High fares - The issue that won't go away

[yorksrob]

What would the cap be?

If you used something like Reading to Paddington it would be so high as to be relatively meaningless across the rest of the country.

On the other hand, if the cap was based on the excellent value fares in the West Country then they’d be ‘too cheap’ on a route like Reading to London and there’d be too much revenue loss.

There isn’t an easy solution…

That's a very good question.

I mentioned a couple of trips I did recently where 16p per mile felt really good value but 25p per mile felt poor.

Perhaps something like 18-20p would kill off the worst abominations of fares.

You'd also need to stop perfidious operators from manipulating/removing off peak fare times as well (this means you, LNER).

 

[Haywain]

Perhaps something like 18-20p would kill off the worst abominations of fares.

Around London that would result in a significant drop in fares, and a very large loss of revenue. However, rather than here, you should be proposing this in Speculative Discussion.

 

[yorksrob]

Around London that would result in a significant drop in fares, and a very large loss of revenue. However, rather than here, you should be proposing this in Speculative Discussion.

Well if this isn't a discussion about fares policy, what is ?

Around London already has access to a network card. Why should the rest of us have fares dictated according to what happens around London ?

 

[Haywain]

Why should the rest of us have fares dictated according to what happens around London ?

You don't, for the most part you have lower fares than around London.

 

[yorksrob]

You don't, for the most part you have lower fares than around London.

We've all been round here many times, and for expensive fares around London, we've come up with cheap fares around London and expensive fares elsewhere.

The fact that you called for this thread to be sidelined into "speculative discussions" speaks volumes.

The rail industry establishment doesn't want fares discussed as an issue.

 

[styles]

However, rather than here, you should be proposing this in Speculative Discussion.

Just on this - this forum is for fare advice and policy.

A fare policy forum is probably the most appropriate place to discuss fare policy.

 

[yorksrob]

Just on this - this forum is for fare advice and policy.

A fare policy forum is probably the most appropriate place to discuss fare policy.

Indeed.

 

[Haywain]

The fact that you called for this thread to be sidelined into "speculative discussions" speaks volumes.

I don't know what you think it "speaks volumes" about, but it is your specific suggestion of a mileage based fare cap that belongs in Speculative Discussion. The more general discussion about fares being too high, in your opinion, is fine where it is.

The rail industry establishment doesn't want fares discussed as an issue.

Am I the "rail industry establishment"? Feel free to discuss fares all you want but try and accept that others may have different views and that they may be based on real world experience.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't know what you think it "speaks volumes" about, but it is your specific suggestion of a mileage based fare cap that belongs in Speculative Discussion. The more general discussion about fares being too high, in your opinion, is fine where it is.

Am I the "rail industry establishment"? Feel free to discuss fares all you want but try and accept that others may have different views and that they may be based on real world experience.

A milage based fares cap in the context of the mess we have today, is absolutely relevant for discussion in a fares policy forum.

We have a lousy fares system that particularly fleeces people (for example if they happen to live along a main line), we absolutely should be discussing better ways of designing fares policy in a fares policy forum.

I can't imagine why anyone would want that sidelined, unless they have an interest in the status quo.

 

[Hadders]

That's a very good question.

I mentioned a couple of trips I did recently where 16p per mile felt really good value but 25p per mile felt poor.

Perhaps something like 18-20p would kill off the worst abominations of fares.

You'd also need to stop perfidious operators from manipulating/removing off peak fare times as well (this means you, LNER).

Let's have a look at some examples:

Stevenage to London is 55 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £22.80 or 41.5p per mile
Reading to London is 71 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £28.00 or 39.4p per mile
Milton Keynes to London is 100 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £25.80 or 25.8p per mile
Basingstoke to London is 96 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £32.60 or 33.4p per mile

These places have fast, frequent services to London and to an extent the fares reflect that. To be fair these fares can be reduced by a third if you have a railcard but even then the prices are still going to be above your proposed cap, and much more expensive than equivilent distance routes in other parts of the country where the service is often slower and/or less frequent.

I'd love fares to come down by the reality is The Treasury/DfT/RDG think the fares I've quoted above are too cheap and will find way to increase them (eg Project Oval).

 

[GilfachFargoed]

…and pay an often significant premium for the privilege.

Most people travel on Advances for a good reason. Their expectations are in line with what @Bald Rick outlines, and they don’t want or need anything more than that.

Or they do want flexibility and trade across to the private car to get it - a potential difference between users and non-users where an idea of the real picture can only be obtained through market research.

 

[AlterEgo]

Or they do want flexibility and trade across to the private car to get it - a potential difference between users and non-users where an idea of the real picture can only be obtained through market research.

In the vast majority of cases the private car is cheaper and has the pull factor of sunk costs. The railway doesn’t have to be cheaper than the car and really cannot be - it has to be better, more convenient, more comfortable, more reliable, and with more journey opportunities.

 

[styles]

In the vast majority of cases the private car is cheaper and has the pull factor of sunk costs. The railway doesn’t have to be cheaper than the car and really cannot be - it has to be better, more convenient, more comfortable, more reliable, and with more journey opportunities.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

If you love rurally or in a place where public transport isn't great, absolutely.

But the majority of people in the UK love in cities and large towns, with excellent public transport.

In these cases, it usually is actually better not owning a car. Perhaps renting one for the odd trip.

I do think the railway can compete against the cost of driving, especially when MOT, VED, fuel, insurance, servicing, maintenance etc is factored in.

Of course for people who already own a car a lot of costs are sunk already like you say, but I spent years living in cities or large towns without owning a car because public transport was decent. If we can do that across the country, even just in the larger towns and cities, it would be a big win.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't necessarily agree with this.

If you love rurally or in a place where public transport isn't great, absolutely.

But the majority of people in the UK love in cities and large towns

they do.

, with excellent public transport.

...no? Public transport in the UK is poor, especially outside of London! It's laughably dreadful compared to most peer European countries.

In these cases, it usually is actually better not owning a car.

If you're single and have no children, it can occasionally be better, but we know from car ownership statistics that even the poorest households mostly still own a car, even in cities. So I don't think this statement can be anything other than a personal preference.

I do think the railway can compete against the cost of driving, especially when MOT, VED, fuel, insurance, servicing, maintenance etc is factored in.

But households *without a car* don't just use trains. In fact, even living in Rugby previously, if I had no car, I would be taking buses (and wasting a lot of time). I'd also have had to use a taxi several dozen times a year. Just a snapshot of how a married couple would live. Now, with a baby in tow, it would be unconscionable to be car-less. And actually - and contrary to I think, most posters here - most British adults are parents in a household. That is very much the default, and it hugely skews the sums in favour of owning a car.

 

[yorksrob]

Let's have a look at some examples:

Stevenage to London is 55 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £22.80 or 41.5p per mile
Reading to London is 71 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £28.00 or 39.4p per mile
Milton Keynes to London is 100 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £25.80 or 25.8p per mile
Basingstoke to London is 96 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £32.60 or 33.4p per mile

These places have fast, frequent services to London and to an extent the fares reflect that. To be fair these fares can be reduced by a third if you have a railcard but even then the prices are still going to be above your proposed cap, and much more expensive than equivilent distance routes in other parts of the country where the service is often slower and/or less frequent.

I'd love fares to come down by the reality is The Treasury/DfT/RDG think the fares I've quoted above are too cheap and will find way to increase them (eg Project Oval).

Those are extortionate for the distance. It suggests that the Government in Westminster doesn't have passengers backs.

 

[styles]

they do.


...no? Public transport in the UK is poor, especially outside of London! It's laughably dreadful compared to most peer European countries.

I've lived in or near London, Derby, Manchester, Nottingham, Edinburgh. I could and did live in all these places without a car. To suggest public transport in these places is poor is imo laughable. 24 hour buses for a few quid even at 3am.

Yes plenty of rural places suck for public transport, but cities and large towns in the UK do alright in my view.

If you're single and have no children, it can occasionally be better, but we know from car ownership statistics that even the poorest households mostly still own a car, even in cities. So I don't think this statement can be anything other than a personal preference.

Not really. Only in the past 5 years has London flipped from majority not having access to a car to majority having access to a car. Cities consistently have lower car ownership than rural areas, precisely because they have public transport alternatives. When I was living in Beeston, near Nottingham, owning a car was generally not worthwhile. I had colleagues who cycled their kids to school because the cycle infrastructure was decent, and most of my colleagues got the tram in, because it was frequent and affordable. I worked with many colleagues who just didn't bother owning a car because it didn't make financial sense.

I moved to a village in Fife and bought a car, because the public transport was unreliable, infrequent, and expensive. Had it been better I wouldn't have bothered with a car.

But households *without a car* don't just use trains. In fact, even living in Rugby previously, if I had no car, I would be taking buses (and wasting a lot of time). I'd also have had to use a taxi several dozen times a year. Just a snapshot of how a married couple would live. Now, with a baby in tow, it would be unconscionable to be car-less. And actually - and contrary to I think, most posters here - most British adults are parents in a household. That is very much the default, and it hugely skews the sums in favour of owning a car.

You're right, they don't exclusively use trains. But the point is a more general one about public transport - whether it's trains or buses or boats, if it is frequent enough, reliable, and affordable, people will use it.

On the final point, I don't have children. But I do have friends who cycle their children to school, and I have lived in buildings where parents let their kids get to school on public transport, etc. If the transport options are available, I don't see why most school children can't take sustainable transport to school. It is also worth remembering that there is a statutory right to school transport based on distance lived from the school - that many parents choose to drive them to school instead of asking their local authority to provide transport (a bus or minibus usually, but sometimes taxi) is a reflection of local authorities and government not communicating this, usually with the aim of reducing costs.

 

[redreni]

I've lived in or near London, Derby, Manchester, Nottingham, Edinburgh. I could and did live in all these places without a car. To suggest public transport in these places is poor is imo laughable. 24 hour buses for a few quid even at 3am.

Yes plenty of rural places suck for public transport, but cities and large towns in the UK do alright in my view.

Maybe someone more patient than me will reel off the list of European cities smaller than Manchester - many of them substantially smaller - that have metros (by which I mean actual, high capacity, high frequency underground railway networks, as distinct from trams branded as metros).

And try to find anywhere in Europe as large as Leeds with no trams and a comparable or worse suburban rail network.

Our public transport outside London is better than North America, but nonetheless the general picture is it is much worse than most of the rest of the developed world. It's also much worse than it was in 2010 - it is very reliant on buses, especially to fill the gaps and allow people to live car free if they chose. It's only the biggest cities that have largely retained usable bus services that don't just stop at 6ish.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not really. Only in the past 5 years has London flipped from majority not having access to a car to majority having access to a car. Cities consistently have lower car ownership than rural areas, precisely because they have public transport alternatives.

This is not in dispute, but cities also have a much higher concentration of younger and/or single people without responsibilities.

You're right, they don't exclusively use trains. But the point is a more general one about public transport - whether it's trains or buses or boats, if it is frequent enough, reliable, and affordable, people will use it.

And it's actually not good enough to be car-less as a family unit in most parts of the country without a significant drop in one's standard of living. Sorry but public transport here is generally poor and is is especially not family-friendly.

On the final point, I don't have children. But I do have friends who cycle their children to school, and I have lived in buildings where parents let their kids get to school on public transport, etc. If the transport options are available, I don't see why most school children can't take sustainable transport to school.

Well sure, I used to take the bus from Leighton Buzzard to Aylesbury when I was a kid; my parents never ever drove me during school hours. But they still had a car, because going to school is not the only justification for having a car as a family. I would literally not have been able to participate in many extracurricular activities, or been as active in the cadets, or been able to play away football matches, etc etc etc as a kid had my parents not driven me.

I live right next to a railway station; I would not ever consider going car-less. Last weekend I had to be in Loughborough for an event. It cost £9 in fuel to get there in a 3 litre 4x4 car. It took 45 minutes. It took over two hours to go home by three trains and cost me £21 - and that is WITH a railcard!

And you might ask - why would I be driving one way and back by train? My wife was taking our daughter to see relatives on the outskirts of Derby, a journey which would be impossible to consider without a car, and so I was dropped off. That's a trip which would have taken at least 2h45m each way, involved two trains, a bus, and a 20 minute walk, with a baby. And cost a lot more. Even with the running costs of a car and the sunk costs of purchase etc, it's a no-brainer. This is a completely typical use case for families in most situations in the UK, and that's before we get into the difficulties of getting into work in some places without a car.

The data clearly backs this up - the vast majority of households, even the poorest ones, decide the expense of a car to retain flexibility, on-demand transport and convenience is necessary even during a cost of living crisis. It's probably not because of ignorance.

 

[sheff1]

The railway doesn’t have to be cheaper than the car and really cannot be - it has to be better, more convenient, more comfortable, more reliable, and with more journey opportunities.

If you mean the railway has to be better than the car in those areas then it is failing miserably.

 

[Krokodil]

And it's actually not good enough to be car-less as a family unit in most parts of the country without a significant drop in one's standard of living. Sorry but public transport here is generally poor and is is especially not family-friendly.

Public transport isn't the only way of getting about without a car. Obviously you need public transport for travelling further afield (a task for which rail is better, where provided) but for local journeys (to work/school/shops) bikes are almost as quick as cars and far quicker & more convenient than buses. Bakfiets (Dutch meaning "bucket bikes") are useful for moving kids and larger loads about.

Just need to teach British motorists not to drive like maniacs. I was in Tournon-sur-Rhone earlier today and it was good to see plenty of women out on their bikes, often not feeling the need to wear helmets. A few young children were being taken to the Saturday market by their father too. When cycling on rural Italian roads a couple of weeks ago and the drivers were very respectful, quite different to the UK where it feels like every second SUV is trying to kill you.

 

[Starmill]

it has to be better, more convenient, more comfortable, more reliable,

Is it really any of those things or even close at the moment? I don't see a lot of that. I don't even see the basic beginnings of that with say Northern or CrossCountry.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it really any of those things or even close at the moment? I don't see a lot of that. I don't even see the basic beginnings of that with say Northern or CrossCountry.

Not at all. The high fares which are the subject of the thread are only part of the issue - and in fact, a relatively small part, I feel.

 

[Starmill]

Public transport isn't the only way of getting about without a car. Obviously you need public transport for travelling further afield (a task for which rail is better, where provided) but for local journeys (to work/school/shops) bikes are almost as quick as cars and far quicker & more convenient than buses. Bakfiets (Dutch meaning "bucket bikes") are useful for moving kids and larger loads about.

Just need to teach British motorists not to drive like maniacs. I was in Tournon-sur-Rhone earlier today and it was good to see plenty of women out on their bikes, often not feeling the need to wear helmets. A few young children were being taken to the Saturday market by their father too. When cycling on rural Italian roads a couple of weeks ago and the drivers were very respectful, quite different to the UK where it feels like every second SUV is trying to kill you.

I think you're preaching to the choir here. How exactly do we persuade the average two-car household that they need to give up their on street parking for a bike lane, say?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2025 ==

If you mean the railway has to be better than the car in those areas then it is failing miserably.

In my view it isn't even really trying. The purview is provide a train that might get you there. How comfortable or convenient or pleasant it is or even if you get a seat factors quite little into anything.

 

[Krokodil]

How exactly do we persuade the average two-car household that they need to give up their on street parking for a bike lane, say?

Residential streets are usually not where cycle lanes are needed. Generally residential streets should be quiet enough and slow enough that traffic (possibly including pedestrians) can mix in the same space.

The places you need them are on busier roads.

 

[Starmill]

And it's actually not good enough to be car-less as a family unit in most parts of the country without a significant drop in one's standard of living. Sorry but public transport here is generally poor and is is especially not family-friendly.

Even as a younger person without dependents there's about 3 places outside of London that have a late night bus service to make being carless tolerable...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jun 2025 ==

Residential streets are usually not where cycle lanes are needed. Generally residential streets should be quiet enough and slow enough that traffic (possibly including pedestrians) can mix in the same space.

The places you need them are on busier roads.

I don't fancy cycling down some of the narrow double parked residential streets I'm familiar with. But that doesn't really change anything - ultimately car drivers won't give up space without a fight on any kind of road.

 

[Krokodil]

They do like to act like they own the roads. Particularly the bit of street right in front of their house.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Let's have a look at some examples:

Stevenage to London is 55 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £22.80 or 41.5p per mile
Reading to London is 71 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £28.00 or 39.4p per mile
Milton Keynes to London is 100 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £25.80 or 25.8p per mile
Basingstoke to London is 96 miles round trip. Off Peak Day Return is £32.60 or 33.4p per mile

These places have fast, frequent services to London and to an extent the fares reflect that. To be fair these fares can be reduced by a third if you have a railcard but even then the prices are still going to be above your proposed cap, and much more expensive than equivilent distance routes in other parts of the country where the service is often slower and/or less frequent.

I'd love fares to come down by the reality is The Treasury/DfT/RDG think the fares I've quoted above are too cheap and will find way to increase them (eg Project Oval).

These rates will have all resulted from British Rail applying a quality threshold to fares which was then frozen is aspic by Fares Regulation in 1995, baking in distortions that had decreasing relevance to the actual service provided.

Incidentally the Government is responsible for fares policy and the overarching imperative given the public finances is to reduce the current £14bn a year taxpayer funding to get it nearer to the £10bn a year that it was before COVID. RDG has no opinion of its own. Previously it was required to reflect the opinion of the TOCs; now of course it is essentially directed by Government.

 

[Falcon1200]

Those are extortionate for the distance.

So what should those rates per mile be? And if they were reduced to whatever level is deemed non-extortionate, how would the railway then be paid for?

When discussing high fares, this is, and always will be, the essential issue; The railway is expensive to provide, maintain, renew and operate, and nationalisation will not have any material effect; As I said (much!) earlier in this thread, people complained about the cost of tickets when I was a booking clerk - In the early 1980s.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is all very interesting debate, but fares are not going to be reduced. Fine tuned perhaps to better match demand to capacity in some routes, but not reduced en bloc. We have a pretty busy railway with fares at current levels; reducing fares to increase demand would simoly result in more overcrowded trains.

Whilst anecdote does not equal evidence let me offer some personal experience from a relatively rare standpoint which only a few people in this country now have.

For well over thirty years I have had free rail travel nationwide. This now applies to Mrs BR and the BR children. In all my time with it I have lived in various places, but always walking distance to a busy station with frequent services. The cost equation of rail vs car vs other modes is therefore very different for me.

And yet, my family has two cars. We routinely drive to places that are within walking distance of a station, and some of these journeys are well over 100 miles. The train is usually more comfortable (we can read / sleep, drink…) and in many cases the train is quicker, especially given the increasing congestion on the motorways for the journeys we have to use. So: the train can be auicker, more comfortsble, and free but we choose to use the car. Why?

Because of convenience and flexibility. Yes it costs more, might take longer and be less comfortable but it is worth paying that ‘price’ so that we can leave at a time of our choosing, stop when we like, go visit places we might want to visit en route, and have the flexibility at destination to make shorter journeys there at minimal expense. When I visit my parents (who live almost next to a station with a decent service), I am rarely just visiting them. I am also visiting other relations, or taking them to a pub for lunch, or going to B&Q to pick up some stuff for their garden, etc. All much easier with my car up there.

We do, of course, also use the train for many long distance journeys, but these are typically for what might be termed ‘city breaks’, ie a visit to a specific location with no need to travel locally when there.

My point is that even with the cost of rail transport at zero, I need a car for most of my travel needs, even those that are easily completed by rail. I know talking to my friends and colleagues who have similar free travel facilities that they are the same.

Naturally, a rail forum is going to have a higher than average number of people for whom rail is preferred simply for being rail, and who may well plan their life around availability of rail services. But that isn’t how the rest of our society or economy operates.

 

[redreni]

I think you're preaching to the choir here. How exactly do we persuade the average two-car household that they need to give up their on street parking for a bike lane, say?

"Their on-street parking"?

They don't own the road. Even immediately outside their house. We should stop pandering to motorists' belief that they do.

We should also challenge their belief that nobody subsidises them and therefore they shouldn't be expected to subsidise more sustainable modes of transport. The fuel duty they pay (which the most affluent motorists can now dodge by driving EVs) doesn't realistically reflect the very significant negative externalities of car manufacture and use (excessive energy use, air pollution and associated public health impacts, microplastc pollution etc). Vehicle excise duty comes nowhere near covering the cost of road construction and maintenance. Subsidies cover the gap. Rail users and advocates should not, in my view, fall into the trap of thinking rail subsidies are rightly controversial or hard to justify.

The high cost of running and improving our railways are in large part down to political mismanagement. It is enormously wasteful, for example, to build the Ordsall Chord, reprofile Victoria station but not complete the four-tracking needed to realise the benefits. It is wasteful to keep stopping and restarting electrification depending on the treasury's appetite to fund what it obviously sees as a luxury, rather than having a rolling electrification programme that just works it's way through the work methodically. And look at HS2.

I think much of what is said on this thread accurately identifies why the electorate, while it might be majority agree rail fares are too high, would not support increasing subsidy to pay for fare reductions. The majority is not correct in this particular case, though. Those of us who want a better railway with cheaper fares that carries more passengers and freight have perfectly respectable arguments we can and should make.