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

Livingthedream

Cash-Cow wrote: »

I don't see why my taxes should subsidise other people's!journey to work.

The problem I foresee, is that this country is basically broke and the Tory government is looking at every avenue to cut back public spending, it's only a matter of time before they look at the 4bn a year subsidy they pay the railways and ask why are we paying this money.

I personally hope it doesn't happen, as this will force prices to go up by a lot more that 6% or non profitable lines to close.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

They have managed to get the costs of the railway down considerably in less then a year - by £1 billion i believe they mentioned last night. Thats a hefty saving to the publics purse wouldnt you say?

Livingthedream

Jeff, I think it was around 1.6Bn IIRC. I just think big published fair rises followed how much is subsidised by the tax payer is the governments way of seeing what the public opinion is of the Railway subsidy and if public is outraged enough then they could push to cut it quick and faster.

I mean MP expenses ain't going to pay themselves.

Cash-Cow_3

epm-84 wrote: »

Would you like the council tax that is spent on the roads to be withdrawn on the same basis?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.

You are wrong.

Take a carriage of 100 seats.

Currently say you have 140 (i.e with 40 standing) in it each paying £30. That's revenue of £4200.

Price goes up to £80 but only 60 people are prepared to pay these prices. That's revenue of £4800.

epm-84

Cash-Cow wrote: »

You are wrong.

Take a carriage of 100 seats.

Currently say you have 140 (i.e with 40 standing) in it each paying £30. That's revenue of £4200.

Price goes up to £80 but only 60 people are prepared to pay these prices. That's revenue of £4800.

So what is your role with in the Conservative party? Your reply is based 100% on political spin and 0% on actual facts.

No-one is expecting a 167% increase in train ticket prices (unless RPI is 164%!) and train carriages usually have 50-75 seats per carriage.

mabinogion_2

New 15% discount off the price of a Railcard which in turn saves 1/3 off most rail fares. Valid until August 31 2011 when buying online from the main railcard website which includes Senior Railcard, 16-25 Young Person's Railcard and Family & Friends Railcard. It offers a saving of £4.20 on a £28 one year railcard. When purchasing online click 'buy now' and enter the promotional code RAIL15 in the box.:j

If you miss that one, there's a 10% discount valid until 30th september. Code is save10

Pity they aren't good for all ticket types and for all ages, but every little helps.

cheers
mab

Cash-Cow_3

epm-84 wrote: »

So what is your role with in the Conservative party? Your reply is based 100% on political spin and 0% on actual facts.

No-one is expecting a 167% increase in train ticket prices (unless RPI is 164%!) and train carriages usually have 50-75 seats per carriage.

My post had nothing to do with politics. It was to correct your misunderstanding of pricing.

The point is and has been proved each year of price rises that rises have little impact on reducing demand. As such train companies can be confident that a price rise will increase revenue and not reduce it.

vonlipsia

A quick comparison of season ticket prices in Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland:
http://martincampbell2.posterous.com/rail-fares-east-anglia-vs-germany

Another way of solving overcrowding would be to take stuff out of London. A mass exodus of jobs, into the sticks of Liverpool, Nottingham and suchlike...

epm-84

Cash-Cow wrote: »

The point is and has been proved each year of price rises that rises have little impact on reducing demand. As such train companies can be confident that a price rise will increase revenue and not reduce it.

No train operator has ever introduced a 167% fare increase and they wouldn't be allowed unless the government approved it. If they did some people would find their commute is no longer possible on their income and either relocate or quit their job, so you can't say a fare increase at that level would not have an effect on travellers.

You used inflated numbers of seats on trains in your example - something the government has done recently in counting the new London Midland trains as extra trains, plus their old trains they will replace as extra trains because they're not being withdrawn from service.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

epm-84 wrote: »

No train operator has ever introduced a 167% fare increase and they wouldn't be allowed unless the government approved it. If they did some people would find their commute is no longer possible on their income and either relocate or quit their job, so you can't say a fare increase at that level would not have an effect on travellers.

You used inflated numbers of seats on trains in your example - something the government has done recently in counting the new London Midland trains as extra trains, plus their old trains they will replace as extra trains because they're not being withdrawn from service.

Why use a figure of 167%?

Where on earth did you get that price rise from?


Ahh your making it up are you?