High fares - The issue that won't go away

[yorksrob]

1 in 5 or 6 000 according to your own words.

I'm confused by this comment.

It was one out of five or six interviews.

(Going through again and counting, it was actually six).

 

[simonw]

I'm confused by this comment.

It was one out of five or six interviews.

(Going through again and counting, it was actually six).

Apologies, some reason misread it.

 

[yorksrob]

Apologies, some reason misread it.

No worries !

 

[miami]

It was one out of five or six interviews.

Specifically chosen to represent a range of views.

Worth noting these are young, well paid (especially for their age), rich (owning a house, let alone doing that as teenagers), likely haven't got a car, live next to London and likely commute into London for their high paid jobs.

That is not the norm on the country.

 

[Haywain]

Worth noting these are young, well paid (especially for their age), rich (owning a house, let alone doing that as teenagers), likely haven't got a car, live next to London and likely commute into London for their high paid jobs.

I think they are far from typical. The comment about thinking the "tax free allowance" should be increased to help those on lower earnings, suggests they are unaware that they are outside that bracket.

 

[yorksrob]

Specifically chosen to represent a range of views.

Worth noting these are young, well paid (especially for their age), rich (owning a house, let alone doing that as teenagers), likely haven't got a car, live next to London and likely commute into London for their high paid jobs.

That is not the norm on the country.

ONS has average weekly regular earnings at £671, which equates to around £35k a year, so between them at £31 and £40k, they work out as average, rather than high income.

These are supposedly the railway's core potential customer base, yet they find it too expensive.

 

[AlterEgo]

ONS has average weekly regular earnings at £671, which equates to around £35k a year, so between them at £31 and £40k, they work out as average, rather than high income.

These are supposedly the railway's core potential customer base, yet they find it too expensive.

About half of the British population take a train less frequently than once every six months. It's a hot button issue in commuterland but does not register on the radar of most people. They're much more concerned about the cost of energy and utilities, motoring, childcare, and housing. Those are all huge political priorities. Rail is not.

Trains account for 2% of trips made, the car accounts for 60%. Largely because of this, the issue of high fares is one which will not go away.

 

[styles]

ONS has average weekly regular earnings at £671, which equates to around £35k a year, so between them at £31 and £40k, they work out as average, rather than high income.

These are supposedly the railway's core potential customer base, yet they find it too expensive.

They are actually below the median salary for Slough though, which in 2023 stood at £39,360 according to the ONS.

Of course, both being agreed 19 they will be above average for their age, even factoring in their location, but yeah, they would benefit more than their average neighbours would by having the tax-free personal allowance raised.

Rail fares for people living in the southeast of England commuting into London are an issue for pretty much all the people who must make those journeys. Assuming this couple do have to commute eastbound at rush hour, I can see why they'd highlight public transport costs as an issue.

 

[Haywain]

Assuming this couple do have to commute eastbound at rush hour, I can see why they'd highlight public transport costs as an issue.

They would probably benefit far more from a lower interest rate though.

 

[redreni]

I think they are far from typical. The comment about thinking the "tax free allowance" should be increased to help those on lower earnings, suggests they are unaware that they are outside that bracket.

Only if you play the BBC's game of assuming all voters are entirely self-interested. Why couldn't they think a policy should be introduced to help other people?

 

[miami]

ONS has average weekly regular earnings at £671, which equates to around £35k a year, so between them at £31 and £40k, they work out as average, rather than high income.

For 19 year olds that's high. Median income for 18-21 year olds is 22k, the average weekly earnings is pushed up by people more advanced in their careers.

Rail fares for people living in the southeast of England commuting into London are an issue for pretty much all the people who must make those journeys. Assuming this couple do have to commute eastbound at rush hour, I can see why they'd highlight public transport costs as an issue.

Sure, that's a tiny number. Of far more concern to people living near me - living about 10 miles from the nearest station for example - is the 5 hour trip on public transport to the local hospital. Nobody working takes public transport of course.

The country is far larger and more diverse than the London commuter belt, but a Slough-Paddington season ticket is under £15 a day assuming a 5 day 47 week year. About 30p per mile. Doesn't sound terrible for an entry level job for a non-graduate home owner paying twice the average salary for 18-21 year olds. Cheaper trains would of course mean more money could be spent on housing so it would be a subsidy to home owners in commuter towns.

If you're lucky enough to live near a station, rail fares in the rest of the country are even cheaper. Stoke to Manchester is 20p/mile. Telford to Birmingham 15p/mile, Dumbarton to Glasgow 15p/mile.

If you don't live near a station then its meaningless.

 

[Indigo Soup]

They would probably benefit far more from a lower interest rate though.

Not necessarily - there are a substantial number of young people for whom interest rates are almost irrelevant. House prices are so high that they haven't a hope of getting a deposit together, so mortgage payments don't factor into it, and the cost of living is so high they can't save either.

Only if you play the BBC's game of assuming all voters are entirely self-interested. Why couldn't they think a policy should be introduced to help other people?

Convincing people to support a policy which helps others, but which doesn't significantly affect them, isn't too hard.

Convincing people to support a policy which helps others at their own expense is a much bigger challenge.

 

[redreni]

Convincing people to support a policy which helps others at their own expense is a much bigger challenge.

Oh, absolutely, all I am saying is if somebody offers an opinion in support of a policy, unless the interviewer asks a follow-up question to establish whether they believe they would be better off under that policy, you can't know whether they do or don't. They may support a policy that is unhelpful for them. I would support reducing tax relief on interest on savings, for example, even though I benefit personally. It's a subsidy I don't need or deserve, and I suspect most people who benefit from it don't need it either.

 

[Haywain]

Not necessarily - there are a substantial number of young people for whom interest rates are almost irrelevant. House prices are so high that they haven't a hope of getting a deposit together, so mortgage payments don't factor into it, and the cost of living is so high they can't save either.

We're talking about a couple with a mortgage!

 

[yorksrob]

About half of the British population take a train less frequently than once every six months. It's a hot button issue in commuterland but does not register on the radar of most people. They're much more concerned about the cost of energy and utilities, motoring, childcare, and housing. Those are all huge political priorities. Rail is not.

Trains account for 2% of trips made, the car accounts for 60%. Largely because of this, the issue of high fares is one which will not go away.

Childcare and housing require more carers and houses which are quite difficult to provide, whereas at least in most cases the train is already there.

I pretty much ignore the "2% of journeys are by rail" statistic as it's so skewed by short trips to get some milk etc as to be meaningless.

 

[AlterEgo]

Childcare and housing require more carers and houses which are quite difficult to provide, whereas at least in most cases the train is already there.

I pretty much ignore the "2% of journeys are by rail" statistic as it's so skewed by short trips to get some milk etc as to be meaningless.

Well you can’t really ignore it if you’re trying to make rail politically relevant. Most people do not take trains frequently and a huge portion never ever take one.

 

[yorksrob]

They would probably benefit far more from a lower interest rate though.

Maybe so, but its notable that they appear to have mentioned high rail fares as opposed to interest rates. Maybe there's an element of mortgage rates being baked in and to an extent, inevitable, whereas more affordable fares could make a real difference in day to day choices and opportunities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2025 ==

Well you can’t really ignore it if you’re trying to make rail politically relevant. Most people do not take trains frequently and a huge portion never ever take one.

Trips to drop the kids off at school or to the local shop for milk, aren't really relevant to a discussion of rail.

You mentioned the cost of motoring, however that's already been going down in real terms due to various factors including policy.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2025 ==

They are actually below the median salary for Slough though, which in 2023 stood at £39,360 according to the ONS.

Of course, both being agreed 19 they will be above average for their age, even factoring in their location, but yeah, they would benefit more than their average neighbours would by having the tax-free personal allowance raised.

Rail fares for people living in the southeast of England commuting into London are an issue for pretty much all the people who must make those journeys. Assuming this couple do have to commute eastbound at rush hour, I can see why they'd highlight public transport costs as an issue.

Indeed. Of course, it might be that they don't commute by rail but would welcome more affordable rail for visiting relatives etc.

 

[Indigo Soup]

We're talking about a couple with a mortgage!

At 19? Definitely not representative of the wider population then!

Well you can’t really ignore it if you’re trying to make rail politically relevant. Most people do not take trains frequently and a huge portion never ever take one.

A more meaningful figure would be passenger-kilometres, to control for the fact that almost nobody (I'm sure someone does!) uses the train to get some milk. On that basis, it seems to be more like 7% rail and 80% car - which doesn't especially help or harm the case for rail's importance!

 

[JamesT]

Not necessarily - there are a substantial number of young people for whom interest rates are almost irrelevant. House prices are so high that they haven't a hope of getting a deposit together, so mortgage payments don't factor into it, and the cost of living is so high they can't save either.

The young renter is indirectly paying their landlord's mortgage on the property, so high interest rates will be affecting them, albeit with a likely lag.

 

[AlterEgo]

Trips to drop the kids off at school or to the local shop for milk, aren't really relevant to a discussion of rail.

Of course they are, because the vast majority of people have to pay money to do both of those things, frequently. And lowering or freezing the cost of it is naturally going to be a marquee political idea.

You mentioned the cost of motoring, however that's already been going down in real terms due to various factors including policy.

Yes, because the government’s priority is easing the cost of living, and making motoring cheaper is one of the principal ways of doing that. Train fares won’t get a look in.

Put it this way - today the diesel at Gulf in Daventry is 131.6. Worthy of a picture of the sign for my wife. (It’s 134.9 ish elsewhere). If my train to London becomes £13.10 instead of £13.40 it’s a shrug.

Like most people I spend a lot on fuel and it’s essential to get around; to drop my kid off at nursery, to go shopping, to go see the health visitor, to attend tonight’s meal with other parents at a rural pub, to visit my parents. Trust me when I say I notice thruppence off a litre at the pump.

 

[brad465]

Schrodinger's rail critic: train journeys are both overpriced and overcrowded.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course they are, because the vast majority of people have to pay money to do both of those things, frequently. And lowering or freezing the cost of it is naturally going to be a marquee political idea.

Yes, because the government’s priority is easing the cost of living, and making motoring cheaper is one of the principal ways of doing that. Train fares won’t get a look in.

Put it this way - today the diesel at Gulf in Daventry is 131.6. Worthy of a picture of the sign for my wife. (It’s 134.9 ish elsewhere). If my train to London becomes £13.10 instead of £13.40 it’s a shrug.

Like most people I spend a lot on fuel and it’s essential to get around; to drop my kid off at nursery, to go shopping, to go see the health visitor, to attend tonight’s meal with other parents at a rural pub, to visit my parents. Trust me when I say I notice thruppence off a litre at the pump.

Yet high rail fares seem to keep cropping up in public discourse.

Like a lot of people, I don't drive, so fuel pump prices have little effect on me, however bus and train fares have a real effect on my cost of living. I very much notice that it costs twenty pounds for an off peak return between Leeds and York.

 

[styles]

Yet high rail fares seem to keep cropping up in public discourse.

Like a lot of people, I don't drive, so fuel pump prices have little effect on me, however bus and train fares have a real effect on my cost of living. I very much notice that it costs twenty pounds for an off peak return between Leeds and York.

It's catch-22 for me.

We make some trains and buses so expensive that driving is far more economical. Then when people don't use them we say why make rail fares cheaper when people just drive everywhere.

I much prefer taking public transport, train in particular, for the comfort, the environmental impact, etc; and I sometimes pay a fair bit more to take the train instead of driving. But sometimes it just doesn't stack up and I just can't justify the extra spend. £33.82 for an Advance+Anytime split return to Glasgow, £37.90 flexible Anytime return, or £14 in fuel in the car + a wear & tear factor. And that's quite a short journey - some of the journeys I've been planning recently are eye-watering differences in price.

 

[fairlie]

Schrodinger's rail critic: train journeys are both overpriced and overcrowded.

See also Cross Country...

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

A car journey for me works out about £1.00 per 10 miles, a train journey is cuurently between £0.55 & £0.65 per mile which is crazy difference especially as you can get 5 in a car for the same price.

 

[styles]

A car journey for me works out about £1.00 per 10 miles, a train journey is cuurently between £0.55 & £0.65 per mile which is crazy difference especially as you can get 5 in a car for the same price.

I must admit that while I like the idea of it being cheaper to take 5 people on the train than drive, I'm not sure it'll ever be a balanced policy objective. The scale of infrastructure we'd need would be huge, and really 5 people in a car isn't that bad for the environment. I sometimes give lifts to 3 passengers to drive a few hundred miles for climbing trips with the gear, and when I did the back of the fag packet maths on it, the emissions were close to par, and 1 car with 4 people on the A9 isn't that bad for congestion really. Also the flexibility of having the motor at the other end to get to crags etc where there may never be enough demand to justify a bus/train service.

 

[brad465]

A car journey for me works out about £1.00 per 10 miles, a train journey is currently between £0.55 & £0.65 per mile which is crazy difference especially as you can get 5 in a car for the same price.

The cost of a rail fare is much more manageable for someone who doesn't own a car. I'm almost certain the figure you cite doesn't account for the upfront cost of a car (or leasing cost), it's MOT, insurance and any other maintenance/running costs. A rail fare might cost more on raw ticket price, but that cost also contributes to the operator's running costs, plus the fact someone else is doing the driving for you. I'm not saying there are not issues with fare affordability, but one should never judge a book by its cover.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yet high rail fares seem to keep cropping up in public discourse.

The issue is mostly married with the poor service the railway is perceived to supply rather than as a metric of cost of living.

Like a lot of people, I don't drive

Only about one in five people don’t have access to a car, which makes this bloc of people less of a political priority.

 

[styles]

The cost of a rail fare is much more manageable for someone who doesn't own a car. I'm almost certain the figure you cite doesn't account for the upfront cost of a car (or leasing cost), it's MOT, insurance and any other maintenance/running costs. A rail fare might cost more on raw ticket price, but that cost also contributes to the operator's running costs, plus the fact someone else is doing the driving for you. I'm not saying there are not issues with fare affordability, but one should never judge a book by its cover.

While true, with the decimation of so many regional bus and rail timetables or even full routes, for many people owning a car is closer to essential than optional.

I've actually only owned a car for 2 and a bit years, and that's because I previously have always lived places with decent public transport.

Then I moved to Fife and often the buses just wouldn't even turn up. That's a bit of an issue when the next one is a school bus instead of a public bus, and the next one after that is 2 hours later. I do of course try and cycle, but that's been hard with the Achilles tendonitis combined with the hills, the potholes, none of the roads from the village having street lights or pavements, and all being national speed limit, etc. Carrying the shopping in panniers is something I would do when my tendon was ok, but I can see why many choose not to do this. In the absence of reliable, frequent, affordable public transport, and/or safe walking and cycling infrastructure, it's own a car, or plan to get everywhere nearer 90 minutes early to allow for the unreliability of the buses.

So, understandably a lot of people own cars already. The cost of buying the car, MOT, insurance, VED is already a sunk cost. The price per mile is of course more than simply the fuel still as there's wear and tear, other consumables, and a reduction in the vehicle's lifespan. But in some of my more recent rail trips, including typical part time commuting journeys, the train is nearer 3x the cost. Even factoring in wear and tear, the car will still be half the price. If I have just one passenger, it's a no brainer (though I do currently possess 7 Two Together Railcards to try to make the train more viable!)

 

[miami]

The young renter is indirectly paying their landlord's mortgage on the property, so high interest rates will be affecting them, albeit with a likely lag.

Not really, there aren't two market rates for houses - one for people with mortgage and one for those without. The rate is what people are able to spend.

A car journey for me works out about £1.00 per 10 miles, a train journey is cuurently between £0.55 & £0.65 per mile which is crazy difference especially as you can get 5 in a car for the same price.

I recently took the (3 people) family to London and back and it came out at under 30p/mile with no railcards to mess around. You must get great mileage at 10p mile. Petrol alone for me is about 13p a mile (when I started driving in 1999 I paid 11p/mile in my 15 year old car - i.e. it's far cheaper today in my 20 year old car when factoring in inflation and better mileage). Tyres, insurance, tax, servicing, deprecation etc at least doubles that.

Season tickets are far less than 55p per mile. Outside of London its 15-20p a mile, and if you can avoid parking at the station that's cheaper than driving even if you have free parking at the destination. Long distance its 18p a mile for me to go to London and back (130 miles) - ignoring getting to the station and the parking at the station. Far faster too.

In my experience trips to London are cheap, which when combined with the hassle and cost of driving and parking in London makes the train more attractive. Cross country though is far worse, no competition (unlike London), its a distress purchase - people only take the train if they have no other choice, so the railway can charge what it wants. 35p per mile per person for Stafford to Exeter and no faster than driving -- that's twice the price per mile as Stafford to London.