'We don't have a choice'

[EM2]

If you use social media to see what's happening in the railways, you will often see customers railing (sorry!) against operators, and wailing 'we don't have a choice but to use your service'.
Arising from the Journalists & facts thread, was the point made about growth of passenger numbers.
Passenger journeys in 1995-96 were 589,499,000. In 2009-10, the number was 1,163,111,000. That's almost double the number. (Figures from this PDF produced by the ORR http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nrt-regional-usage.pdf).
The national population has risen by about 5% in the same time, from (roughly) 59m to 62m.
So, seeing as the country managed to function perfectly well in 1995, and all those people that weren't using trains still managed to get to work, then surely it must follow that a large number of them do have a choice?

 

[cjmillsnun]

If you're talking about commuting into central London then most people don't really have a choice but to take the train.

In other areas, you have a point.

 

[t o m]

Perhaps two operators should work the same route and be in direct competition so people could have a choice in that manner.

 

[David Barrett]

Perhaps two operators should work the same route and be in direct competition so people could have a choice in that manner.

I'd rather not; I prefer to have a comprehensive service available to all.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I suppose in a lot of areas it comes down to train or car. I suppose there is the issue of affordability of motor transport taken alongside inflation and low wages.

 

[D365]

Perhaps two operators should work the same route and be in direct competition so people could have a choice in that manner.

This does happen in some cases as LM offers cheaper fares than Virgin but with slower services on suburban stock. Ditto FCC vs EC/EMT/Southern. There is an element of competition between EC and the two open-access operators as well. And of course, there exists competition over distances between railways and other transport. In many cases, of course, train travel is a more convenient and cheaper option.

 

[A-driver]

Perhaps two operators should work the same route and be in direct competition so people could have a choice in that manner.

Won't make much difference, that is already the case in a few areas and the problem is that infrastructure faults still have the same effect on both operators. If you go from Brighton to London you can use FCC or southern. If the signals fail at gatwick then you will be equally delayed on either operator.

 

[EM2]

If you're talking about commuting into central London then most people don't really have a choice but to take the train.

In other areas, you have a point.

There's still been huge growth on journeys into London.
p.14-16 of the PDF I linked to deals with journeys into London, and they've gone up from 378,888,000 to 706,259,000.

 

[michael769]

then surely it must follow that a large number of them do have a choice?

No. Your argument assumes that peoples need to travel has remained unchanged. This assumption not correct.

Reality is that changes in employment availability, housing availability and prices, means that peoples need to travel has increased and also journey length has increased. Furthermore emplyment is significantly lower today than in 1995"

In simple terms jobs have become more and more concentrated in cities at the same time as high prices and lack of supply have forced people to move into the suburbs and countryside.

It is notable that during the period you look at demand for road and air has also increased at similar levels.

While London is an extreme example the same effect can be seen on a lower scale in any of our big cities.

 

[Andrewlong]

Won't make much difference, that is already the case in a few areas and the problem is that infrastructure faults still have the same effect on both operators. If you go from Brighton to London you can use FCC or southern. If the signals fail at gatwick then you will be equally delayed on either operator.

But potentially different companies on same route could offer different fares, better seating etc - like you get with airlines. Trouble is we have near monopoly which is no better than BR days

 

[David Barrett]

But potentially different companies on same route could offer different fares, better seating etc - like you get with airlines. Trouble is we have near monopoly which is no better than BR days

How many airlines have a widespread public service obligation though? Is avaition a suitable model for railway operating? It really makes me visualise a high quality but expensive train departing with space to spare for those who can afford it, whilst lesser mortals wait for the cheaper and higher density train to roll up already packed out.

 

[cjmillsnun]

There's still been huge growth on journeys into London.
p.14-16 of the PDF I linked to deals with journeys into London, and they've gone up from 378,888,000 to 706,259,000.

But does that mean vehicle traffic has gone down in London?

Also with local councils (and TfL are as bad as any other) making centres less accessible to motorists congestion is hardly easing.

 

[Greenback]

But potentially different companies on same route could offer different fares, better seating etc - like you get with airlines. Trouble is we have near monopoly which is no better than BR days

The apparent benefits of competition are often temporary and insiginifcant. The potential negatives to competition, on the other hand, tend to be permanent and signifcant.

Take Cardiff to Swansea. There was a brief price war between ATW and FGW which led to some lower fares for a while, but this has now been rectified and fares have increased steadily over the past couple of years.

So different fares didn't last very long!

Seating, hmmm, the 175's and HST's certainly have different seating, but as to which is better, that is often a personal thing. I myself prefer the ATW seats, but there is much less chance of getting a seat on the ATW trains, especially when they have arrived from West Wales already full of people! Taking a HST from Swansea means you will get a good choice of where to sit except when using the very busiest trains when there special events on.

The downsides of true competition, including the loss of ticket flexibility, routeing flecibility and so on, will be permanent unless regulation is introduced as it was when BR was privatised. But then the competition is not true competition.

Despite what people say, I don't think they actually want more choice (look how bewildered most people get when they have a mass of different tariffs to choose from for thei energy), what they want is for the train to run mor eor less on time and there to be sufficient capacity on the train. Competition between operators cannot fix these issues, rail needs to work together to compete with coaches, air travel and the private car.

 

[cjmillsnun]

But potentially different companies on same route could offer different fares, better seating etc - like you get with airlines. Trouble is we have near monopoly which is no better than BR days

Not really viable though. You still have the problem of limited paths, platform lengths etc.

Also most commuters aren't going to wait for an alternative train. They're going to pile on the first train that goes to their destination.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Take Cardiff to Swansea. There was a brief price war between ATW and FGW which eld to soem lowe rfares for a while, but this has now been rectified and fares have increased steadily over the past couple of years.

QUOTE]

Don't we read over our posts before posting 'em then?

 

[yorkie]

But potentially different companies on same route could offer different fares, better seating etc - like you get with airlines. Trouble is we have near monopoly which is no better than BR days

Do we not already have different companies on the same route, for numerous flows, including almost the entire West Coast Main Line route, most cross-Country routes, and more?

I am not sure if this has led to better seating, but it has certainly led to "different fares" being offered for many flows. (I wonder if now is a good time for Island to give his example of about 12 businessmen going from London to Milton Keynes... it's better than my London-Stevenage/Peterborough example on EC/FCC!)

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps two operators should work the same route and be in direct competition so people could have a choice in that manner.

I'd rather not; I prefer to have a comprehensive service available to all.

I agree with David - a comprehensive system is a lot more meaningful than the illusion of competition on a token number of flows.

Some routes have only one operator yet see plenty of discount tickets/ increased services/ new trains (London to Manchester?), some routes have more than one operator yet see little actual meaningful "competition".

Better to concentrate on a proper service.

 

[HSTEd]

Competition that means anything would effectively require two or more overlaid rail networks.

That would be a lot of trackwork for marginal gains.

 

[David Barrett]

Competition that means anything would effectively require two or more overlaid rail networks.

That would be a lot of trackwork for marginal gains.

Indeed, as the pre-grouping companies created, the post-grouping companies were lumbered with and British Railways had to come to terms with.

 

[bnm]

Take Cardiff to Swansea. There was a brief price war between ATW and FGW which eld to soem lowe rfares for a while, but this has now been rectified and fares have increased steadily over the past couple of years.

QUOTE]

Don't we read over our posts before posting 'em then?

Pot. Kettle. One missing square bracket and you're in the same glass house.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Competition can be good and bad. And often people want it, but don't want it. Take fares for example. Competition is good when you can get better value fares with different operators, especially for traditionally expensive journeys. So you could say competition has allowed people to travel more cheaply. However with this price difference often strings are attached - less frequent service, slower times etc. And this is what people often don't like. They will quite happily say how wonderful competition is because they can now get cheaper fares, but still be expecting to use their cheaper restricted ticket on the higher priced operator, and then cry foul and claim it is all British Rail anyway so what does it matter.

 

[David Barrett]

Competition can be good and bad. And often people want it, but don't want it. Take fares for example. Competition is good when you can get better value fares with different operators, especially for traditionally expensive journeys. So you could say competition has allowed people to travel more cheaply. However with this price difference often strings are attached - less frequent service, slower times etc. And this is what people often don't like. They will quite happily say how wonderful competition is because they can now get cheaper fares, but still be expecting to use their cheaper restricted ticket on the higher priced operator, and then cry foul and claim it is all British Rail anyway so what does it matter.

Agreed, human nature and sometimes almost inbred beliefs often said instinctively without any thought at all I'm afraid and what you have amply demonstrated here is the is the idea that people must be careful what they demand as they might just get it.

 

[Greenback]

Take Cardiff to Swansea. There was a brief price war between ATW and FGW which eld to soem lowe rfares for a while, but this has now been rectified and fares have increased steadily over the past couple of years.

QUOTE]

Don't we read over our posts before posting 'em then?

Don't we know how to use quotes then?

That's the danger in pointing out other people's typo's - anything you do that is less than perfect will get pointed out back!

I know I sometimes get over stimulated and type too fast, thank you veyr much for assisting with my proof reading

 

[Minstral25]

Won't make much difference, that is already the case in a few areas and the problem is that infrastructure faults still have the same effect on both operators. If you go from Brighton to London you can use FCC or southern. If the signals fail at gatwick then you will be equally delayed on either operator.

On the Brighton line FCC offer rubbish 319's and Southern quality 377's but if you go FCC only the price is much much cheaper.

Of course on some stations such as Redhill, FCC only run 4 trains a day so there is no FCC only price, so Southern ramp up the price compared to stations where there is competition because they can and the passengers are simply screwed as there is no choice.

 

[northwichcat]

there exists competition over distances between railways and other transport. In many cases, of course, train travel is a more convenient and cheaper option.

Not sure about the 'cheaper' option when comparing Northern Rail to buses.

Altrincham-Chester can be done by bus (albeit slowly) with a change at Northwich. Both legs would be GHA Coaches who offer a £5 day ticket, which can be reduced to £4.50 if you use a pre-paid travelcard.

Northern Rail offer a direct service by train which costs £12.70 for an Anytime Return. The most it can be brought down to is £7.05 for railcard discounted Off-Peak Day Return.

Or if you take the reverse of the above and choose a route where there is a direct bus but a change of train is required.

Warrington-Altrincham can be done for £4 return on a direct bus.

By train before 09:30 it's a whopping £13.50 and requires a change at Stockport or Manchester.

 

[sarahj]

As someone who works on a line where there is competition the problem for the average joe is a rail ticket is a rail ticket. They buy the cheapest one, and try and catch any train.

However, there are some advatages, mainly between east croydon and gatwick and on the BML where prices do battle, but like I said, for most, the words FCC only mean nothing.

 

[ex-railwayman]

So, seeing as the country managed to function perfectly well in 1995, and all those people that weren't using trains still managed to get to work, then surely it must follow that a large number of them do have a choice?

Of course the country managed to function perfectly well, in those days we were sensible and didn't have social internet websites and twits didn't twit every minute of the day and walk around in a daze, typing a load of hogwash, haven't times changed for the worse.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

 

[Goatboy]

Of course the country managed to function perfectly well, in those days we were sensible

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be, is it

 

[Bald Rick]

Whenever one of my mates has a moan about the price of a St Albans - London season ticket "and I never get a seat"; I'm afraid I have started saying "feel free to use the alternative".

Initially I meant the semi-fast service where a seat is guaranteed (in the morning at least) for an extra 8 mins journey time. But then I realised that of course everyone chooses to use the train for this journey.

You could get a bus - ok so it's 1h10 to Hyde Park corner, and the frequency is terrible (ie one before 10am) but it is cheaper.

Or you could make your way to Stanmore / Edgware / High Barnet / Cockfosters for the tube. A little cheaper when bus fare / parking is taken into account, but frequency is good. Takes a while though.

Or you could drive the whole way, if you have money to burn for fuel, parking and congestion charge, and don't mind sitting in unpredictable traffic and not able to do emails on your i-phone (other mobile telephonic equipment is available)

Or you could cycle in about 1h30 - cheap but occasionally life threatening. Especially on the A1.

Or you could move to Watford or Hemel (or Stoke Newington for that matter), all of which have a decent train service with more seats available (i.e. more than none) and cheaper houses.

But it seems that, for the trip I and many others do every day, the train is the best value choice for time / price.

 

[Goatboy]

So there we have it chaps - people choose to commute by train because they could move house instead. I notice you stopped short of saying they have a choice because they could use a donkey and cart.

The only ones who could honestly be said to have a choice are those who have recently made the decision to move to a new job which requires the use of rail and have made this decision at a point when the current fare levels were known about. Those who have been doing the same job for 20 years and have been constantly hit with above inflation increases for season tickets don't really have a choice, unless you consider 'changing career' as a choice, which technically of course it is.

The economic benefits of squeezing commuters are highly dubious, of course. But then we cannot and should not blame the TOC's - they are commercial organisations operating in an environment created by the government.