round trip of 140 miles. That comes out at about 24p / mile - hardly excessive and almost certainly less than the actual cost of the journey in terms of the train, staffing and wear and tear on the infrastructure. Leeds - Scarborough by bus is £ 17.50 and it's been demonstrated on many occasions that a bus is much cheaper to operate per passenger mile than the train - and the bus is entirely commercial and not subsidised.

 

[yorksrob]

Well let's put that in context - Leeds to Scarborough is £ 34.80, it's a round trip of 140 miles. That comes out at about 24p / mile - hardly excessive and almost certainly less than the actual cost of the journey in terms of the train, staffing and wear and tear on the infrastructure. Leeds - Scarborough by bus is £ 17.50 and it's been demonstrated on many occasions that a bus is much cheaper to operate per passenger mile than the train - and the bus is entirely commercial and not subsidised.

I'm sorry, but the train has to be competitive to household budgets to attract the punters. If a bus is charging half the cost, then the railway will have to be even more competitive (although it will have certain product advantages over the bus).

 

[zwk500]

That does assume that the same passengers are going to come flooding back post covid. I'm not sure that that will automatically be the case.

I suspect a lot of firms will shift (as many already have) to maintaining office space for less than 100% of their workforce and expecting employees to split time between remote and in-office working.

And I suspect anybody who travelled for leisure before will do so again fairly quickly. It's encouraging those who wouldn't have, or were 50/50, to convert that is the problem.

Well let's put that in context - Leeds to Scarborough is £ 34.80, it's a round trip of 140 miles. That comes out at about 24p / mile - hardly excessive and almost certainly less than the actual cost of the journey in terms of the train, staffing and wear and tear on the infrastructure. Leeds - Scarborough by bus is £ 17.50 and it's been demonstrated on many occasions that a bus is much cheaper to operate per passenger mile than the train - and the bus is entirely commercial and not subsidised.

Although a train company can split it's costs across many more passengers, and often has greater opportunity to maximise the utilisation of it's assets. But I think a strict comparison by mile isn't the most helpful way of identifying if a service is 'good value' or not.

 

[A0]

I'm sorry, but the train has to be competitive to household budgets to attract the punters. If a bus is charging half the cost, then the railway will have to be even more competitive (although it will have certain product advantages over the bus).

But the train can't run at an ever increasing loss.

And I think you're massively overstating the "household budget" argument. If you do it as a family of 2 adult, 2 children with a railcard you get change from £ 60 - that's easily competitive with driving and a day's parking at a seaside town.

To provide some context a trip to the cinema for a family of 4 will usually cost circa £ 25, a meal out will easily cost £ 40, a trip to a 'theme park' won't give you change from £ 100 in most cases.

I think you're either misguided or deluded about the reality of how much things cost. None of these things were ever 'cheap'.

 

[yorksrob]

But the train can't run at an ever increasing loss.

And I think you're massively overstating the "household budget" argument. If you do it as a family of 2 adult, 2 children with a railcard you get change from £ 60 - th
at's easily competitive with driving and a day's parking at a seaside town.

To provide some context a trip to the cinema for a family of 4 will usually cost circa £ 25, a meal out will easily cost £ 40, a trip to a 'theme park' won't give you change from £ 100 in most cases.

I think you're either misguided or deluded about the reality of how much things cost. None of these things were ever 'cheap'.

The bottom line is that the railway will need to get its passengers back. That will mean keeping an eye on what the competition are charging and providing attractive enough fares.

You're deluded if you think otherwise.

 

[zwk500]

The bottom line is that the railway will need to get its passengers back. That will mean keeping an eye on what the competition are charging and providing attractive enough fares.

You're deluded if you think otherwise.

The bottom line is that the railway will need to get its money back. That will mean keeping an eye on what people are willing to pay and charging according to the best yield management.

In some cases cutting fares will help, in others raising fares will.

 

[A0]

The bottom line is that the railway will need to get its passengers back. That will mean keeping an eye on what the competition are charging and providing attractive enough fares.

You're deluded if you think otherwise.

The bus takes 3 times as long - so the choice is clear, if you want to get out and back in a round trip of 2 hours, you'll pay the additional to use the train. If you're that tight on budget you'll take the hit on the journey time and use the bus - it has always been that way.

The competition isn't providing a like for like service given the extended journey time.

 

[yorksrob]

The bottom line is that the railway will need to get its money back. That will mean keeping an eye on what people are willing to pay and charging according to the best yield management.

In some cases cutting fares will help, in others raising fares will.

There's a lot of truth in what you say.

AP has probably done as much as can be done to bring longer distance travel within the affordability range. There's probably not much that can be done to cut shorter distance commuting costs either, beyond a flexible type season ticket.

It's those medium distance, leisure type day trip services which aren't easily suited to AP, where there is fares fat that can be snipped to generate passenger income.

 

[AM9]

It's totally unrealistic to think you'll "break the population's addiction to motoring". Pre Covid alot of lines and services were at or near capacity. If you shifted 10% onto rail (pre Covid), you'd basically flood the rail network. And before you then say "oh, that's OK, build more lines", you have to consider the process that *has* to be followed for that - you can't just ignore the planning process for your pet form of transport but expect other forms to be subject to it. Equally, you won't see change from about £40m / mile of new line - and that has to be paid for somehow.

No it's not 'unrealistic' to take steps that will eefectively make transport more sustainable. And in doing so, many will need to chage their lifestyles, otherwise no significant progress will be made on limiting climate change. Like it or not, roads will not continue to be the location of gross pollution for much longer. But this thread is about rail fares, and despite rail and other 'public transport' mode being key to achieving those sustainability objectives, I accept that Transport Minsters will continue to use fares to manage demand. However, I doubt that the kind of rises being considered here will make a significant dent in rail travel volumes when we are in the 'post COVID-19' relaxation period.
The railway will benefit from the squeezing of unbridled car use though, so any future demand managerment will be able to work in tandem with that.
Probably a more effective strategy might be to address the much discussed co-operation between buses and rail, (both in services and fare interavailability) - but of course that doesn't go well with Conservative dogma.

 

[A0]

And in doing so, many will need to chage their lifestyles,

I take it you're leading by example along with other posters here.

Because I won't contemplate it until everyone who keeps lecturing others on how they should travel has done so.

 

[Starmill]

Well let's put that in context - Leeds to Scarborough is £ 34.80, it's a round trip of 140 miles. That comes out at about 24p / mile - hardly excessive and almost certainly less than the actual cost of the journey in terms of the train, staffing and wear and tear on the infrastructure. Leeds - Scarborough by bus is £ 17.50 and it's been demonstrated on many occasions that a bus is much cheaper to operate per passenger mile than the train - and the bus is entirely commercial and not subsidised.

Almost everyone from Leeds going to Scarborough for a day in Summer will drive, not use the bus. Worth noting there's no group discount on that £34.80, and also that an Advance ticket isn't really suitable for a family day on the beach, for a variety of reasons. So the actual cost for 2 adults and 2 children is £104.40 plus a bus to the station in the morning and a taxi in the evening, or Leeds city centre parking. Probably £130 total. Compared to just driving all the way?

Now of course, these people could avail themselves of a family railcard... but only if they know about that. And the savings on the first trip are thin, £59.10 on fares and £30 on the railcard, they have saved just £15.30. Price rises considerably if any of the children are past their 16th birthday or if there's a fifth individual in the party (e.g a grandparent), despite the car costing the same in this case.

Arguments about the cost of infrastructure are great for enthusiasts, railway managers, civil servants or politicians, but the travelling public have zero interest in them. They simply see something that's overpriced, and react appropriately.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==

I take it you're leading by example along with other posters here.

Because I won't contemplate it until everyone who keeps lecturing others on how they should travel has done so.

The problem is that almost eveyone accepts on some level that climate change will take their lifestyle choices away from them. The issue is that by making a personal sacrifice while others continue unchecked, you lose out enormously. Classic Tragedy of the Commons. I know I personally struggle with such decisions on a regular basis. One summer I paid £85 for a rail ticket from Glasgow to Southampton, even after a railcard discount this was three times the price of the flight and took all day rather than getting me there in the morning. If it weren't for the carbon cost of flying that would have been crazy behaviour.

 

[AM9]

I take it you're leading by example along with other posters here.

Because I won't contemplate it until everyone who keeps lecturing others on how they should travel has done so.

Absolutely:

I walk wherever I can locally*, except when I'm too tired or carrying something when I would catch a bus. *locally as in St Albans City and its residential environs​

If I'm going to London, I walk to the station (St Albans City or St Albans Abbey as appropriate, and travel is usually on an outboundary travelcard. I might use the bus back from City station if I'm tired.​

For going on UK holidays, in the last 7 years, (Fowey, Brixham, St Ives, Chester), all journeys have been by rail.​

When I go on other days out in the last 10 years, (Birmingham NEC, East Anglia*, Brighton, Lancashire, West Midlands, South/West Yorkshire), etc, it's by train from St Albans. *except East Anglia where I drove to Cambridge Park and Ride to get an Anglia Plus Ranger.​

Does that fit your "leading by example", even if it didn't, it doesn't disqualify me advocating what I think will probably happen in the near future.

I can't speak for any other posters' travel habits or modes.

 

[Starmill]

Absolutely:

I walk wherever I can locally*, except when I'm too tired or carrying something when I would catch a bus. *locally as in St Albans City and its residential environs​

If I'm going to London, I walk to the station (St Albans City or St Albans Abbey as appropriate, and travel is usually on an outboundary travelcard. I might use the bus back from City station if I'm tired.​

For going on UK holidays, in the last 7 years, (Fowey, Brixham, St Ives, Chester), all journeys have been by rail.​

When I go on other days out in the last 10 years, (Birmingham NEC, East Anglia*, Brighton, Lancashire, West Midlands, South/West Yorkshire), etc, it's by train from St Albans. *except East Anglia where I drove to Cambridge Park and Ride to get an Anglia Plus Ranger.​

Does that fit your "leading by example", even if it didn't, it doesn't disqualify me advocating what I think will probably happen in the near future.

I can't speak for any other posters' travel habits or modes.

A laudable example, and I also manage to get nearly all of my grocery shopping done on foot as well, without relying on delivery, taxis or a car. But I find that increasingly is a drag, and there are so many Continental destinations I have been eager to visit on holiday for so long, and yet feel completely priced out without the use of a budget airline.

 

[Purple Orange]

I take it you're leading by example along with other posters here.

Because I won't contemplate it until everyone who keeps lecturing others on how they should travel has done so.

In what context will you not “contemplate it”? Is that giving up your car completely? Reducing your car usage? Or using public transport at all?

Personally I take the train or walk as a first choice preference. It is not always possible to get to a given place that does not require a car or indeed if I am transporting something large. I won’t contemplate using my car when there is a greener alternative and to add to it, I’ve not been on a flight since 2016. However I will never rule out flying again if the situation demands that I board a plane.

 

[DB]

I take it you're leading by example along with other posters here.

Because I won't contemplate it until everyone who keeps lecturing others on how they should travel has done so.

In my case, I do not own a car and very rarely travel in anyone else's car (will drive the work pool cars if it's absolutely the only option), and I do not use planes.

So yes, I think I am leading by example in this case...

 

[SynthD]

That does assume that the same passengers are going to come flooding back post covid. I'm not sure that that will automatically be the case.

Agreed. If it were as simple as: pre covid an average peak train was four times as full as an average off peak train and post covid it will only be twice as full - then there is room to expand, to carry more leisure users and more often.

 

[yorksrob]

Almost everyone from Leeds going to Scarborough for a day in Summer will drive, not use the bus. Worth noting there's no group discount on that £34.80, and also that an Advance ticket isn't really suitable for a family day on the beach, for a variety of reasons. So the actual cost for 2 adults and 2 children is £104.40 plus a bus to the station in the morning and a taxi in the evening, or Leeds city centre parking. Probably £130 total. Compared to just driving all the way?

Now of course, these people could avail themselves of a family railcard... but only if they know about that. And the savings on the first trip are thin, £59.10 on fares and £30 on the railcard, they have saved just £15.30. Price rises considerably if any of the children are past their 16th birthday or if there's a fifth individual in the party (e.g a grandparent), despite the car costing the same in this case.

Arguments about the cost of infrastructure are great for enthusiasts, railway managers, civil servants or politicians, but the travelling public have zero interest in them. They simply see something that's overpriced, and react appropriately.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==


The problem is that almost eveyone accepts on some level that climate change will take their lifestyle choices away from them. The issue is that by making a personal sacrifice while others continue unchecked, you lose out enormously. Classic Tragedy of the Commons. I know I personally struggle with such decisions on a regular basis. One summer I paid £85 for a rail ticket from Glasgow to Southampton, even after a railcard discount this was three times the price of the flight and took all day rather than getting me there in the morning. If it weren't for the carbon cost of flying that would have been crazy behaviour.

That's a good point. Simple group save offers work very well in the South and South West of the country and encourage me and the family to use the train for leisure. I think it would certainly be worth considering something similar for Northern/TPE.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==

I take it you're leading by example along with other posters here.

Because I won't contemplate it until everyone who keeps lecturing others on how they should travel has done so.

I don't drive and have never run a car. I find that public transport generally suits my needs, and I haven't flown for over fifteen years.