MSE News: Rail fares to rise 8% as inflation figures announced

epm-84

pennypinching77 wrote: »

I have no idea how much it costs to run First Capital Connect, I do know they are one of the least performing services with one of the biggest profits.

You're wrong there.

First Capital Connect made a £957,000 LOSS in 2010.
First Great Western made a £12m LOSS in 2010.
London Underground made a £751m LOSS in 2010. (No that figure isn't wrong - they invested a lot of borrowed money in new trains that year.)

Most operators are profitable though. Virgin Trains made a £104m profit in 2010. Northern Rail made a £29.9m profit in 2010. While the smallest franchised operator, First TransPennine Express, made a £38.5m profit in 2010.

2011 figures are availble for some operators but I've used 2010 because they are they most recent available for all operators.

The_Groat_Counter

The above post isn't right - Northern Rail, for example, isn't profitable, and it's misleading to say that "most operators are profitable" as well.

Furthermore, the railways as a whole are not profitable, they are subsidised - whilst some operators might post a profit, that's in a context of a railway system that costs more than it makes (e.g. Network Rail receives a substantial direct grant from government as well as track access charges from the train operators).

bb21

pennypinching77 wrote: »

So these saving rates for the weekend you mention are no good to me.

Buy an odd-period season ticket then if you don't use the weekends. That way at least you don't pay for some of the weekends although you can't avoid all of them as these tickets are only sold for durations longer than a month.

A season ticket can be purchased for any period between a calendar month and a year, so make yours last just over one month to start on a Monday and finish on a Friday. For example, you can get one now starting on Monday 22nd August and finish on Friday 23rd September. This is one month and two days. The extra two days will be charged at approximately 1/30th each of your monthly cost. Then your next one can start at Monday 26th September. This way you can save the cost of about 22 days over the course of a year compared to buying consecutive monthlies.

Beware that if your TOC still operates under the old Charter Discount scheme when you renew season tickets, such as First Great Western, rather than the new Delay Repay scheme, then discounts upon renewal are only applied if your new season is of a shorter validity than the original one.

epm-84

The_Groat_Counter wrote: »

The above post isn't right - Northern Rail, for example, isn't profitable

Furthermore, the railways as a whole are not profitable, they are subsidised - whilst some operators might post a profit, that's in a context of a railway system that costs more than it makes (e.g. Network Rail receives a substantial direct grant from government as well as track access charges from the train operators).

I stated Northern Rail made £29.9m profit in 2010. That is not wrong - check the figures yourself if you don't believe me.

As you're aware of subsidies you should be aware that Northern Rail were made to return a large portion of their subsidy based on the fact the franchise was awarded on a no passenger growth basis and there has been exponential growth since 2004. Operators that run rural services usually require some subsidy, whether it be train or bus services.

Network Rail (who own the rail tracks) is completely different to rail operators. If the Highways Agency lost a lot of money would you class every bus operator as being non-profitable because they use the main roads that the Highways Agency are responsible for?

The government should be looking at getting more freight off the road on to the railways, which would make the railway infrastructure more profitable and cause less pot holes on roads through less heavy traffic on the roads.

The_Groat_Counter

Yes, my apologies - I made my point rather badly. Indeed, the general idea is that the train operating companies do make a profit - they wouldn't be in the business otherwise. The majority however are subsidised - were it not for this subsidy, the whole rail franchise system wouldn't work at all. That was really what I was trying (and failing) to get at!

Also, I wasn't seeking to make an anti-subsidy argument with regards to the railways - I agree they should be subsidised. Whether the railways should be organised as they currently are is a different question, but I won't go into that now.

anyfreebies

The_Groat_Counter wrote: »

The above post isn't right - Northern Rail, for example, isn't profitable, and it's misleading to say that "most operators are profitable" as well.

Furthermore, the railways as a whole are not profitable, they are subsidised - whilst some operators might post a profit, that's in a context of a railway system that costs more than it makes (e.g. Network Rail receives a substantial direct grant from government as well as track access charges from the train operators).

While your point about subsidies may be accurate as far as I can see the only loss making operators in 2010 were the 3 mentioned: First Capital Connect, First Great Western and London Underground.

First Capital Connect are understood to be the worse performing operator around so will be paying out a lot more in compensation compared to other operators, which will affect profit levels.

Cash-Cow_3

I don't see why my taxes should subsidise other people's!journey to work. Up the prices even more I say. If trains are crowded to the extent that half the passengers have to stand then clearly price is not an issue to commuters. Keep putting it up until people can find a seat.

The_Groat_Counter

anyfreebies wrote: »

While your point about subsidies may be accurate as far as I can see the only loss making operators in 2010 were the 3 mentioned: First Capital Connect, First Great Western and London Underground.

I was doing a bad job of trying to make the broader point that few if any of the train operators are 'truly' profitable (i.e. taking account of the subsidies many get, and also the direct subsidy that Network Rail gets).

Given the completely different way that the London Underground is structured, I wouldn't really include them in such a discussion - if the Underground had a similar franchising system to the rest of the rail network, e.g. companies operating services on different lines, then they too would likely be profitable (it'd be the only way such a system would work) even though overall the Underground system would be subsidised (i.e. loss making).

epm-84

Cash-Cow wrote: »

I don't see why my taxes should subsidise other people's!journey to work. Up the prices even more I say. If trains are crowded to the extent that half the passengers have to stand then clearly price is not an issue to commuters. Keep putting it up until people can find a seat.

Would you like the council tax that is spent on the roads to be withdrawn on the same basis? Every road sign put up costs council tax payers (not motorists) an average of £375 (based on a Merseyside figure.) Is having £1000 road tax per year and a £50 council tax discount the right solution? If not why should it be different for railways?

Your plan also wouldn't work. Pricing people off the railways would make the railways less profitable. Having a carriage with 40 people standing is more profitable than having a carriage with 40 empty seats.

Gordon_Hose

Cash-Cow wrote: »

I don't see why my taxes should subsidise other people's!journey to work. Up the prices even more I say. If trains are crowded to the extent that half the passengers have to stand then clearly price is not an issue to commuters. Keep putting it up until people can find a seat.

Put the prices up so much that everyone drives to work. Then I'll get a seat and the roads will be even more congested than they already are :T