The Mcnulty Report and saving 30%

[Bald Rick]

6. The trains will be uncomfortably full (peak trains into Birmingham New Street)
7. The rail fare is so high, that I think "I'm not paying that!" and make alternative arrangements.

To solve this do you:

a) put up fares to choke off demand such that the trains are less full (as per NSE in the late 80s), or,
b) reduce fares so that more people think they are more reasonable, thus increasing the overcrowding problem.

In your answer, explain how you could reduce fares yet increase capacity at the same time, noting how that all but a handful of long distance routes and a slightly larger handful of outer suburban London commuter services do not require subsidy in some form.

 

[Kettledrum]

To solve this do you:

a) put up fares to choke off demand such that the trains are less full (as per NSE in the late 80s), or,
b) reduce fares so that more people think they are more reasonable, thus increasing the overcrowding problem.

In your answer, explain how you could reduce fares yet increase capacity at the same time, noting how that all but a handful of long distance routes and a slightly larger handful of outer suburban London commuter services do not require subsidy in some form.

I don't like either of your solutions, but in some parts of the country, particularly outside the south east there are different solutions that could work on different routes.

I am very old fashioned in believing that the railways enable better employment mobility and help keep more people in work. if more people are in work paying taxes, then there is wider economic benefit that may justify some subsidy.

The wider economic benefit should justify some investment and there are lots of overcrowded 3 and 4 coach trains in the midlands and the north which have lots of scope to be lengthened to bring in more income for the railways. The problem is the payback period as the cost of the additional coaches and some platform lengthening could take years to generate the additional income from new passengers alone.

I can't realistically see fares being reduced, with the possible exception of when HS2 opens which might see some lower fares to encourage people to use the new capacity.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Perhaps by increasing train lengths to a length that actually serves a purpose so train crew can actually get through a train, ticket everyone, and put an end to reuse of standard opens, railcard and child fare abuse to get round restrictions and ticket gates etc. However, only an overhaul of ticketing as a whole will entirely solve this problem.

Revenue protection could be taken far more seriously. An in-house but independant revenue protection force. Fully pace trained and authorised to work on ANY train but still directly answerable to the duty traincrew. Organise their own sting operations, own prosecutions department with intel feeds from their own operations and from the TOCs (PF, UPFN and TIs would go directly to them)

Currently many TOCs do RP in house but often the "regulars" that repeat offend travel across multiple TOCs. Should one get banned from VTEC for example TPE may not necessarily know about it leaving the offender to continue dodging. An independant agency would be able to identify trends and patterns and target problem trains and areas far more effectively.income and prosecutions would go up and would more than pay for itself many times over

 

[Philip]

The concept of advertising was mentioned earlier but dismissed as tacky. But why not? Who cares if it's tacky if it brings in huge amounts of revenue? There'll be plenty of trackside space for advertisement hoardings and billboards, on station platforms and buildings, on bridges and tunnels that aren't listed structures and on the trains themselves of course - Ginsters anyone?

 

[Railsigns]

The concept of advertising was mentioned earlier but dismissed as tacky. But why not? Who cares if it's tacky if it brings in huge amounts of revenue?

I care. Honestly, would you be happy for the outside of your house to be covered in advertising? I mean, if it brings in huge amounts of revenue...

I don't regard unconstrained marketing invading every aspect of people's lives as a sign of a civilised society. Why should private companies have it all their own way in the pursuit of profit? I could put up with a few adverts on TV, but now it seems that, on top of that, every programme needs a sponsor and there's product placement within the programmes themselves too. There comes a point where it starts to impinge on the pleasure of watching. As with many things in life, moderation is the key.

 

[Carlisle]

The concept of advertising was mentioned earlier but dismissed as tacky. But why not?

I don't think it's really all that cheap to custom print and wrap a complete 4 + coach train in advertising vinels , which I suppose will be considered against the cost of using other mediums

 

[Philip]

I care. Honestly, would you be happy for the outside of your house to be covered in advertising? I mean, if it brings in huge amounts of revenue...

I don't regard unconstrained marketing invading every aspect of people's lives as a sign of a civilised society. Why should private companies have it all their own way in the pursuit of profit? I could put up with a few adverts on TV, but now it seems that, on top of that, every programme needs a sponsor and there's product placement within the programme themselves too. There comes a point where it starts to impinge on the pleasure of watching. As with many things in life, moderation is the key.

You're stretching the point somewhat, the big difference is that this isn't your own house, it's just a public method of transport and most people won't give two hoots if the train is plastered in advertisements. Providing it runs, it runs on time and it runs well, that's all that matters to most people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think it's all that cheap to print and wrap a complete 4 + coach train in advertising vinels , which I suppose will be considered against the cost of using other mediums

Would it be much more expensive than slapping a new corporate livery on the train? Besides, it doesn't just have to be vinyls on the train, you could put up advertising boards trackside

 

[Taunton]

I can't realistically see fares being reduced, with the possible exception of when HS2 opens which might see some lower fares to encourage people to use the new capacity.

My suspicion is that should HS2 open some lower fares may well happen - though not by HS2 themselves, but by Virgin and Chiltern (or their successors), who separately would offer fares sufficiently cheaper to divert a significant proportion of the London to Birmingham traffic off HS2, to the financial disruption of their revenue targets. In fact if I was asked for an opinion on HS2 investment I would say that what the two established operators on the city pair do would be the greatest risk to its finances.

After all, I think nobody envisaged at privatisation that Chiltern would do what they did for the London to Birmingham market.

 

[Kettledrum]

You're stretching the point somewhat, the big difference is that this isn't your own house, it's just a public method of transport and most people won't give two hoots if the train is plastered in advertisements. Providing it runs, it runs on time and it runs well, that's all that matters to most people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Would it be much more expensive than slapping a new corporate livery on the train? Besides, it doesn't just have to be vinyls on the train, you could put up advertising boards trackside

Interestingly, buses have adverts on, as do taxis - but not trains. Makes you wonder why?

 

[Railsigns]

Interestingly, buses have adverts on, as do taxis - but not trains. Makes you wonder why?

Some buses have adverts on; some don't.
Some taxis have adverts on; some don't.
Some trains have adverts on; some don't.

 

[northwichcat]

b) reduce fares so that more people think they are more reasonable, thus increasing the overcrowding problem.

Or considering the running costs of longer trains are proportionally lower than the running costs of shorter trains - reduce the fares, increase patronage and run more carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interestingly, buses have adverts on, as do taxis - but not trains. Makes you wonder why?

How many car drivers would see an advert on the side of a train and how many see an advert on the back of a bus?

Also how many buses speed pass houses at 75 to 125mph?

 

[ivanhoe]

Do we run too many trains ?
Should we run fewer, longer trains?( commuter routes excepted)
Is it not beyond the wit of man or woman to create a ticketing system which does not require a PhD to understand split tickets and valid routes?
The railway in general does a half decent job but rarely shows its hand when you are in the areas of thinking outside of the box. It plods along and when things go wrong, blames the DfT and or NR. As a country, there is a love hate relationship with the railways and this is deeply entrenched in the thinking of successive Governments. Renationalisation is not the answer without the will to make things better knowing that the pot of money available is limited, and always will be.

 

[coppercapped]

I don't like either of your solutions, but in some parts of the country, particularly outside the south east there are different solutions that could work on different routes.

I am very old fashioned in believing that the railways enable better employment mobility and help keep more people in work. if more people are in work paying taxes, then there is wider economic benefit that may justify some subsidy.

Then you believe wrongly. Railways - or any for of transport whether car, canal, air or horse - do not of themselves keep people in work. The demand for the goods or services being produced is the only driver for the volume of employment. Improved transport links reduce what are called 'transaction costs', that is the costs of getting the raw materials to the factory and the manufactured goods moved to the customer, the costs of the suppliers meeting the customers, simpler and more suitable communications. Good transport indirectly helps manufacturing and service industries by reducing their transaction costs - but the industry has to be there in the first place.

What good transport links do for people working in the factories and offices is to reduce journey times to work, possibly reduce transport costs and expand the pool of labour that the employer can call upon. Transport links do not make the jobs appear in the first place.

The wider economic benefit should justify some investment and there are lots of overcrowded 3 and 4 coach trains in the midlands and the north which have lots of scope to be lengthened to bring in more income for the railways. The problem is the payback period as the cost of the additional coaches and some platform lengthening could take years to generate the additional income from new passengers alone.

I can't realistically see fares being reduced, with the possible exception of when HS2 opens which might see some lower fares to encourage people to use the new capacity.

It is not possible to justify investment in the railways on the wider economic benefit as that number is purely guesswork and is anyway not really affected by the railway's service offer. It might be possible to justify spending money on the railways if it can be shown to either (a) reduce costs of operation or (b) increase fare income. Preferably both at once!

 

[JamesTT]

Then you believe wrongly. Railways - or any for of transport whether car, canal, air or horse - do not of themselves keep people in work. The demand for the goods or services being produced is the only driver for the volume of employment. Improved transport links reduce what are called 'transaction costs', that is the costs of getting the raw materials to the factory and the manufactured goods moved to the customer, the costs of the suppliers meeting the customers, simpler and more suitable communications. Good transport indirectly helps manufacturing and service industries by reducing their transaction costs - but the industry has to be there in the first place.

What good transport links do for people working in the factories and offices is to reduce journey times to work, possibly reduce transport costs and expand the pool of labour that the employer can call upon. Transport links do not make the jobs appear in the first place.



It is not possible to justify investment in the railways on the wider economic benefit as that number is purely guesswork and is anyway not really affected by the railway's service offer. It might be possible to justify spending money on the railways if it can be shown to either (a) reduce costs of operation or (b) increase fare income. Preferably both at once!

I think increased social mobility provided by a good rail network is something worthwhile.
Plus a relatively hassle free, comfortable and affordable commute might be the difference between an enthusiastic job search and just going through the motions to get the stamp from the job centre

 

[coppercapped]

I think increased social mobility provided by a good rail network is something worthwhile.
Plus a relatively hassle free, comfortable and affordable commute might be the difference between an enthusiastic job search and just going through the motions to get the stamp from the job centre

What do you mean by 'social mobility'. The mobility to move around geographically or that one can change one's social and economic grouping?

Transport - Shank's Pony, bicycle, bus, car, train, ferry, aeroplane and dog sled can help in the first case. Transport's contribution to the second is difficult to demonstrate beyond the level of hearsay.

 

[edwin_m]

There's the so-called "agglomeration effect". By connecting a larger group of people with better transport links there are a lot more interactions that stimulate greater productivity. Hence why you tend to get specific trades in specific parts of London, and why if it takes as long to get from Manchester to Leeds as from Reading to Canary Wharf then you might end up with the Northern cities between them becoming as economically strong as the south-east.

Well that's the theory anyway. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[coppercapped]

There's the so-called "agglomeration effect". By connecting a larger group of people with better transport links there are a lot more interactions that stimulate greater productivity. Hence why you tend to get specific trades in specific parts of London, and why if it takes as long to get from Manchester to Leeds as from Reading to Canary Wharf then you might end up with the Northern cities between them becoming as economically strong as the south-east.

Well that's the theory anyway. Don't shoot the messenger.

The point is - agglomeration works! There are so many examples from all sorts of countries. But it takes time for the nucleii that later form the aggomerations to build up to a self-sustaining size - sometimes decades - but there is also no guarantee of success. The reduced transaction costs that I mentioned in my earlier post help this effect but are not a cause of it.

 

[edwin_m]

The point is - agglomeration works! There are so many examples from all sorts of countries. But it takes time for the nucleii that later form the aggomerations to build up to a self-sustaining size - sometimes decades - but there is also no guarantee of success. The reduced transaction costs that I mentioned in my earlier post help this effect but are not a cause of it.

I imagine there has to be some sort of pent-up demand for the services the agglomeration can provide, but if that is there the improvement in communication should allow it to be fulfilled.