Rail nationalisation: ideas, suggestions, predictions etc

[JonathanH]

If I want to get a train to Taunton from London and I walk up to the booth, I cannot conceive of how it should cost nearly £100.

Surely it should be price per distance traveled, irrespective of timing. It is a public service.

That is just your perception of value though. You aren't placing a value of nearly £100 on the cost of getting from Taunton to London.

The natural conclusion I might reach faced with a fare of nearly £100 to get from Taunton to London is not to make the journey. Some people choose to go by coach instead. However, that is not the conclusion that everyone reaches and many pay that fare. The cost to the railway to provide that seat may well be nearly £100.

Just thinking about the 142 mile journey from Taunton to London, 284 miles return, how does someone determine whether £50, £100 or £150 is the right walk up fare? Should it be the price at which trains are full on a Saturday morning, full from Taunton, or still room for people to board nearer London?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So this simple fares structure for London-Birmingham is actually:

4 basic fare types
4 "slow line" fare types (I.e. WMT vs Avanti)
4 "restricted routings via High Wycombe"
4 "restricted routings via Milton Keynes"

16 different fare options doesn't sound necessarily simple!

TBH I would just make all of these restricted routings "Not InterCity" and have the same fare for Chiltern as LNR. There's very little practical difference - and post Chiltern electrification they'll basically look identical.

 

[172007]

My prediction is the end of rail staff travel. No way will it go from being allowed to use trains operated by one owning group to just being a free for all on all trains. Far more likely to get rid of it altogether.

Very doubtful. Will stay with 75% discount and a certain amount of day unlimited travel / boxes.

They have to be wary of the law of unintended consequences. Many rail staff are able to assist customers because they use the railway to travel during leasure time because of the discounts and free travel available. Take this away and staff travel by car and couldn't tell you any connections or travel possibilities except for their own routes worked.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I always feel a sense of being overcharged when I travel at off peak times on a route that only has anytime fares, and other people have said that on this forum before. There is something physiological about getting a discount for travelling at off peak times.

What about if you are travelling on a ticket that is branded off-peak, but actually has no restrictions on when you can use it, and is for all practical purpose the anytime fare?

 

[Gigabit]

That is just your perception of value though. You aren't placing a value of nearly £100 on the cost of getting from Taunton to London.

The natural conclusion I might reach faced with a fare of nearly £100 to get from Taunton to London is not to make the journey. Some people choose to go by coach instead. However, that is not the conclusion that everyone reaches and many pay that fare. The cost to the railway to provide that seat may well be nearly £100.

Just thinking about the 142 mile journey from Taunton to London, 284 miles return, how does someone determine whether £50, £100 or £150 is the right walk up fare? Should it be the price at which trains are full on a Saturday morning, full from Taunton, or still room for people to board nearer London?

It should be that £100 is unaffordable for most. It should be £20 at most.

 

[The Planner]

It should be that £100 is unaffordable for most. It should be £20 at most.

The railway would be simply unaffordable to run if that was the case, as presumably a short commuter hop would be about 50p.

 

[Gigabit]

The railway would be simply unaffordable to run if that was the case, as presumably a short commuter hop would be about 50p.

How do you know it would be unaffordable?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How do you know it would be unaffordable?

Well, who pays the difference between the £20 fare and the £100 fare?
If it's the taxpayer, go and ask Rachel Reeves for more subsidy for rail.

Germany has a €49/month fare nationally, which excludes IC travel.
They are struggling to find a funding formula acceptable to the taxpayers (local and national) to keep it going.

 

[manmikey]

It should be that £100 is unaffordable for most. It should be £20 at most.

A quick unscientific Google...

You can fly from London City to Bristol for £250 and taxi to Taunton £49
(round trip approx £600)

Taxi from London around £150 each way (round trip £300)

Train for a £100 (your price quoted)
(Round trip £100)

Private car estimate petrol £35? Coffee stops, wear and tear and cost of car ownership probably getting on for a £100 quid round trip

Coach £41 (round trip £82)

You can almost certainly get all these prices less if you search, book in advance (especially for the coach) and get good deals but is the train really such bad value?

 

[JonathanH]

It should be that £100 is unaffordable for most. It should be £20 at most.

What are your grounds for only placing a value of £20 on a journey from Taunton to London? Would you propose another form of rationing?

 

[The Planner]

How do you know it would be unaffordable?

How much extra subsidy would be needed, and who is paying?

 

[Topological]

Lets think a bit more about a £20 return from Taunton to London.

A quick look at Ryanairs website suggests they have fares for £12.99 in their April Sale. I guess that means £9.99 is not a thing anymore.

However, take our Taunton resident and place them in a location which has the same cost of transport to a suitable airport (Exeter) and to Taunton station. Then we can nullify the cost of getting to either start point. Likewise, let us assume that they are going to a destination which has the same cost of onward travel from either Paddington, or Stansted. Now that resident can pay £25.98 to fly with Ryanair, or £20 for the train. Any other journey combination will favour one over the other slightly.

Ryanair would be doing everything they could to extract more than the £25.98, and doing so successfully from many passengers if my experience is anything to go by. Hence the average Ryanair expected revenue per passenger would still be much more than £25.98.

Note this is before we get into the fact that there will be a lot of seats on this Exeter to London flight for a lot more than £12.99 one way.

So where does the idea of £20 being the right price for a London ticket come from? Especially on a train service where Ryanair style add ons cannot be charged and the £20 means £20 of revenue.

We all want everything cheaper, but there are limits.

 

[ComUtoR]

How do you know it would be unaffordable?

The wage cost of the Driver / onboard staff
Track access charge
Signalling staff
Fuel/Lecky
On board amenities
Cleaning
Maintenance
Platform staffing costs


It isn't just about the cost of the journey. The ticket price is there to cover the costs or running the network. It's also a business. I'm pretty sure my snickers bar sitting next to my laptop didn't cost £1.30 to produce.

 

[JonathanH]

In the not too distant past, advance singles between Taunton and London probably did start at around £20, but more recently, GWR have pushed up their advance fares markedly and it seems they now start at about £42.50. This is about £28 with a railcard. Presumably the market is bearing these prices.

 

[irish_rail]

In the not too distant past, advance singles between Taunton and London probably did start at around £20, but more recently, GWR have pushed up their advance fares markedly and it seems they now start at about £42.50. This is about £28 with a railcard. Presumably the market is bearing these prices.

I think 42 quid is a pretty fair fare for Taunton to London. It's quite a distance and a pretty quick service on the "fasts".

 

[Gigabit]

I think 42 quid is a pretty fair fare for Taunton to London. It's quite a distance and a pretty quick service on the "fasts".

£42 seems reasonable whenever you want to travel. I could accept that price.

The wage cost of the Driver / onboard staff
Track access charge
Signalling staff
Fuel/Lecky
On board amenities
Cleaning
Maintenance
Platform staffing costs


It isn't just about the cost of the journey. The ticket price is there to cover the costs or running the network. It's also a business. I'm pretty sure my snickers bar sitting next to my laptop didn't cost £1.30 to produce.

It shouldn't be a business. It should be a public service.

The price should be set based on what the average salary can afford and the government should subsidise to make that happen.

The reason the railways are so poor is that they are not run like the public service they should be.

I suppose my question is: are current fares too high? I think they are, especially compared to our neighbours.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect Taunton suffers somewhat from having only one operator going to London, so no competition. And possibly GWR's fares are higher per mile than other operators. As an example, London to Stoke-on-Trent - which is pretty much the same distance - comes in at £89.90 for the cheapest off-peak return on Avanti (or £37.20 on LNWR slow trains). And London to Exeter return - while expensive on GWR - is just £79.70 on SWR.

Imagine if there was some equivalent of LNWR running slower commuter trains London-Bristol and London-Taunton...

Another interesting comparison is that £100 for the 280 miles London-Taunton return works out about 30p per mile - which is very similar to contactless journeys from outer London to central London (just over £3 off-peak for about 10-12 miles). My instinct says that the fare per mile ought to be a bit lower if you're travelling a longer distance.

 

[The Planner]

It shouldn't be a business. It should be a public service.

The price should be set based on what the average salary can afford and the government should subsidise to make that happen.

The reason the railways are so poor is that they are not run like the public service they should be.

I suppose my question is: are current fares too high? I think they are, especially compared to our neighbours.

They are not a bottomless pit for funding though, regardless of them being a public service.

 

[ComUtoR]

It shouldn't be a business. It should be a public service.

It still needs to cover its costs.

The price should be set based on what the average salary can afford and the government should subsidise to make that happen.

This isn't a 'subsidy' the Government will bear the entire cost of the railway. They will not get value for their services because there is no incentive to compete for a contract and we all know what happens when the Gov contract anything.

How much should the taxpayer 'subsidise' the railway ? Every penny that those evil private companies pay will now transfer over to being part of the public purse. Spending money and filtering that to private companies will still happen because almost every aspect is contracted out to someone.

Should the railway run at a loss ? Will ticket between Beckenham Junction and Kent House be overpriced because Taunton and London runs as a loss ? Who will get the investment into their local route ? Ones with a strong commuter flow or some backwater village with 5 passengers a day ?

The reason the railways are so poor is that they are not run like the public service they should be.

How should a public service be run ? How is it funded ?

I suppose my question is: are current fares too high? I think they are

Which I believe is a genuine concern. Are they too high ? Maybe but price isn't always as clear as we think it is. I think intercity prices are shocking but I also loathe paying £2.50 for a local bus that goes a less than a mile but at the same time takes 20 minutes to do it.

Whatever pricing model you want to use will go horribly wrong and be very unbalanced. The current model needs and overhaul but nationalisation isn't needed to implement that.

 

[baza585]

There's nothing remotely pie in the sky about it. They're not actually proposing to renationalise anything in the traditional sense, just not re-privatise franchises as they expire.

Which will change absolutely nothing. It will be the same people in DfT running the railway, doing what the Treasury instructs them to do and say.

The industry will lose some good people in senior positions in the TOCs.

Network Rail is a great example of the dead hand of the Treasury stopping progress as soon as any opportunities to reduce spending (eg GWML electrification).

 

[Arkeeos]

Should the devolved authorities own the tracks and be the operators or, should they just be the operators and have the tracks owned nationally? I go back and forth on this one, I can see advantages both ways.

 

[The Planner]

Should the devolved authorities own the tracks and be the operators or, should they just be the operators and have the tracks owned nationally? I go back and forth on this one, I can see advantages both ways.

The last thing the railway needs is multiple infrastructure owners.

 

[yorksrob]

This isn't a 'subsidy' the Government will bear the entire cost of the railway. They will not get value for their services because there is no incentive to compete for a contract and we all know what happens when the Gov contract anything.

How much should the taxpayer 'subsidise' the railway ? Every penny that those evil private companies pay will now transfer over to being part of the public purse. Spending money and filtering that to private companies will still happen because almost every aspect is contracted out to someone.

Should the railway run at a loss ? Will ticket between Beckenham Junction and Kent House be overpriced because Taunton and London runs as a loss ? Who will get the investment into their local route ? Ones with a strong commuter flow or some backwater village with 5 passengers a day ?

That's not true though. Unless all rail travel is made completely free, the Government will not be bearing the entire cost of the railway.

It will just be a decision as now, as to what proportion of funding should be from Government and which from the fare payer. There's nothing set in stone to say that the current ratio is the correct one.

Which will change absolutely nothing. It will be the same people in DfT running the railway, doing what the Treasury instructs them to do and say.

The industry will lose some good people in senior positions in the TOCs.

Network Rail is a great example of the dead hand of the Treasury stopping progress as soon as any opportunities to reduce spending (eg GWML electrification).

Ultimately, there are political choices to be made. If the treasury is instructed to behave in the same way as now, then things won't change, however the operation of the treasury is also a political choice. As I've mentioned previously, the proposed passenger standards authority could have a great impact on the quality of service, depending on what powers it is given.

 

[Meerkat]

The price should be set based on what the average salary can afford and the government should subsidise to make that happen.

Why?
Richer people gain more from subsidised rail travel. Why should the lower paid people subsidise their leisure trips?
If you want to help the lower paid you spend available money on buses.

 

[yorksrob]

Why?
Richer people gain more from subsidised rail travel. Why should the lower paid people subsidise their leisure trips?
If you want to help the lower paid you spend available money on buses.

That assumes that lower income people never need to travel medium or longer distances, or indeed for leisure.

If you want to help the lower paid, you ensure that all public transport is affordable.

 

[Mountain Man]

Prediction : Passengers will see virtually no difference beyond marginally less industrial action

 

[Meerkat]

That assumes that lower income people never need to travel medium or longer distances, or indeed for leisure.

If you want to help the lower paid, you ensure that all public transport is affordable.

Nope, if you want to help the lower paid you reduce their taxation so they can afford what they need/want, rather than tax them more to pay for travel they don’t do.
Rail subsidy is regressive.

 

[yorksrob]

Nope, if you want to help the lower paid you reduce their taxation so they can afford what they need/want, rather than tax them more to pay for travel they don’t do.
Rail subsidy is regressive.

The lower paid need transport to go about their business just like they need schools and hospitals. Subsidising public transport would be regressive if lower income households didn't use it. This is clearly not the case.

 

[Meerkat]

The lower paid need transport to go about their business just like they need schools and hospitals. Subsidising public transport would be regressive if lower income households didn't use it. This is clearly not the case.

They need commuting (though generally they go by bus). They don’t NEED to go from Taunton to London.
I didn’t say public transport, I said rail subsidy. Rail subsidy is regressive, bus subsidy is the opposite.
But the reality is that fares are very unlikely to get cheaper as Labour won’t have the money - rail will be along way behind the NHS for spending any available extra cash, and any rail money will just go to buying off the unions.

 

[yorksrob]

They need commuting (though generally they go by bus). They don’t NEED to go from Taunton to London.
I didn’t say public transport, I said rail subsidy. Rail subsidy is regressive, bus subsidy is the opposite.
But the reality is that fares are very unlikely to get cheaper as Labour won’t have the money - rail will be along way behind the NHS for spending any available extra cash, and any rail money will just go to buying off the unions.

No, they might well need to go from London to Taunton, we should aspire to our working classes being able to do more than just go backwards and forwards t't mill.

I also noted that you said "rail" not "public transport" subsidy, which illustrates why you are wrong, as rail is an important part of medium and longer distance travel. You're assumption that lower income households only need the bus to go to the next village is something I'd expect the Duke of Wellington to come out with.