Trains are a rich man's toy, says transport secretary

[wintonian]

Trains are a rich man's toy, says transport secretary


Britain's rail fares are now so high that trains have become a "rich man's toy", Transport Secretary Richard Hammond has said.
He told the Commons transport committee it was an "uncomfortable fact" that customers had "significantly higher incomes" than the general population.
Mr Hammond added that some fares on the West Coast Mainline were "eye-wateringly expensive".
Commuter season tickets are set to rise by about 8% on average next year.
The above-inflation increase is part of the government's agenda to reduce the cost to the public purse of running the rail network.
But the Campaign for Better Transport described the change as a "disaster for people already struggling with rising costs".
Appearing before the MPs, Mr Hammond said: "Uncomfortable fact number one is that the railway is already relatively a rich man's toy
"People who use the railway on average have significantly higher incomes than the population as a whole - simple fact."
However, while commenting on the high price of some West Coast Mainline fares, he said that some advance ticket prices were "really quite reasonable".

BBC

Admittedly nothing new here but thought it might be worth a mention.

 

[Schnellzug]

isn't it Philip Hammond who's Transport Secretary; Richard is the one off of Top Gear, isn't he? Mind you, I reckon the latter could do a better job.

 

[island]

I wonder did they pick a photo of a train from a defunct TOC on purpose!

 

[WestCoast]

isn't it Philip Hammond who's Transport Secretary; Richard is the one off of Top Gear, isn't he? Mind you, I reckon the latter could do a better job.

Richard Hammond

 

[SS4]

What did he expect when private companies are allowed to set fares? Or when his government allows huge fare rises?

 

[Schnellzug]

What did he expect when private companies are allowed to set fares? Or when his government allows huge fare rises?

That's the thing; it's the Govt. that "allows" operators to make fare increases, in order (as they always put it) "to pay for improvements". It's usual political hypocrisy.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think their franchise agreements require them to put up their fares as laid down by the DfT - the DfT will have calculated its expected premium or subsidy on the basis that the fares will go up.

I think any suggestion that this is an upper limit and that somehow the TOCs are free not to impose a rise is incredible.

 

[Butts]

The bottom line is that commuters pay extortionate amounts of money to be crammed into sardine tins twice a day.

Leisure travellers like myself can take advantage of wonderful Advance 1st Class Fares with Virgin and East Coast which represent excellent value for money especially when travelling alone.

If you are prepared to put up with second class then the bargains for off-peak travellers are even better - megatrain springs to mind.

The hard pressed commuters subsidise everyone else - Thankyou

 

[Metroland]

What a silly comment, trains serve city centres where the better jobs are, so of course 'the better off' tend to use them more, as they do intercity services for business.

In fact the 'better off' tend to travel more full stop, they have more holidays, own more cars, and go further afield. If you look at the demographic of the average airline passenger or car owner, the also tend to be 'better off'.

Poor people tend to either not travel, walk, or take buses.

That said, if you go out into the sticks on (heavily subsidised) regional railway, most passenger are students, single mums and older people. Hardy the 'better off'.

The question is, what does Philip Hammond propose to do about it? Or is this just another excuse to cut subsidy or hike up fares more?

I use trains all the time, I'm certainly not rich.

 

[bb21]

Are we seriously expecting a Transport Minister who have no idea how the transport system functions to come up with a suggestion full of substance?

Politicians mostly live on spin. How many ministers actually understand the areas they serve?

 

[swt_passenger]

Are we seriously expecting a Transport Minister who have no idea how the transport system functions to come up with a suggestion full of substance?

It was an answer to a question about HS2 at the Transport Committee:

He was asked by Labour MP Julie Hilling whether it would become a "rich
person's toy" unavailable to "people of low or moderate means".

Mr Hammond replied: "Uncomfortable fact number one is that the railway is
already relatively a rich man's toy - the whole railway.

"People who use the railway on average have significantly higher incomes
than the population as a whole - simple fact."

He speaks for an hour or more, (it's on the transport committee website), might be worth watching rather than taking one reply and making a headline story out of it like the BBC did...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The bottom line is that commuters pay extortionate amounts of money to be crammed into sardine tins twice a day.

The hard pressed commuters subsidise everyone else - Thankyou

Round here (near Southampton) London season ticket holders enjoy fares that are 40% of the Anytime equivalent - it's them that are subsidised BY everyone else if you ask me...

 

[districtline]

I wish people would stop saying train fares are expensive, they are not. Euston to Glasgow Central for 13.20 single, absolute bargain and much cheaper than car.

 

[Zoe]

At the end of the day it has been the position of governments in recent years that a greater share of the cost of the railways should be paid for by the fare payer than the tax payer so higher fares are inevitable. You also can't expect a profit making business to not do everything it can to maximize revenue.

 

[Ticket Man]

I'd have to agree with metroland on this one.

Obviously a stupid comment that can be read massively out of context.

I'm not too well off and I show that through LACK OF TRAVEL.

I don't go abroad not through not wanting to but because I can't afford it.

I don't hear politicians waffling on about how the majority of trans-Atlantic air passengers are top earners :roll:

 

[Flamingo]

People who travel have more money than people who don't. Another statement from a politician making the obvious sound like the incredible.

 

[Ticket Man]

might be worth watching rather than taking one reply and making a headline story out of it like the BBC did...

The problem exactly, surely anyone would know that speaking like that can be mis-understood way out of context.

 

[All Line Rover]

It's interesting how Richard Hammond () says HS2 tickets will following a similar pricing structure to the WCML, and then admits that some of these fares will be "eye-wateringly expensive," as now. He's not exactly encouraging people to buy these tickets! It's nice to hear, though, that HS2 will have Advance tickets.

 

[Zoe]

It's nice to hear, though, that HS2 will have Advance tickets.

It's all very well having advance fares but if this results in very expensive walk-up fares then it isn't going to help as much as it could do with modal shift from the motorways as people that want flexibility will continue to use the roads. If London to Birmingham becomes a 49 minute journey with trains running at turn up and go frequencies, should you really have to book this in advance to avoid paying through the roof?

 

[All Line Rover]

It's all very well having advance fares but if this results in very expensive walk-up fares then it isn't going to help as much as it could do with modal shift from the motorways as people that want flexibility will continue to use the roads. If London to Birmingham becomes a 49 minute journey with trains running at turn up and go frequencies, should you really have to book this in advance to avoid paying through the roof?

If they plan on running 24 services per hour in each direction (which they've said is the maximum), then no, perhaps not. But I doubt they will run anywhere near such a frequently, unless they fancy carting around lots of air! It's difficult to comment at this stage, as we do not know anything about the length of rolling stock or the service frequency.

I would point out that the high speed networks in other European countries (France in particular) are also heavily reliant on Advance tickets and have eye-watering "on the day" fares. I do admit, though, that 5 hour TGV journeys are a completely different ball game to 50 minute HS2 journeys.

 

[Metroland]

At the end of the day it has been the position of governments in recent years that a greater share of the cost of the railways should be paid for by the fare payer than the tax payer so higher fares are inevitable. You also can't expect a profit making business to not do everything it can to maximize revenue.

Which is of-course an ideological viewpoint on their part. In mainland Europe, where public transport is seen more as 'a social service that binds the country together' and assists in the mobility of everyone, the issue of subsidy is never so hotly contested. We have this mindset that subsidy is bad, profit is good (at least when it comes to transport - the same doesn't exist for other social services) even though the cost of transport might be the difference between someone being able to take a job or visit the shops or their gran or not. In other words a huge effect on social mobility, job prospects and inclusion, especially if you don't earn enough to own a car or can drive.

The problem is the vast majority of people view the cost of their car journey (wrongly) as the cost of the fuel (and in the odd case the parking on top), so there's always this notion that trains (and sometimes buses) are expensive because it costs more than the fuel in many cases. This tends to colour perceptions on cost, and decision making. Especially if politicians are insistent that passengers should pay the full cost, which makes the differential between the fuel cost of the car and the public transport fare more extreme in many cases.

 

[yorksrob]

That said, if you go out into the sticks on (heavily subsidised) regional railway, most passenger are students, single mums and older people. Hardy the 'better off'.

The question is, what does Philip Hammond propose to do about it? Or is this just another excuse to cut subsidy or hike up fares more?

I use trains all the time, I'm certainly not rich.

Indeed. With some right of centre think tanks and commentators, such a comment could easily lead to the recommendation of another round of Beeching cuts.

Hammond is, of course, a different Kettle of fish. He is, afterall, using the comment to support the construction of a railway. Is he deliberately understating the fact that the majority of Inter-City passengers use cheaper advance purchase fares ? Probably. I find it hard to believe that he doesn't realise (or at least isn't informed) that outside of the South East, the railway's no more a "rich man's toy" than Ryanair (or at the very least, Freddie Laker's Skytrain).

It is dissappointing that he doesn't appear to take account of the Regional Railway. Perhaps the uncomfortable truth for him is that the most heavily subsidised part of the network is also its most socially inclusive. I certainly think he could do with a couple of week days touring Northern Rail.

 

[jon0844]

I am not against privatisation for the most part, but the whole idea was to encourage competition that would make fares lower. If it had worked, we'd not have any of these discussions!

The fact that a Tory MP is admitting fares are so expensive (even if acknowledging advance fares) is not a good way of showing privatisation was a big success.

On some routes where there are multiple operators, there are special offers and rail can be a cheap way to travel. However, for a lot of people there's one franchise and one operator. Take it or leave it. There's no competition, and moving doesn't necessarily help either (but who would move to get cheaper fares, given the fact franchises change every 5-10 years or so?).

I wish we'd got a railway run like Scotrail, or as TfL runs things in London. Private operators, but under contract with fairer ticket prices - as the operators aren't getting such a huge slice of the ticket revenue but rather a fixed rate for the most part.

Or else every line should be forced to have more than one operator, but then we have the problem of rolling stock and paths. It isn't possible or even sensible if you have to reduce the services of one operator to accommodate another (each then having a poor service). Unless you do things like we have with utilities and have one single train but the ability to buy different tickets for the same service via a third party - but that then adds another 'mouth to feed' so may not work either.

Still, one solution could be the TfL/Scotrail idea and then third party ticket agents that can offer recognised tickets (the standard tickets available today) but at different rates. One company might offer loyalty discounts for having an account with them, while another (e.g. Tesco) may give money off when you spend a certain amount in store. With the ability to print at home, or collect a ticket from a machine at the station, you could have a single place to get your ticket no matter where you bought it.

That would shake things up a little, possibly.

 

[Greenback]

The people I see every day travelling from Llanelli to Swansea do not come from the richests strata of society. The daily commuters work in low paid jobs in call centres and the NHS.

There is some justification in describing full fare inter city passengers as rich, they would have to be to be able to pay the fares!

 

[swt_passenger]

If they plan on running 24 services per hour in each direction (which they've said is the maximum), then no, perhaps not.

They have never planned 24 tph to my knowledge.

Andrew McNaughton was discussing this (during this afternoon's televised transport select committee proceedings) and explicitly replied to a number of questions that 18 tph is the practical day to day timetabling limit, and whilst 21 tph is the theoretical maximum capacity, this cannot be operated routinely.

 

[Flamingo]

The people I see every day travelling from Llanelli to Swansea do not come from the richests strata of society. The daily commuters work in low paid jobs in call centres and the NHS.

There is some justification in describing full fare inter city passengers as rich, they would have to be to be able to pay the fares!

As you know, the fare structure in South Wales is much lower than an equivalent journey into London.

The bottom line is that every journey, be it the journey to work or leisure travel, is assessed by the individual passenger on a cost/benefit basis. I do believe that very few (outside of members of this forum!) travel by train unless it is the cheapest or easiest option available to them. Their individual situation might rule out some other modes (no car / no licence), but they still have alternatives, including in the short term staying at home, medium/long term looking for a new job or living closer to work..

 

[Butts]

The people I see every day travelling from Llanelli to Swansea do not come from the richests strata of society. The daily commuters work in low paid jobs in call centres and the NHS.

There is some justification in describing full fare inter city passengers as rich, they would have to be to be able to pay the fares!

It's the same up here apart from Edinburgh to Glasgow - anywhere without much demand for First Class or no provision is normally a good clue.

The focus (as with everything else) is London and the South East

 

[All Line Rover]

They have never planned 24 tph to my knowledge.

Andrew McNaughton was discussing this (during this afternoon's televised transport select committee proceedings) and explicitly replied to a number of questions that 18 tph is the practical day to day timetabling limit, and whilst 21 tph is the theoretical maximum capacity, this cannot be operated routinely.

The numbers are all over the place to be honest. I doubt we'll know the exact figures for a good few years.

Even if 18tph is the "practical limit," they will never run that number of trains between London and Birmingham - particularly if they were 9 or 11 carriages long (which seems sensible). 18tph along the "core" section of track out of London does start to sound reasonable when you take into account planned extensions of the network - Manchester, Leeds, etc.. It's good that the designers are showing a little foresight for once!

 

[radamfi]

I would point out that the high speed networks in other European countries (France in particular) are also heavily reliant on Advance tickets and have eye-watering "on the day" fares. I do admit, though, that 5 hour TGV journeys are a completely different ball game to 50 minute HS2 journeys.

It depends what you call 'eye-watering'. A 2nd class peak walk up single from Paris to Lyon (over 250 miles) is €86.40, somewhat less than the £139.50 SOS from Manchester to London (183 miles). And the TGV service is much faster.

In Germany, the regular single fare on the high speed ICE service from Frankfurt to Köln is €64.00, a distance similar to London to Birmingham which has a SOS of £74.50. And the ICE fare can be cut to €32 with a BahnCard 50.

 

[Greenback]

As you know, the fare structure in South Wales is much lower than an equivalent journey into London.

The bottom line is that every journey, be it the journey to work or leisure travel, is assessed by the individual passenger on a cost/benefit basis. I do believe that very few (outside of members of this forum!) travel by train unless it is the cheapest or easiest option available to them. Their individual situation might rule out some other modes (no car / no licence), but they still have alternatives, including in the short term staying at home, medium/long term looking for a new job or living closer to work..

Yes, I know it's cheaper here, only a couple of days ago a chap was explaining to a fellow traveller how it is much cheaper, not to mention quicker, for him to commute from Ferryside to Swansea by train than by car.

However, I do wish people would look outside of London and the South East when describing passengers as affluent!

There are lots of reasons why people choose a particular mode of transport, including, cost, speed, convenience and flexibility - I am not going to disagree! Richer people may well use different criteria, and give more or less weight to some, but that doesn't mean we can classify rail as a rich man's toy, any more than we can say it's only used by the less well off as all the rich have their own cars!

 

[Flamingo]

That's the problems with generalisations, they are a broad brush!