Passenger focus report on train fares

ruggedtoast

lukekelly wrote: »

Comparing train fares without taking into account the substantially lower government subsidy paid to the railways in this country is absurd. It would be interesting to read a study comparing the value for money of various European railways but it would have to look at total funding, not just one subset of the funding.

As it happens government subsidies for the railways are relatively regressive. Given the demographics of those commuting by train the subsidies redistribute wealth to the South-East from the rest of the country.

Thats fine. I'm perfectly happy not to have my rail fares to work subsidised by people outside the SE, as soon as I stop having to subsidise their healthcare, children's education etc, with the tax taken off the wages I earn when eventually get there (usually stressed, late, and out of pocket).

Its economically illiterate to suggest that our extortionately expensive, woeful rail network is anything other than costly and financially damaging for everyone in the UK.

Labour is the only governing power in the entire G7 that thinks its more important to fund hopeless PFIs to benefit shareholders, than to ensure that the countries workforce can commute cheaply and easily.

If every London commuter who has to be ripped off and abused twice a day by the farce that is the UKs transport policy, went on strike for a week, the provinces economies would feel the effects for a lot longer.

lostinrates

JasonLVC wrote: »

I'm a regular user of the Swiss (and French) rail service. No doubt they receive massive government subsidies....but the transport system works to a tee. Tickets are cheap and even cheaper if you have a season ticket.

They run on time, are clean and plentifull. ......

Thats my experience too. I used train more often in Italy simply because it made sense to and was comfortable. A day travel pass in Milan : like a day tavel card in London, was half the price. For 1 euro you get about 70-90 (as with all things its a bit vague!) unlimited travel on trams and buses in the inner city and one metro use...for about the same as a one day travel card for the inner zones in London you can get a 72 hours travel card for all metro zones. (there are other problems, but the pluses outweigh them).

The problem with discounted advance fares, is that its very hard to plan very hard in advance for most people. DH gets a full price london return fare once a week. Full price, because the south east card is valid on our (west country) station's line, but not before 9:30am. Most daytime or weekly commuters need to be in work before then, let alone before the early lunch that would see them arrive for! He can;t get an advanced return on a set train becasue who knows what time he'll be able to leave work.

It would in fact be CHEAPER for him to pay the petrol for a car (but not I accept all the other costs, though I'd think you'd make significant impact into the difference.)

When both of us go in the car one way, and one on the return journey the petrol is cheaper than ONE train ticket.

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And that is why seriously cheap advance purchase tickets are so readily available, as the operating companies try and fill empty seats.

There is that aspect of the advance purchase tickets, but I think another major aspect is so they distract from the shockingly expensive normal price tickets.
That way the franchise operator and the minister can say 'you can travel from London to Edinburgh for £12' or something, whilst hoping you forget about the fact that people who don't win the cheap tickets lottery end up getting fleeced for hundreds of quid.

If I have a long journey to make I enter the cheap tickets lottery, and if I don't win I usually drive - much, much, much cheaper. If they want more people off the roads they need to make rail cheaper than the marginal cost of driving.

chewmylegoff

well this country doesn't exactly have a glimmering track record (sorry) when it comes to running a rail network; pre-privatisation it was just as rubbish, whilst the tube is still paying for livingstone (in his GLC days) cutting the maintenance budget to subsidise fares. i don't see how bunging a load more public money into the mixer would make any difference at all.

in fact this is swings and roundabouts - in other countries they tax you more, and you get cheaper trains as part of that 'deal'. in this country the rail users pay more, but the people who dont use it aren't taxed extra to subsidise the prices.

anyway, i have used both the rail and tube to get to work in london for the last 10 years and aside from the odd blip things have been fine. i'm relatively happy with the reliability now - things are quite a bit better on the tube these days IMO.

mind you, i don't have to be in work for 9...

lukekelly_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its economically illiterate to suggest that our extortionately expensive, woeful rail network is anything other than costly and financially damaging for everyone in the UK.

I don't think our railway network is extortionately expensive. Once subsidies are taken into account the efficiency of our railway network is very comparable to the rest of Western Europe. That's not to say our railways are as good. They are not. But the problems that exist are a consequence of the cheapness, not the expense, of our railway network.

As it happens I also don't think our railways are too bad. At least in the West Midlands where I live the commuter trains are competitive compared to the cost of driving to work and relatively reliable. Some trains are comfortable and some, primarily the trains that call everywhere (London Midland I'm looking at you...) are awful. As a whole though it's not that bad and it's gotten better.

The real absurdity is the concentration of wealth and jobs in the South-East that means it is financially sensible for people to spend £5500 on a season ticket in order to do work that could, in a more sane world, be done elsewhere in the UK. There is an argument that housing and transport is too cheap in the South-East, and that a higher price differential between the South-East and the rest of the country would ensure a more even distribution of development and hence a total decrease in commuting time and cost. In my opinion the transition costs of such a change, and the ongoing costs for those unwilling to leave the South-East for say family reasons, are far too high, but I do think that there is an argument there for someone to make.

lostinrates

lukekelly wrote: »

I don't think our railway network is extortionately expensive. Once subsidies are taken into account the efficiency of our railway network is very comparable to the rest of Western Europe. That's not to say our railways are as good. They are not. But the problems that exist are a consequence of the cheapness, not the expense, of our railway network.

As it happens I also don't think our railways are too bad. At least in the West Midlands where I live the commuter trains are competitive compared to the cost of driving to work and relatively reliable. Some trains are comfortable and some, primarily the trains that call everywhere (London Midland I'm looking at you...) are awful. As a whole though it's not that bad and it's gotten better.

The real absurdity is the concentration of wealth and jobs in the South-East that means it is financially sensible for people to spend £5500 on a season ticket in order to do work that could, in a more sane world, be done elsewhere in the UK. There is an argument that housing and transport is too cheap in the South-East, and that a higher price differential between the South-East and the rest of the country would ensure a more even distribution of development and hence a total decrease in commuting time and cost. In my opinion the transition costs of such a change, and the ongoing costs for those unwilling to leave the South-East for say family reasons, are far too high, but I do think that there is an argument there for someone to make.

I think the phrase is 'I hear what you say' .

I do understand your points, I just thought I'd say that before I disagree I do agree though whole heartedly that its madness to have emty properties, some of them beautiful, in the north of the country, and need for employment, and then to keep people stuck like ants in a hill in the SE. In fact, it seems to someone as ill educated on this as I that there MUST be a reason to prevent industry moving to cheaper parts of UK because it seems so blatantly good for employment, for business property costs (and associated business rates I presume) and for employee satisfaction and quality of life.

But then, I'd like a lot to be closer to home...village shops instead of Tesco for example. I think people equate biggest with good. London...biggest city, most choice, Tesco hypersupermarket: most choice??? I suppose I feel the same about jobs to a degree. Buts thats easy to say as a confirmed southerner!:o