High fares - The issue that won't go away

[Horizon22]

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.

Those two 19 year olds with a house in Slough were indeed extremely disprortionate for most 19 year olds, the vast majority of whom are living with parents or students and earning far less. I would imagine it is single digit % for the amount of people under 21 owning a house.

 

[styles]

Those two 19 year olds with a house in Slough were indeed extremely disprortionate for most 19 year olds, the vast majority of whom are living with parents or students and earning far less. I would imagine it is single digit % for the amount of people under 21 owning a house.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in 2024 had the number of 16-24 year-olds as owning their home as 0.7%. This rose to a whopping 10.2% for 25-34 year-olds.

So yeah, safe to say they're a statistical anomaly!

I was curious when their story said they had a 'small' inheritance, with the remainder from their LISAs saved up mowing lawns and working in waitering. I wonder what the raw amounts of inheritance and LISA savings were. That said, if I'd had the nous to start saving for a deposit when I was 13, or even 16, instead of blowing it on underage drinking, energy drinks, and Sayer's sausage rolls, I probably could've had a house deposit together by 19. Maybe not for a £360k home, but something. Most people in their teens want to enjoy their youth, and there's 'opportunity cost' of spending money on things which help your self-development - training courses, exams, travelling, trying different activities, etc.

 

[yorksrob]

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

I think the powers that be like to think this is the case, to avoid doing anything about excessive fares.

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

When you take into account young people, elderly people, city dwellers etc, I find that statistic hard to believe.

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

Those two 19 year olds with a house in Slough were indeed extremely disprortionate for most 19 year olds, the vast majority of whom are living with parents or students and earning far less. I would imagine it is single digit % for the amount of people under 21 owning a house.

They'll have even more need for affordable fares in that case then !

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

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.

Indeed, sometimes even those with access to a car will have need for affordable transport.

 

[styles]

When you take into account young people, elderly people, city dwellers etc, I find that statistic hard to believe.

Not sure on AlterEgo's source, but last time I looked into this when living in London, TfL research was based on some term like 'having access to a car'. It's quite possible that if the question is phrased this way, even those who don't own cars will in many cases by factored in, because e.g. they're a named driver on their parents' car when they come home from university. Indeed a DfT report in 2022 used similar phrasing and concluded:

The long-term trend for car ownership over the last 50 years is that the proportion of households in Great Britain and England with access to one or more cars has steadily increased, from 52% in 1971 to 78% in 2022.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6781339100e3d719f19217f1/dft-car-ownership-evidence-review.pdf

If I was back living in Derby, Nottingham, London, etc I might well ditch my car, and for the few times I need one, rent one, either by the hour or the day. I'm sure my local IKEA has Hertz vans for something like a fiver an hour, London has ZipCars, etc.

 

[njamescouk]

In light of the recent renationalisation of South Western Railway, the BBC have published an interesting article interviewing passengers which suggests that high fares are a major concern of passengers and potential passengers.

The article touches on many issues visited by this forum such as cheaper walk on fares on the Continent.

It suggests to me that the policy of renationalisation will fail in the eyes of voters if there aren't real improvements in value for money for the farepayer.

Labour cannot promise cheaper rail fares under renationalisation

Transport Secretary says she will "strain every sinew" so customers get value for money as SWR brought back into public hands.

www.bbc.co.uk

thought experiment:
1. compute the cost of running the current service, but with no passengers.

2. compute the cost of running the current service *with* passengers.

3. compute (2) - (1) as marginal cost of carrying passengers.

4. indulge in statistical jiggery pokery to obtain marginal cost per passenger mile.

5. this is your fare. my wild guess is 5p/mile.

simplistic, moi?

ps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost

 

[miami]

The marginal cost of an extra passenger on a train is pretty much zero, indeed the net cost is likely negative as they'll make money elsewhere (from on board food sales etc). Same as the marginal cost of an extra passenger in a car, bus or plane. This holds until the capacity is reached, then the next passenger massively increases the cost (if you have an airplane with 300 people on costing £30k to run or £100 each, the 301st passenger requires a second plane increasing the cost to £60k, or £199 each)

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

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.



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.

I do get great mileage , you say petrol I have a diesel that although is a big car does very well MPG, season tickets and advances are obviously cheaper, but the problem is I can get in my car at minutes notice and drive . TfW are very expensive in North Wales, jump without any card or advance from here to Chester its £25.00 ( can drive for £5.00 e/ w) Liverpool £26.50 ( can drive for less than £10.00 including tunnel)
Rhyl is £9.00 and less than 16 miles away.

London is a very expensive place to live but a very cheap place to travel and very accessible and always isn't far away from 24/7.

 

[Bald Rick]

While true, with the decimation of so many regional bus and rail timetables or even full routes

Which rail routes have had their timetable decimated in the last 30 years? I can’t think of any.

 

[6Gman]

Selling tickets I was often met with the horrified expression 'how much?' when the fare was requested. I ceased to be a booking clerk in 1984.... Complaints about the cost of rail travel are nothing new.

Wouldn't we all like lower prices, not just for rail travel but for other things too, in my case model trains, progressive rock CDs and takeway curries. But the cost of providing the service or product has to come from somewhere. If anyone thinks nationalisation will lead to lower fares, they will be disappointed.

I recall going with my uncle to book some tickets. He was shocked to discover it exceeded the limit on his bank card.

This would have been c.1968.

Rail fares have always been considered "too high" by a majority of people.

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

At the cost of a stonking 14.25% pay increase

In line with inflation (or below it is some cases) for the period it covered.

So hardly "stonking".

 

[modernrail]

A question I have asked on another thread is whether we have loading data for peak intercity trains. It would be very useful to see where these are post-Covid in terms of loading. They are the source of a lot of the ‘high price’. experience that puts people off using the railway.

My very anecdotal experience is that I have been on some very empty trains at prime peak, yet had to pay the anytime fare or close to it in advance form.

We are paying for/subsidising a lot fixed costs and I am concerned that peak loadings might be quite low, compared to say Eurostar which I understand to be approx 70% and airlines which are probably higher.

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

I recall going with my uncle to book some tickets. He was shocked to discover it exceeded the limit on his bank card.

This would have been c.1968.

Rail fares have always been considered "too high" by a majority of people.

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


In line with inflation (or below it is some cases) for the period it covered.

So hardly "stonking".

When your prices are highest in Europe, it is a reasonable position to take isn’t it?

 

[Brubulus]

A question I have asked on another thread is whether we have loading data for peak intercity trains. It would be very useful to see where these are post-Covid in terms of loading. They are the source of a lot of the ‘high price’. experience that puts people off using the railway.

My very anecdotal experience is that I have been on some very empty trains at prime peak, yet had to pay the anytime fare or close to it in advance form.

We are paying for/subsidising a lot fixed costs and I am concerned that peak loadings might be quite low, compared to say Eurostar which I understand to be approx 70% and airlines which are probably higher.

Load targeting vs revenue targeting - the railway is pricing fares in an attempt to maximise revenue, instead of filling trains. Low cost airlines generally price fares to fill planes, because the profit is in the ancillaries, which the railway chooses not to use as a profit centre.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure on AlterEgo's source, but last time I looked into this when living in London, TfL research was based on some term like 'having access to a car'. It's quite possible that if the question is phrased this way, even those who don't own cars will in many cases by factored in, because e.g. they're a named driver on their parents' car when they come home from university. Indeed a DfT report in 2022 used similar phrasing and concluded:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6781339100e3d719f19217f1/dft-car-ownership-evidence-review.pdf

If I was back living in Derby, Nottingham, London, etc I might well ditch my car, and for the few times I need one, rent one, either by the hour or the day. I'm sure my local IKEA has Hertz vans for something like a fiver an hour, London has ZipCars, etc.

Fair points.

I think we can probably all agree that "access to a car" doesn't equate to "continual access to a car and propensity to use it on all occasions".

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

Which rail routes have had their timetable decimated in the last 30 years? I can’t think of any.

The Whitby line for one (well, maybe 30 - 35).

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

thought experiment:
1. compute the cost of running the current service, but with no passengers.

2. compute the cost of running the current service *with* passengers.

3. compute (2) - (1) as marginal cost of carrying passengers.

4. indulge in statistical jiggery pokery to obtain marginal cost per passenger mile.

5. this is your fare. my wild guess is 5p/mile.

simplistic, moi?

ps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost

Surely it costs more to run the railway without passengers as there's no ticket revenue ?

 

[Sonic1234]

because the profit is in the ancillaries, which the railway chooses not to use as a profit centre.

I expect the people who do buy from the trolley aren't the people holding the lowest-tier Advance tickets either.

 

[yorksrob]

The marginal cost of an extra passenger on a train is pretty much zero, indeed the net cost is likely negative as they'll make money elsewhere (from on board food sales etc). Same as the marginal cost of an extra passenger in a car, bus or plane. This holds until the capacity is reached, then the next passenger massively increases the cost (if you have an airplane with 300 people on costing £30k to run or £100 each, the 301st passenger requires a second plane increasing the cost to £60k, or £199 each)

The capacity of trains is a lot more elastic as there is more scope to run trains not fully loaded/with more people squashed on than planes.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Whitby line for one (well, maybe 30 - 35).

Thats why I specifically picked 30! (The service was reduced in 1991, by BR.)

 

[modernrail]

Load targeting vs revenue targeting - the railway is pricing fares in an attempt to maximise revenue, instead of filling trains. Low cost airlines generally price fares to fill planes, because the profit is in the ancillaries, which the railway chooses not to use as a profit centre.

Yes but surely load targeting is still important. We have paid (partly through subsidy) to have that capacity available. A system that only targets revenue and not loadings risks/is ignoring the fact that part of the justification for the subsidy in the first place is for the railways to take a load. The larger the load the better as it uses that capacity thereby maximising the chance of additional benefit to the economy, family life etc.

There should not need to be a compromise on overall revenue. In fact a well loaded train should be more profitable than a less loaded one.

If peak intercity trains are running around with less than say 70% utilisation that is a pretty poor incitement on where the fare setting has ended up.

 

[yorksrob]

Thats why I specifically picked 30! (The service was reduced in 1991, by BR.)

One could reasonably go back seventy years or so in relation to local public transport being decimated !

 

[Bald Rick]

One could reasonably go back seventy years or so in relation to local public transport being decimated !

That depends on your definition of reasonable, when talking about current Government policy.

 

[yorksrob]

Those two 19 year olds with a house in Slough were indeed extremely disprortionate for most 19 year olds, the vast majority of whom are living with parents or students and earning far less. I would imagine it is single digit % for the amount of people under 21 owning a house.

They may be "on the housing ladder" but they are still likely to be paying off substantial housing costs. In that respect they are similar to the majority of working age households.

 

[AlterEgo]

Fair points.

I think we can probably all agree that "access to a car" doesn't equate to "continual access to a car and propensity to use it on all occasions".

Most people do not have continual access to a railway station or the propensity to use it on all occasions either.

When you take into account young people, elderly people, city dwellers etc, I find that statistic hard to believe.

You can find it hard to believe all you like. There are 34 million cars here; that’s 12 cars to every 10 households in Great Britain. According to the Census, 22% of households do not have a car.

Indeed, sometimes even those with access to a car will have need for affordable transport.

Of course, but like I’m telling you, that’s not an attractive political bloc. The less you engage with this reality the less likely things are to change. “Oh but the parties must care about this minority of people!” - must they indeed?

Much better to advocate for rail as a social good rather than cast disbelief on the reality of demography or car ownership in Britain. “There really aren’t so many people driving actually” is a ridiculous angle for public advocacy to take. It’s deeply unserious.

 

[yorksrob]

That depends on your definition of reasonable, when talking about current Government policy.

In the context of public transport being decimated for a large proportion of people, seventy years seems reasonable. Someone living in an area where public transport was removed seventy years ago is likely to have a higher reliance on motor transport than someone living in an area where it wasn't.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Its just sad, so many people, me included would happily and prefer to use the train more than the car if the schedules were worked out better, the fares were not as crazily high and delay's cancelations, etc didn't happen so often and take so long to recover from. To pay such high fares, to be penalised for small mistakes and to have to fight for any recompense 3 times often before you get somewhere. It just makes many people except the members on this site who know a bit better give up and get actually nervous they will get to where they need either on time or at all or not be punished if they make a mistake when involved in delays and missed trains etc. Things need to change.

 

[yorksrob]

Most people do not have continual access to a railway station or the propensity to use it on all occasions either.

No one is implying that they do.

You can find it hard to believe all you like. There are 34 million cars here; that’s 12 cars to every 10 households in Great Britain. According to the Census, 22% of households do not have a car.

Well, households often consist of more than one person, therefore "access to a car" won't necessarily mean that one is available to them all the time.

Of course, but like I’m telling you, that’s not an attractive political bloc. The less you engage with this reality the less likely things are to change. “Oh but the parties must care about this minority of people!” - must they indeed?

Rail users aren't a minority. The majority use trains at some stage, however much the political class tries to ignore this.

Much better to advocate for rail as a social good rather than cast disbelief on the reality of demography or car ownership in Britain. “There really aren’t so many people driving actually” is a ridiculous angle for public advocacy to take. It’s deeply unserious.

Rail should be advocated for as an economic good as well.

Ignoring the fact that a majority will have cause to use a train at some time over a year is deeply unserious.

 

[Bald Rick]

Its just sad, so many people, me included would happily and prefer to use the train more than the car if the schedules were worked out better, the fares were not as crazily high and delay's cancelations, etc didn't happen so often and take so long to recover from.

But many fares are extraordinarily good value compared to alternatives, especially for the journeys that are made the most inthis country. As for schedules - they suit a great many people, and the whole point of the train is that it moves a lot of people at the same time. It can’t possibly accommodate evryone’s travel needs all the time.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, households often consist of more than one person, therefore "access to a car" won't necessarily mean that one is available to them all the time.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. But there remain more private cars than there are households.

Rail users aren't a minority.

Frequent rail users - who would notice and feel the benefit of lower fares because they use the service so much - certainly are.

Rail should be advocated for as an economic good as well.

It should, if the sums work out, and to be honest the advocacy should come from places other than rail enthusiasts.

Ignoring the fact that a majority will have cause to use a train at some time over a year is deeply unserious.

It’s not ignoring it! “Having cause to use it some time over a year” is a preposterous way of suggesting something is a political priority, especially when it requires the subsidy of rail and especially when advocating for a significant increase of that subsidy. This will barely touch the sides of most households’ expenditure. You’re competing with something that the vast majority of people use and you’re trying to negate that point by using the same logic “well people don’t use a car all the time so..”.

The driving lobby is vast. Faced with a mandate to drive down the cost of living the government is going to go after the cost of motoring. That’s why you’ve got a fuel duty freeze and that’s why you’ve got the usual rises in passenger rail fares. It’s not that difficult to understand. Lowering fares is not a priority in the current climate. If you want to focus on how rail transport might be better or more accessible I’d start elsewhere, like improving the quality of service or better integration with other modes. Fares aren’t coming down any time soon and you may as well pick up the wastepaper bin and shout into it.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

But many fares are extraordinarily good value compared to alternatives, especially for the journeys that are made the most inthis country. As for schedules - they suit a great many people, and the whole point of the train is that it moves a lot of people at the same time. It can’t possibly accommodate evryone’s travel needs all the time.

I find very little good value these days on the railway. 10 years ago I was going to London first class on a Friday afternoon for about £39.00 and std for as little as £15.

A jam packed standing room only train costs almost that much from nowhere near London even as close to home as Crewe is £30.00 on a Sunday these days. Its getting silly.

 

[Bald Rick]

A jam packed standing room only train costs almost that much from nowhere near London

But that’s the point - evidently all those people on the train do think the train is better value than the alternatives, otherwise they wouldn’t choose it!

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Or they don't have any other option. And from what I see often on Sunday is fare avoiders looking rough with sun glasses on "sleeping " on the rare occasion a guard can make it round. Usually they know Sunday is a free for all for people heading home from the Saturday night out on a Sunday.

 

[Brubulus]

If the DfT have generally decided that using the capacity currently available isn't worth it, why on earth are they still deciding to invest in increasing the capacity of the railway. It seems like one side is investing to increase capacity while the other side is determined to ensure that only those whose demand is entirely inelastic ever choose to take the train. If we are spending huge amounts to increase capacity, the capacity already available should be maximised.

 

[Horizon22]

They may be "on the housing ladder" but they are still likely to be paying off substantial housing costs. In that respect they are similar to the majority of working age households.

I didn’t say they weren’t but they are not very representative of the average 19 year old.