High fares - The issue that won't go away

[miami]

They will be on season tickets or travelcards.

Season tickets of course being the cheapest

A peak time return from Crawley to London costs £58.80, or 52p per mile.

A weekly return is £121.40, which for 5 days travel would be £24.28, or 21p per mile.

For making things revenue neutral, getting rid of weekly season tickets and just charging a fare for the journey seems far better.

Also, in a national railway system, why should Birmingham - London passengers get 17p per mile, but Birmingham - Exeter get shafted with 37p ?

Because theres lots of capacity and competition between Birmingham and London, but there isn't between Birmingham and Exeter.

You could increase investment into track and rolling stock to improve that situation, but that isn't accomplished by reducing prices on already full trains (and thus rationing the space in a different way). Personally I'd do this by increasing the costs of rail on regular users so they pay the same as occasional users, and using that extra revenue that to make things better for occasional users.

Of course we're getting rid of competition so expect the more affordable trains (like the west-coast mainline) to become as terrible as the east coast soon enough, pushing out occasional users. Yeay.

 

[yorksrob]

Be careful what you wish for. It is clear that there is no appetite in the country at large for significant increases in rail subsidies. As such a change to fares along those lines would have to be broadly revenue neutral. There would be winners and losers. And some of the losers would be rural lines that are already vulnerable to further cuts. Such a policy could easily result in closures being part of the price to be paid. Is it worth it?

Do not kid yourself that railways are a big issue to many people. Health, education, defence, law and order all consistently rank higher than public transport in most people's priorities. And that's before you consider more topical issues like cost of living spikes or immigration. Yes strategic long-term thinking is a necessity in progressive transport policy. But we're unlikely to see very much of that in the UK.

Law and order and defence are important to me as well. People can have a range of priorities. Rail fares feed directly into the cost of living, which is presumably why they do crop up in the vox pop pieces in the press.

If the government were to set a pence per mile off peak fare cap, it would have to justify and fund it on its merits.

The public would no more accept large scale cuts to support it than they would to fund HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

Season tickets of course being the cheapest

A peak time return from Crawley to London costs £58.80, or 52p per mile.

A weekly return is £121.40, which for 5 days travel would be £24.28, or 21p per mile.

For making things revenue neutral, getting rid of weekly season tickets and just charging a fare for the journey seems far better.



Because theres lots of capacity and competition between Birmingham and London, but there isn't between Birmingham and Exeter.

You could increase investment into track and rolling stock to improve that situation, but that isn't accomplished by reducing prices on already full trains (and thus rationing the space in a different way). Personally I'd do this by increasing the costs of rail on regular users so they pay the same as occasional users, and using that extra revenue that to make things better for occasional users.

Of course we're getting rid of competition so expect the more affordable trains (like the west-coast mainline) to become as terrible as the east coast soon enough, pushing out occasional users. Yeay.

Well, there seem to be plenty of four and five carriage trains between Birmingham and Exeter - perhaps if the industry and government hadn't been so quick to scrap trains at the earliest opportunity, there might be lots more capacity on that route. This is another case of the industry and Government penalising passengers for its own failings.

If lack of competition is in danger of putting up fares, perhaps that's an argument for more effective regulation of fares with political oversight.

 

[miklcct]

They will be on season tickets or travelcards.

Season tickets or Travelcards within the London fare zones (1-9) are only worthwhile if you are commuting for at least 5 days per week, with the majority in the peak hours and/or involving changing between the tube, National Rail and buses. They are rarely worthwhile if travel is solely on the tube, while NR-only season tickets are not available for all routes. So a lot of 3- or 4-day commuters, or part peak / part off-peak commuters, are paying peak fares on their peak journeys, especially that the evening peak between 16:00 - 19:00.

 

[Haywain]

Of course we're getting rid of competition so expect the more affordable trains (like the west-coast mainline) to become as terrible as the east coast soon enough,

The East Coast has more genuine competition than the West Coast, and has had for many years.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If the government were to set a pence per mile off peak fare cap, it would have to justify and fund it on its merits.

The public would no more accept large scale cuts to support it than they would to fund HS2.

And that's exactly the point. Sunak's cuts to HS2 were largely greeted by "yeah, whatever". Any government wanting to increase rail subsidies purely to reduce (some) fares would have to explain why that is a better policy than employing more medical staff and police officers or repairing all those dilapidated school buildings.

Sadly until such time, if ever, that this country's economy becomes strong enough to support all the nice-to-haves I'm afraid you'll have to find a way to emigrate to Switzerland or the Netherlands if you want to enjoy quality public transport at an affordable price.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are also a reasonable chunk of people like myself, who aren't poor, but for whom the cost of running a car (on top of housing costs etc) is onerous, therefore rail becomes more important.

But you don’t run a car. That still puts you in a minority.

In fact, the majority of households earning less than £20,000 *own* a car.

There isn’t a critical mass of votes on the issue of “make rail fares cheaper” (also called “make non users subsidise it even more from direct taxation”). It’s a political non starter; rail has to pay its way and lower fares aren’t the political hot button issue you think it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

And that's exactly the point. Sunak's cuts to HS2 were largely greeted by "yeah, whatever". Any government wanting to increase rail subsidies purely to reduce (some) fares would have to explain why that is a better policy than employing more medical staff and police officers or repairing all those dilapidated school buildings.

Sadly until such time, if ever, that this country's economy becomes strong enough to support all the nice-to-haves I'm afraid you'll have to find a way to emigrate to Switzerland or the Netherlands if you want to enjoy quality public transport at an affordable price.

Quite.

 

[yorksrob]

The East Coast has more genuine competition than the West Coast, and has had for many years.

Yet it lacks the sort of cheap walk on fares that are so popular on the WCML.

Is this competition any more "genuine", given that the fares products provided by the competitors are broadly similar, whereas on the WCML, you get a more genuine choice between walk on fares and advanced purchase.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you don’t run a car. That still puts you in a minority.

In fact, the majority of households earning less than £20,000 *own* a car.

Add to that that it is in fact bus that is most important to people who are low enough earners that they can't afford to run even the cheapest used car. The only exception to this is places where rail provides a very large proportion or all of the local public transport, which is essentially just the big cities but would also include places like the Marston Vale.

If you wanted to look at things in a purely "progressive" way like that, removing all rail subsidy entirely (including all ensuing closures) and putting it into buses would arguably be the best way. I don't support that, but it's a very clear "be careful what you wish for".

 

[yorksrob]

But you don’t run a car. That still puts you in a minority.

In fact, the majority of households earning less than £20,000 *own* a car.

That's as maybe, however as I pointed out, those until recently eligible for the winter fuel allowance are a minority.

Perhaps rail passengers are just a minority that isn't vocal enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet it lacks the sort of cheap walk on fares that are so popular on the WCML.

Unless you're thinking of the WMT services, I suspect the majority of Off Peaks bought on Avanti are just because there are rarely good value Advances. The majority of users are happy to book specific trains if it is cheaper to do so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

Perhaps rail passengers are just a minority that isn't vocal enough.

More likely the desires of enthusiasts differ markedly from the desires of most rail users or potential rail users, whose overriding concern is the price, not flexibility. Indeed, many of them dislike flexibility because it means someone might be sat in their seat and they have the stress of having them removed.

 

[yorksrob]

If you wanted to look at things in a purely "progressive" way like that, removing all rail subsidy entirely (including all ensuing closures) and putting it into buses would arguably be the best way. I don't support that, but it's a very clear "be careful what you wish for".

It would be a very simplistic way of looking at it as it assumes that all lower income people are peasants with no need to travel further than the next village.

You only have to travel around the North of England to see the broad range of people using the train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

Unless you're thinking of the WMT services, I suspect the majority of Off Peaks bought on Avanti are just because there are rarely good value Advances. The majority of users are happy to book specific trains if it is cheaper to do so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==



More likely the desires of enthusiasts differ markedly from the desires of most rail users or potential rail users, whose overriding concern is the price, not flexibility. Indeed, many of them dislike flexibility because it means someone might be sat in their seat and they have the stress of having them removed.

Of course I'm thinking of WMT services, these are the only products that differ from the norm.

You can't separate price from flexibility as not all journeys can be planned weeks in advance. People don't usually plan weeks in advance to jump in their cars.

The idea that normal people are always happy and able to plan their lives around the convenience of the railway industry, such as when it feels like churning out a few advanced purchase tickets, seems peculiar to railway enthusiasts and employees

"Train brain" I call it.

 

[Haywain]

Is this competition any more "genuine", given that the fares products provided by the competitors are broadly similar, whereas on the WCML, you get a more genuine choice between walk on fares and advanced purchase.

If you don't compare like with like you'll get whatever results you want. On the East Coast the competition is with trains offering similar journey times, whereas on the West Coast it's very much fast or slow but with significantly more capacity driving fares down.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Perhaps rail passengers are just a minority that isn't vocal enough.

I hope you won't take this personally but you are part of an even tinier minority in that you don't drive but also don't like using buses. Little wonder that rail issues are so important to you but surely you understand why so few people, even on this site, don't feel anything like as strongly as you?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be a very simplistic way of looking at it as it assumes that all lower income people are peasants with no need to travel further than the next village.

The majority of lower income people cannot afford to travel when they don't need to do so, regardless of whether it's to the next village or not. Random day trips are simply unaffordable when the priority is rent and food.

There's also no need to travel far for work because most places have some sort of minimum wage work locally, and again you can't be picky about what that work is because commuting would take a chunk of your income you don't need to spend.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

You can't separate price from flexibility as not all journeys can be planned weeks in advance. People don't usually plan weeks in advance to jump in their cars.

Northern's Advances are often cheap right up to 15 minutes before departure when they go off sale. Not everyone is LNER.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

"Train brain" I call it.

"Train brain" is more a view that heavy rail is the solution to all the world's transport ills and that it should therefore receive unlimited funding, when in fact funding local bus is likely to have a much higher positive impact on low earners per pound spent.

 

[yorksrob]

I hope you won't take this personally but you are part of an even tinier minority in that you don't drive but also don't like using buses. Little wonder that rail issues are so important to you but surely you understand why so few people, even on this site, don't feel anything like as strongly as you?

I'm not massively keen on buses, however I do use them quite frequently. Several times a week usually.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

If you don't compare like with like you'll get whatever results you want. On the East Coast the competition is with trains offering similar journey times, whereas on the West Coast it's very much fast or slow but with significantly more capacity driving fares down.

It depends on whether you're interested in faster journey times or more affordable fares. I suspect affordable fares are more important to most !

 

[miami]

And that's exactly the point. Sunak's cuts to HS2 were largely greeted by "yeah, whatever".

10 years of propaganda from those wealthy people in the Chilterns who felt "their" view would be spoilt, with the government doing a terrible job at countering it.

The country believed rather than employing tens of thousands of nurses it was to get rich people from Birmingham to London a little quicker.

More likely the desires of enthusiasts differ markedly from the desires of most rail users or potential rail users, whose overriding concern is the price, not flexibility. Indeed, many of them dislike flexibility because it means someone might be sat in their seat and they have the stress of having them removed.

Yes, most rail travellers are once or twice a year. That almost entirely means long distance for a specific planned outage, and rail is more like flying than to getting a bus.

Normal people have their flexible travel needs met by their car, or maybe a bus in larger towns, and sometimes rail in bigger cities.

That said, the WMT trains to London from the Trent Valley and Crewe/Stafford are often very full - especially at weekends. Last time I came back on a Sunday afternoon it was standing room well past Rugby.

I suspect the cheap fares and the flexibility (especially on the return leg) are a significant part of that appeal. A trip tomorrow from Crewe to London is £43.70 super-off-peak-return.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said, the WMT trains to London from the Trent Valley and Crewe/Stafford are often very full - especially at weekends. Last time I came back on a Sunday afternoon it was standing room well past Rugby.

I suspect the cheap fares and the flexibility (especially on the return leg) are a significant part of that appeal. A trip tomorrow from Crewe to London is £43.70 super-off-peak-return.

I suspect the price is the main factor, but yes on those shortish journeys the flexibility on the return leg may indeed be of value. Personally I almost always know which train I'll take on the outward journey, but often much less so the return, even for the shortest journeys.

Interestingly Virgin Trains in the past used to do some sort of London day out ticket from the North West which had compulsory reservation and quota on the outward and not the return. Single leg pricing of course allows that combination without a dedicated fare set, which is one key reason I support it.

 

[yorksrob]

The majority of lower income people cannot afford to travel when they don't need to do so, regardless of whether it's to the next village or not. Random day trips are simply unaffordable when the priority is rent and food.

There's also no need to travel far for work because most places have some sort of minimum wage work locally, and again you can't be picky about what that work is because commuting would take a chunk of your income you don't need to spend.

Lower income households will still need to visit relatives, go to the hospital etc. They will have less opportunity for discretionary travel but may need the train.

Northern's Advances are often cheap right up to 15 minutes before departure when they go off sale. Not everyone is LNER.

That just illustrates the point that lower income households are inclined to use the train if its affordable.

"Train brain" is more a view that heavy rail is the solution to all the world's transport ills and that it should therefore receive unlimited funding, when in fact funding local bus is likely to have a much higher positive impact on low earners per pound spent.

No, I coined "Train brain" so I get to define it (find your own phrase. ())

The buses already have the £3 fares scheme which caps bus fares (which I agree with).

Surely to ensure that lower income household have access to the full range of transport services they may need, we need to cap train fares (to some extent) as well ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lower income households will still need to visit relatives, go to the hospital etc. They will have less opportunity for discretionary travel but may need the train.

Generally speaking lower income people are more likely to lead a very local life. They might visit relatives, yes, but it'll be occasional - remember food on the table comes first. Hospital appointments will be reached by bus; most hospitals aren't near railway stations.

The buses already have the £3 fares scheme which caps bus fares (which I agree with).

Surely to ensure that lower income household have access to the full range of transport services they may need, we need to cap train fares (to some extent) as well ?

It's well known in here that I am an advocate of mode-agnostic urban fares as one sees in Germany and potentially by extension the capping of these. But outside of urban areas bus and rail really aren't competing for the same type of journey. Those on low incomes will mostly go by bus.

 

[yorksrob]

Generally speaking lower income people are more likely to lead a very local life. They might visit relatives, yes, but it'll be occasional - remember food on the table comes first. Hospital appointments will be reached by bus; most hospitals aren't near railway stations.



It's well known in here that I am an advocate of mode-agnostic urban fares as one sees in Germany and potentially by extension the capping of these. But outside of urban areas bus and rail really aren't competing for the same type of journey. Those on low incomes will mostly go by bus.

Buses aren't really suitable for the sort of medium distance journeys outside of urban areas. As you point out, they serve different types of journey, which is why rail fares need capping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buses aren't really suitable for the sort of medium distance journeys outside of urban areas.

In your opinion.

As you point out, they serve different types of journey, which is why rail fares need capping.

This doesn't follow except in urban areas where rail provides the main public transport for necessary local journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

Those regular off peak travellers in the South East will have access to the Network Railcard, so there seems to be even more political imperative to get rid of extortionate off-peak fares such as the 37p per mile quoted above.

They might have access to it, but generally they arent using it, in many cases because of the minimum fare. Off peak by contactless is very popular!

Yet it lacks the sort of cheap walk on fares that are so popular on the WCML.

Yet the ECML services are very popular. And the customer research shows passenegrs tend to prefer advance tickets. I know this isn’t a popular view on these pages.

 

[yorksrob]

In your opinion.



This doesn't follow except in urban areas where rail provides the main public transport for necessary local journeys.

Try getting the bus from Wakefield to Skipton (as an example within Yorkshire).

Your view holds no logic, unless you assume that lower income households will always live in the same urban area as their friends and relatives and will never need to travel further for services etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet the ECML services are very popular. And the customer research shows passenegrs tend to prefer advance tickets. I know this isn’t a popular view on these pages.

I doubt people *prefer Advance tickets*, but for most use-cases flexibility isn't important and so they prefer the *cheapest* ticket whatever it happens to be. It would be interesting to see data for how many people bought walk up fares with an itinerary and followed the itinerary vs didn't - I bet it's almost everyone who did, and those who didn't probably just took a train or two later (hence the 70 minute thing).

They might like compulsory reservation or effectively compulsory reservation because of the reduced risk of someone in their seat, though. The LNER trial will have reduced overcrowding, for instance, and that aside from price is the most common complaint.

 

[yorksrob]

They might have access to it, but generally they arent using it, in many cases because of the minimum fare. Off peak by contactless is very popular!

Well, another more affordable off peak alternative reinforces my argument.

Yet the ECML services are very popular. And the customer research shows passenegrs tend to prefer advance tickets. I know this isn’t a popular view on these pages.

In an environment where there's nowt else affordable, AP tickets will be popular.

Yet where affordable flexible tickets are available (as on WMT) they're popular as well !

 

[Bald Rick]

I doubt people *prefer Advance tickets*,

The research says very clearly (even overwhelmingly) that they do, they like to buy a ticket in advance, be sure of their plans, and sure they have a seat on the train they want to catch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The research says very clearly (even overwhelmingly) that they do, they like to buy a ticket in advance, be sure of their plans, and sure they have a seat on the train they want to catch.

That does not indicate preferring a fare of ticket type Advance. You can do all of the things noted with an Off Peak or Anytime fare purchased against an itinerary with seat reservations in advance of travel.

Be careful of falling into the "LNER trap" where they falsely and misleadingly state on their sales site that Advances are the only fares that guarantee these features. Lumo does too if I recall.

The idea that anyone might specifically prefer a fare that isn't refundable or that requires a change fee to be paid to change it is silly. They only care that it's cheap.

An exception might be be the 70 minute fares being preferred over Off Peaks because it's clearer what you can do in terms of the flexibility, though.

 

[RailWonderer]

But you don’t run a car. That still puts you in a minority.

In fact, the majority of households earning less than £20,000 *own* a car.

There isn’t a critical mass of votes on the issue of “make rail fares cheaper” (also called “make non users subsidise it even more from direct taxation”). It’s a political non starter; rail has to pay its way and lower fares aren’t the political hot button issue you think it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==


Quite.

But the fuel duty is always a hot button issue when a government considers increasing it or is pressured to freeze it. A lot more households are car dependant but not rail dependant. I'd say some households are even bus dependant, but rail ticket subsidies aren't something ever discussed in the mainstream. As much as I'd love us to be more like Europe with integrated bus and train fares, lower overall fares and higher subsidy, this is not a sentiment shared by the majority. I live in a part of the country that is very car oriented (East of England) and although many use railways, they use their cars more.

 

[Krokodil]

Perhaps rail just isn't sustainable then. If even with £10b a year subsidy if it's still expensive for the tiny minority of trips using it then perhaps other solutions are needed.

What's your alternative? Road transport is likewise heavily subsidised and is incredibly inefficient in terms of land use and raw materials. Active travel is very efficient for short journeys, but not very practical for journeys of more than 5-10 miles.

Add to that that it is in fact bus that is most important to people who are low enough earners that they can't afford to run even the cheapest used car. The only exception to this is places where rail provides a very large proportion or all of the local public transport, which is essentially just the big cities but would also include places like the Marston Vale.

The sort of railway lines predominantly used by working class passengers will also be the ones most heavily subsidised.

I'm not massively keen on buses, however I do use them quite frequently. Several times a week usually.

Likewise. I live three miles or so from my nearest station, so I must choose whether to cycle or bus there. The bike almost always wins, as I'm all too familiar with the shortcomings of bus travel - they get stuck in traffic, Arriva cut stops with none of the due process a railway station closure gets etc.

The research says very clearly (even overwhelmingly) that they do, they like to buy a ticket in advance, be sure of their plans, and sure they have a seat on the train they want to catch.

I'm sure that I don't need to bring up the Sir Humphrey clip on how to get the answer one wants in a survey.

When I took science classes many years ago, I was taught that one should only change one variable at a time. Price is one variable, flexibility is a second. You cannot therefore objectively compare an Advance to an Anytime or Off Peak ticket because there are multiple variables being changed.

 

[sheff1]

The research says very clearly (even overwhelmingly) that they do, they like to buy a ticket in advance, be sure of their plans, and sure they have a seat on the train they want to catch.

Which are all possible with tickets other than Advance.

Very easy to get the answers you want if you phrase the questions in a certain way. Ask people who buy in advance and want a seat reservation whether they would like to be able to change the reservation to a different train at no additional cost, should circumstances change, or would prefer to pay a possibly hefty change fee or buy a completely new ticket.