Rail nationalisation: ideas, suggestions, predictions etc

[Topological]

As far as I can see the 25p per mile number from HMRC mentioned by @Bletchleyite is a sensible benchmark for affordable fares.

However, the extra bonuses such as peak time arrival, flexibility and being in London* should still carry premiums. In essence we can have accessible fares which are available at affordable prices, but we need to make sure it is still possible to cream the additional willingness to pay off those groups who have the means.

* The comparison with London requires consideration of payments for ULEZ which would not apply to many journeys at 25p per mile. Therefore the benchmark fare to enter ULEZ is higher. The comparison will probably change with other cities introducing charges over time, but I would not suggest taking rail fares higher to those cities too. London remains a major economic anomaly in the UK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, the extra bonuses such as peak time arrival, flexibility and being in London* should still carry premiums. In essence we can have accessible fares which are available at affordable prices, but we need to make sure it is still possible to cream the additional willingness to pay off those groups who have the means

Fiexibility should absolutely not carry a significant premium over the HMRC car rate. The car is 100% flexible - that is the baseline.

I think a slight nudge up from that is justified to allow for some fares to be lower, but not significantly.

* The comparison with London requires consideration of payments for ULEZ which would not apply to many journeys at 25p per mile. Therefore the benchmark fare to enter ULEZ is higher. The comparison will probably change with other cities introducing charges over time, but I would not suggest taking rail fares higher to those cities too. London remains a major economic anomaly in the UK.

ULEZ is basically irrelevant because the average car is compliant - it exists mainly to stop people stinking the place up with old bangers, particularly the likes of vans. The Congestion Charge and higher cost of parking probably is, but it doesn't even come close to justifying the likes of the £350 Anytime Manchester-London - it might at most justify that fare being about £150.

 

[CBlue]

ULEZ is basically irrelevant because the average car is compliant - it exists mainly to stop people stinking the place up with old bangers, particularly the likes of vans. The Congestion Charge and higher cost of parking probably is, but it doesn't even come close to justifying the likes of the £350 Anytime Manchester-London - it might at most justify that fare being about £150.

....and given that post 2006 (petro) and 2007 (diesel) cars tended to meet the ULEZ standards then we're looking at 17-18 year old cars as a maximum. Most would already consider that well into banger territory given the popularity of getting a car for 3 years on finance, then PXing it before the MOT....

 

[Bletchleyite]

....and given that post 2006 (petro) and 2007 (diesel) cars tended to meet the ULEZ standards then we're looking at 17-18 year old cars as a maximum. Most would already consider that well into banger territory given the popularity of getting a car for 3 years on finance, then PXing it before the MOT....

Indeed. Most people who would consider driving to London on an intercity journey are not driving a car that would require a ULEZ payment, so it can basically be disregarded.

 

[Topological]

Fiexibility should absolutely not carry a significant premium over the HMRC car rate. The car is 100% flexible - that is the baseline.

I think a slight nudge up from that is justified to allow for some fares to be lower, but not significantly.



ULEZ is basically irrelevant because the average car is compliant - it exists mainly to stop people stinking the place up with old bangers, particularly the likes of vans. The Congestion Charge and higher cost of parking probably is, but it doesn't even come close to justifying the likes of the £350 Anytime Manchester-London - it might at most justify that fare being about £150.

Worth factoring in a time benefit of the train versus car though, but the size of that benefit is wholly dependent on people's locations relative to the stations at either end.

I must confess to losing track of the charges to enter London. In my mind ULEZ had replaced the congestion charge as was. Either way, more costs associated with London which would keep tickets to London above the pence per mile number.

I do not know who pays the £350, or what the impact of removing that price point would be. However, the super off-peak and advance values seem to be in line with the cost of driving Taunton to London. Perhaps some small reductions could be made, but nothing too much. IF no one is paying the £350, or driving is taking a disproportionately huge market share at the times covered by the £350 fare, relative to off peak times, then perhaps that does need looking at.

It would seem counterintuitive to remove a fare which subsidises others, especially if it means that other fares are below the driving cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worth factoring in a time benefit of the train versus car though, but the size of that benefit is wholly dependent on people's locations relative to the stations at either end.

Indeed. And as most journeys are "suburb to city centre" (something people often forget when comparing rail with air - airports are often more convenient to access by road) rail doesn't win on long distance journey time in most cases, with the exception of GWML, MML, WCML and ECML journeys to London where the passenger drives or takes a taxi to the origin station plus some other very long journeys like London to Scotland. (This is why Parkway stations are important - a local bus or rail journey into the city often substantially increases journey time).

I do not know who pays the £350, or what the impact of removing that price point would be. However, the super off-peak and advance values seem to be in line with the cost of driving Taunton to London. Perhaps some small reductions could be made, but nothing too much. IF no one is paying the £350, or driving is taking a disproportionately huge market share at the times covered by the £350 fare, relative to off peak times, then perhaps that does need looking at.

It would seem counterintuitive to remove a fare which subsidises others, especially if it means that other fares are below the driving cost.

It probably makes sense to have a flexible fare slightly above the driving cost (with the Taunton example, the Super Off Peak is probably exactly that - but should be valid at all times - or if you're going to have a peak premium it should be no more than about 50%) so you can discount below. But the £300+ fares are just ridiculous and unjustifiable if your aim is (as it should be) to get people out of cars.

 

[yorkie]

No, can't say I have, although I do know Netherlands system well enough! But it does seem bizarre to me that you can get a cheaper ticket (say) Bolton > Euston if you do Bolton/Manchester, Manchester/(say)Crewe then Crewe/London. Same journey, same person, often the same train from Manchester to London. I get starting peak and going into off-peak, splitting makes total sense then!

Feel free to propose an alternative system.

A mate suggested this as analogy; would you go into a pub and find two halves of bitter cheaper than buying the full pint?

Analogies and comparisons between market-based transport pricing and the purchase of physical or perishable products are fraught with problems.

(But if you want an example, in a pub it is not uncommon to be the case that a lemonade and half a lager are cheaper than a lager shandy, despite a typical lemonate portion being more than half a pint; however I am aware of a restaurant in York that charges more for soft drinks than for lager, however a shandy is charged at the lower lager price!)

 

[yorksrob]

Worth factoring in a time benefit of the train versus car though, but the size of that benefit is wholly dependent on people's locations relative to the stations at either end.

I must confess to losing track of the charges to enter London. In my mind ULEZ had replaced the congestion charge as was. Either way, more costs associated with London which would keep tickets to London above the pence per mile number.

I do not know who pays the £350, or what the impact of removing that price point would be. However, the super off-peak and advance values seem to be in line with the cost of driving Taunton to London. Perhaps some small reductions could be made, but nothing too much. IF no one is paying the £350, or driving is taking a disproportionately huge market share at the times covered by the £350 fare, relative to off peak times, then perhaps that does need looking at.

It would seem counterintuitive to remove a fare which subsidises others, especially if it means that other fares are below the driving cost.

Indeed. And as most journeys are "suburb to city centre" (something people often forget when comparing rail with air - airports are often more convenient to access by road) rail doesn't win on long distance journey time in most cases, with the exception of GWML, MML, WCML and ECML journeys to London where the passenger drives or takes a taxi to the origin station plus some other very long journeys like London to Scotland. (This is why Parkway stations are important - a local bus or rail journey into the city often substantially increases journey time).



It probably makes sense to have a flexible fare slightly above the driving cost (with the Taunton example, the Super Off Peak is probably exactly that - but should be valid at all times - or if you're going to have a peak premium it should be no more than about 50%) so you can discount below. But the £300+ fares are just ridiculous and unjustifiable if your aim is (as it should be) to get people out of cars.

This sounds like a very sensible bench mark.

On the subject of charging a premium for speed, this is undoubtedly the case for a lot of journeys into London, but would there be a discount for journeys that are more convoluted by train ?

Thinking of Leeds to Whitby as an example.

 

[mike57]

Fiexibility should absolutely not carry a significant premium over the HMRC car rate. The car is 100% flexible - that is the baseline.

This is a table I prepared for another thread,

It gives pence per mile cost of return journey to the stations on our line from Hull, using Off Peak and Anytime returns in 2021, so have gone up since them, I didnt attempt to work out potential Advance ticket costs, but they are available.

For those that dont know it Hull - Scarborough is mainly rural, operated by Northern, 2tph at the southern end 1tph at the northern end, nothing special in terms of service or rolling stock. Its just one example, that I am familiar with.

Given the increases since 2021 a lot of these journeys exceed the 25p/mile threshold.

To be honest the wide disparity in pence/mile is typical of the totally chaotic state of the fares structure.

Fare revision is essential, not just 'Best price', This revision needs to remove anamolies as well as reduce the number of different fares.The headline anytime fares on popular routes are also ridiculous.

As an aside I will not use my my car if being reimbursed at 25p a mile, my guess would be total running costs are closer to 50p per mile based on running something like a 4-5 year old Ford Focus at say 10,000 miles per annum. (Thats fixed costs as well as fuel and service etc.)

Personally I think it would reasonable to cap anytime standard class return fares at about 50p per mile. Based on this York to London would be £186, rather than the £320 LNER want for two anytime singles and Manchester - London would be £190 rather than £369 as at present. It would be interesting to know what proportion of these journeys are completed with full price tickets. Offpeaks should be about 30-40% less and advances should be priced to try and fill trains, with deep discounts for less popular services which are run to maintain the service pattern, better to sell seats cheap than carry fresh air, and possibly no advance tickets on the most popular services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an aside I will not use my my car if being reimbursed at 25p a mile, my guess would be total running costs are closer to 50p per mile based on running something like a 4-5 year old Ford Focus at say 10,000 miles per annum. (Thats fixed costs as well as fuel and service etc.)

Fixed costs aren't relevant to a marginal journey (which most rail journeys can be considered to be - the decision to own the car was already made) and thus should not be considered. The 25p rate applies above 10K miles, at which point the share of fixed costs are considered to have been fully recovered by way of the 45p rate.

The "but cars cost 50p a mile to run" argument is a total fallacy when comparing with rail as it implies people account their car on a pure per-mile basis. Nobody does that. It's more fixed costs as a "membership" to car ownership (like a Railcard) and marginal costs (fuel, parking and a tiny amount extra for tyre wear/brake linings) per journey. Even servicing is mostly effectively a fixed cost these days with 20K mile intervals common.

Personally I think it would reasonable to cap anytime standard class return fares at about 50p per mile. Based on this York to London would be £186, rather than the £320 LNER want for two anytime singles and Manchester - London would be £190 rather than £369 as at present. It would be interesting to know what proportion of these journeys are completed with full price tickets. Offpeaks should be about 30-40% less and advances should be priced to try and fill trains, with deep discounts for less popular services which are run to maintain the service pattern, better to sell seats cheap than carry fresh air, and possibly no advance tickets on the most popular services.

£186 is an improvement, but I fundamentally don't believe twice the marginal cost of a car for one person (remember, cars seat five, some seven) is even remotely acceptable a figure.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One other issue that you need to bear in mind when comparing with a car is that the rail ticket is for one person whereas a car can take 4-5 people. If you make rail fares somewhat competitive with the car when it's one person travelling alone, then those same rail fares will be totally uncompetitive if two people are travelling together. We do have the Two Together railcard which can help with that, but that only works if the same two people regularly travel together - and can be organised/savvy enough to buy a railcard in advance.

(EDIT: I see @Bletchleyite has just made a very similar point, posting at the same time)

 

[mike57]

£186 is an improvement, but I fundamentally don't believe twice the marginal cost of a car for one person (remember, cars seat five, some seven) is even remotely acceptable a figure.

One other issue that you need to bear in mind when comparing with a car is that the rail ticket is for one person whereas a car can take 4-5 people.

My thinking with the 50p/mile (or whatever you deem reasonable) cap on anytime fares you get rid of the worst anomolies, even our local line has fares at 88p per mile (more like 95p now I think). Assuming for those operators that offer returns a single is always half the return cost (which it isnt currently) then the only time you pay full anytime is if you need to travel out and back at peak time.

The issue of multiple travellers is a thorny one, two together and family railcards attempt to address this, but realistacally once you get to 4 or 5 travellers car is going to be cheaper and I am not sure there is much that you can do about that.

Going forwards you would have to make a decision on subsidies, and how far you are prepared to subsidise fares, particularly on long distance routes where other modes are available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going forwards you would have to make a decision on subsidies, and how far you are prepared to subsidise fares, particularly on long distance routes where other modes are available.

But also, and it's a big part of my point above, whether capital investment is preferable to ongoing subsidy. That is, whether we should be having TOCs price people off trains and still require heavy subsidy when (see XC for an example) they might make money (or at least lose less) if they stopped suppressing demand?

I would argue that where capital investment would, even in the long term (e.g. HS2) be overall profitable, it's hard to argue against that being the preferable option.

Edinburgh is probably the most notable example - we need four trains per hour from London to Edinburgh, not two. Then we could stop pricing people off and probably still be profitable. But XC is easier as all that needs is rolling stock.

 

[mike57]

But XC is easier as all that needs is rolling stock.

I think where demand is supressed because we are not running the longest trains the current network can support then it makes sense to buy more rolling stock. Rolling stock tends to be a fixed price with less finanicial risk than network improvement, its a no brainer really. I would imagine longer trains are cheaper to run than a more frequent service based on a given capacity as well.

What would you have to do to run 4tph London Edinburgh? I assume ECML is at capacity. To me pinch points are at the ends, London - Peterborough, and Edinburgh - Dunbar where local services also run. Welwyn Viaduct obviously, and 4 track all the way to Peterborough as well as Kings Cross capacity. Then the two track route out of Edinburgh. These are major projects and I suspect that even if the upgrades make sense getting the capital investment approved in the current climate is quite unlikely.

 

[ainsworth74]

What would you have to do to run 4tph London Edinburgh? I assume ECML is at capacity. To me pinch points are at the ends, London - Peterborough, and Edinburgh - Dunbar where local services also run. Welwyn Viaduct obviously, and 4 track all the way to Peterborough as well as Kings Cross capacity. Then the two track route out of Edinburgh. These are major projects and I suspect that even if the upgrades make sense getting the capital investment approved in the current climate is quite unlikely.

Build a brand new railway between London and a point just south of York bypassing the worst of the capacity crunch at the southern end, you could also take advantage of improvements in technology to allow for higher speed running over extended distances as the trains can be focussed on long distance services rather than a mixed traffic railway like the ECML is at the moment. The spare capacity released by taking the limited stop services away from the ECML would allow intermediate stations to have better services, including to Edinburgh, as well as opening up some freight paths as well. Could call the bypass line something like High Speed 2...

 

[The Planner]

Build a brand new railway between London and a point just south of York bypassing the worst of the capacity crunch at the southern end, you could also take advantage of improvements in technology to allow for higher speed running over extended distances as the trains can be focussed on long distance services rather than a mixed traffic railway like the ECML is at the moment. The spare capacity released by taking the limited stop services away from the ECML would allow intermediate stations to have better services, including to Edinburgh, as well as opening up some freight paths as well. Could call the bypass line something like High Speed 2...

We'll have no ideas like that on here!

 

[Meerkat]

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.

You are turning this into some kind of class war debate when it is clear that spending available cash on buses helps poorer people more than spending it on trains. Taxing them more for trains that richer people get more value out of doesn't make sense if you want to improve equality

I assume you think the rich should pay for healthcare too do you?

Healthcare is far more important than long distance travel. And the poor need healthcare more than the rich so it is progressive to tax and spend on it.

But I cannot see what private companies offer over just the government running the TOCs. What do the TOCs bring?

More freedom from the dead hand of the civil service and politics, and better efficiency.

My benchmark for this would be "not more expensive than a marginal car journey for one in an average family car", i.e. fuel and parking

With respect it is madness to start that way, rather than start with seeing how much money you have and then allocating it to the most needed services to subsidise.
Making all rail journeys that kind of price would be eye wateringly expensive, and probably not even feasible as the capacity could not be provided. It would also be grossly unfair unless you made it apply to all public transport (no railways in some areas...) and then the cost would be stratospheric.

In reality people might need to see relatives, go for job interviews, attend medical appointments etc.

They don't need to see relatives (or are you going to subsidise flights all over the world?). And if you aren't earning enough to afford rail fares you are very unlikely to be travelling long distance to interviews.
Any need to travel long distance for medical appointments would be better subsidised via travel warrants from the NHS.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Build a brand new railway between London and a point just south of York bypassing the worst of the capacity crunch at the southern end, you could also take advantage of improvements in technology to allow for higher speed running over extended distances as the trains can be focussed on long distance services rather than a mixed traffic railway like the ECML is at the moment. The spare capacity released by taking the limited stop services away from the ECML would allow intermediate stations to have better services, including to Edinburgh, as well as opening up some freight paths as well. Could call the bypass line something like High Speed 2...

Haha, very clever! But seriously, I thought a few years ago there was a plan to provide 4tph London-Edinburgh, that relied purely on proposed improvements and power supply upgrades to the existing ECML. I was also under the impression that Network Rail's failure to carry out those improvements were - at least in the view of some people - a key part of why Virgin handed back the franchise in 2018? So if my memory is correct, 4tph London-Edinburgh should in principle be possible without a new line?

 

[yorksrob]

You are turning this into some kind of class war debate when it is clear that spending available cash on buses helps poorer people more than spending it on trains. Taxing them more for trains that richer people get more value out of doesn't make sense if you want to improve equality

Healthcare is far more important than long distance travel. And the poor need healthcare more than the rich so it is progressive to tax and spend on it.

More freedom from the dead hand of the civil service and politics, and better efficiency.

With respect it is madness to start that way, rather than start with seeing how much money you have and then allocating it to the most needed services to subsidise.
Making all rail journeys that kind of price would be eye wateringly expensive, and probably not even feasible as the capacity could not be provided. It would also be grossly unfair unless you made it apply to all public transport (no railways in some areas...) and then the cost would be stratospheric.

They don't need to see relatives (or are you going to subsidise flights all over the world?). And if you aren't earning enough to afford rail fares you are very unlikely to be travelling long distance to interviews.
Any need to travel long distance for medical appointments would be better subsidised via travel warrants from the NHS.

So you're arguing that just because some people choose to live abroad, we shouldn't provide affordable public services to enable lower income people to go about their business here ?

Lower income people might get a bit more benefit out of bus funding than from funding the railway. They might get less out of funding for the arts. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the opportunity to use them.

We fund the railways for many reasons - to reduce road congestion, to reduce traffic pollution, keep the economy going so that wealthy people can get to their office in London. We subsidise it anyway, therefore it is regressive to create a huge cost barrier to lower income people that stops them using it.

It might also help to limit the self-fulfilling prophecy that if you make trains too expensive for people to use, they will gravitate towards the bus

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are turning this into some kind of class war debate when it is clear that spending available cash on buses helps poorer people more than spending it on trains.

Depends what trains.

LNER, probably yes. Adding subsidy to long distance coach would probably benefit poorer people more than adding it to rail.

Local services around the big cities, almost certainly not. These are used by all demographics. Subsidising Northern, for instance, probably has similar benefits to subsidising urban and regional buses in the North.

It might also help to limit the self-fulfilling prophecy that if you make trains too expensive for people to use, they will gravitate towards the bus

In the majority of cases they will gravitate towards the car. Only those without one would gravitate to the bus.

That's why rail not being more expensive than a marginal car journey is absolutely essential to its success.

Haha, very clever! But seriously, I thought a few years ago there was a plan to provide 4tph London-Edinburgh, that relied purely on proposed improvements and power supply upgrades to the existing ECML. I was also under the impression that Network Rail's failure to carry out those improvements were - at least in the view of some people - a key part of why Virgin handed back the franchise in 2018? So if my memory is correct, 4tph London-Edinburgh should in principle be possible without a new line?

There are other ways. There's 1tp2h via the WCML - you could for instance divert all via Birmingham services to Edinburgh rather than only half of them and reinstate the missing ones, giving 1tph. And post HS2 you could do the work to allow the 2tph Scottish 400m services to operate - certainly providing for the 400m bit wouldn't be that expensive, Euston already has a couple of long platforms. They'd be slower than the ECML but could be cheaper.

 

[Gigabit]

£185 for a train ticket is still crazy. £85 maybe.

 

[mike57]

Build a brand new railway between London and a point just south of York bypassing the worst of the capacity crunch at the southern end,

I totally agree that HS2 as originally proposed was an excellent idea, it would have speeded up journeys and added capacity to the 3 mainlines north out of London as well as the cross country stuff via Birmingham. It was going to be expensive, but to me it was the sort of infrastructure project we should be undertaking, and worth the money.

As it stands now I think its been a waste of money. I know the reasons why it overran cost estimates have been debated widely, including here, and some seem to have been avoidable, and some were not.

I think the worst side effect is that no Government of any party is going to have the courage (stupidity?) to embark on any more major rail infrastructure projects for many years. To be fair it wasn't just HS2, GWR electrification was another one.

To relate that back to this thread a nationally organised and run rail network is going to have to work within the infrastructure constraints of the existing network. Assuming we end up with some form of 'GBR' which seems like the best approach and given the current political landscape probably the most likely then as part of that process decisions need to made as to how subsidies are applied.

Local services around the big cities, almost certainly not. These are used by all demographics. Subsidising Northern, for instance, probably has similar benefits to subsidising urban and regional buses in the North.

Personally I think its more important that local(ish) services are subsidised, these are the services that will get people out of their cars, and also probably account for more essential journeys. Long distance travel tends to be more discretionary or business funded. I dont see the need to subsidise sending A N Other from XYZ plc based in London to visit Edinburgh, if they need to go then the business should suck up the full cost, thats part of the cost of doing business. Equally if someone is going on Holiday/day out then that is discretionary.

This would bring me around to suggesting something similar to the German model, with a clear delination between Inter City and Regional/Local services. Subsidies can then be managed through the fare structure, maybe with an IC pence per mile supplement, which can be paid in advance at a small discount or paid on train at full price. Then have something like the 49Euro card. If people are really price sensitive they can join up lots of local services at the expense of convenience. Fares on both types of service should be based on a pence per mile calculation for Anytime and Offpeak open tickets and dynamically priced advance tickets to fill up less popular services.

This is the exact opposite of our local route, where the shortest journeys are 4 to 5 times more expensive than end to end journeys in terms of pence per mile.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would bring me around to suggesting something similar to the German model, with a clear delination between Inter City and Regional/Local services.

I think most would see this as ideal, but the issue is that the UK infrastructure isn't set up for it. It would thus require significant capital investment (e.g. HS2) or massive frequency cuts (German regional services are often on a 0.5tph pattern outside the urban areas, or 1tph at best, and is any IC/ICE route better than hourly?) to fit it in.

 

[mike57]

I think most would see this as ideal, but the issue is that the UK infrastructure isn't set up for it. It would thus require significant capital investment (e.g. HS2) or massive frequency cuts (German regional services are often on a 0.5tph pattern outside the urban areas, or 1tph at best, and is any IC/ICE route better than hourly?) to fit it in.

I think a lot of the problems could be overcome with minimal infrastructure issues, thinking around our area all Northern services would be regional, LNER, XC Newcastle - Birmingham - Onwards, Hull Trains and GC would be intercity and the only problem would be TPE.

IMO a lot of York Leeds Manchester corridor problems could be solved by running full length trains, which are Intercity and only call at Leeds and Huddersfield between York and Manchester, I am not sure what the longest train that could be handled with current platform lengths, I assume Huddersfield is the shortest, but I think it would take 7 or 8 car units. Then run 2/3tph fast services instead of the current 4/5tph where some services are only 3 car. Hull - Manchester would probably be regional making a couple of extra stops, but should still be max length. That would leave enough capacity for the stoppers which would be Northern regional. York - Scarborough should probably remain a shuttle for most of the day, reliability drops dramatically as soon as through services are introduced, as my local line its nice to get a through train to Manchester, but not at the expense of reliability. Dewsbury - Huddersfield improvements should help. The obseesion with increasing frequency over train length seems to me to be the wrong approach. So strengthen the existing 80x units, the cost of that is a lot less than major infrastructure work. It also has the benefit of not clogging up the Newcastle - York leg with short units and if they continue to Edinburgh they add capacity between York and Edinburgh.

The same approach would be applied elsewhere, apart from SE high speed and SW services to Weymouth from Waterloo everything else in the old southern region feels like regional/commuter, and for other areas each route would be categorised, Avanti is Inter City, LNWR routes are regional and so on.

 

[Meerkat]

So you're arguing that just because some people choose to live abroad, we shouldn't provide affordable public services to enable lower income people to go about their business here ?

Lower income people might get a bit more benefit out of bus funding than from funding the railway. They might get less out of funding for the arts. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the opportunity to use them.

We fund the railways for many reasons - to reduce road congestion, to reduce traffic pollution, keep the economy going so that wealthy people can get to their office in London. We subsidise it anyway, therefore it is regressive to create a huge cost barrier to lower income people that stops them using it.

It might also help to limit the self-fulfilling prophecy that if you make trains too expensive for people to use, they will gravitate towards the bus

There is only so much money available. So it must be directed toward needs. If you want more equality then you want to aim more for the needs of the poorer people….and they just don’t go as far. So direct public transport subsidy at buses (and inner suburban commuting trains at Bletchleyite points out).
it’s regressive if you tax everybody to increase subsidy on things most used by the wealthier.
If you are worried about occasional more essential trips then just give poorer people more money through lower taxes/tax credits or some kind of rail discount vouchers.

Local services around the big cities, almost certainly not. These are used by all demographics. Subsidising Northern, for instance, probably has similar benefits to subsidising urban and regional buses in the North.

Used by all doesn’t mean used most by the poorer. And you get a lot more bus for your money, massively so when it comes to capital expenditure (how much does a simple station cost now?!)

 

[yorksrob]

There is only so much money available. So it must be directed toward needs. If you want more equality then you want to aim more for the needs of the poorer people….and they just don’t go as far. So direct public transport subsidy at buses (and inner suburban commuting trains at Bletchleyite points out).
it’s regressive if you tax everybody to increase subsidy on things most used by the wealthier.
If you are worried about occasional more essential trips then just give poorer people more money through lower taxes/tax credits or some kind of rail discount vouchers.

Used by all doesn’t mean used most by the poorer. And you get a lot more bus for your money, massively so when it comes to capital expenditure (how much does a simple station cost now?!)

And the country, including residents of all income levels, needs a functioning public transport system that enables medium and longer distance transport. Bus isn't adequate for that system.

If your oversimplification that lower income people "don't go as far" were true, why do we provide discounts to pensioners on the basis that they have a lower income ?

Working age households must surely have reason to travel as much, if not more ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a lot of the problems could be overcome with minimal infrastructure issues, thinking around our area all Northern services would be regional, LNER, XC Newcastle - Birmingham - Onwards, Hull Trains and GC would be intercity and the only problem would be TPE.

There's a clear split on the south WCML too - and indeed German style differentiated ticketing too, with Avanti quite expensive and WMT quite cheap. But there's a number of places where it's not, e.g. Crewe to Preston where pretty much all of the local service is provided by the two Avantis and you would probably want a significant recast if you were going to remove Avanti's regional role. See also parts of the ECML and LNER, and also parts of GWR.

IMO a lot of York Leeds Manchester corridor problems could be solved by running full length trains, which are Intercity and only call at Leeds and Huddersfield between York and Manchester

My inclination would probably be to have a 2tph fast Liverpool to Newcastle service run using full length (or double) 80x as you say (and do the infrastructure work to allow that) as IC (e.g. calling only at Lime St, possibly Newton le Willows or Lea Green*, Manchester Vic, Stalybridge*, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle). Then the rest of TPE just be regional. Though Manchester-Sheffield is an oddity - you could argue for a Lime St-Warrington C-Oxford Road-Picc-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Nottingham hourly or half hourly full length IC with other stuff being regional - it's certainly be a big improvement to that chronically overcrowded route to have a proper fast service in addition to shorter (and thus more punctual) regionals. Like XC, I'm pretty convinced the grimness of the service on that route is pushing people into cars and there's potential (as there was on TPE going from 3 to 5 cars, or the improvement of Blackpool-Manchester from 2-car 156s to decent length** EMUs) for significant modal transfer if it was just made a bit less rubbish.

* Parkway stations are important.

** Reducing to 4-car is a criminal mistake on that route - it has brought back the overcrowding - they can't get those 323s in service and back to 6 quickly enough!

The obseesion with increasing frequency over train length seems to me to be the wrong approach

Agree, I think SBB nicely demonstrates that 2tph of very long trains is a sweet spot when it comes to intercity type services. Three Manchester-Londons are probably justified, but on very few other routes once you are running 240m ish trains is that actually needed (and half of me would be tempted to look at recasting that to 2tph at quieter times and 4tph at busier times instead, because 3tph slightly messes with the WCML pattern that's otherwise based on 1 or 2tph now).

The same approach would be applied elsewhere, apart from SE high speed and SW services to Weymouth from Waterloo everything else in the old southern region feels like regional/commuter, and for other areas each route would be categorised, Avanti is Inter City, LNWR routes are regional and so on.

NSE is the one exception, and I'm inclined (as BR did) not to try to shoehorn that into an ICE/IC/R type structure and just call it NSE (or if you must, just categorise it all as R for all stations and RE for everything else). For London, your key demand is to London, and so the idea of trains that call at all stations on the outer reaches then run fast to London almost* uniquely fits that area in a way it really doesn't other parts of the country. You also have something similar in the GWR Cornish services, but I think putting my German hat on I'd say that would just run as IC to Plymouth then RE thereafter (one train, two numbers), a bit like the Berchtesgaden IC does/did.

* Germany did in the 1990s have a category StadtExpress which wasn't dissimilar - all stations up to the S-Bahn boundary then fast to the Hauptbahnhof. A few still exist I believe but as REs, but they don't quite fit the normal pattern.

 

[Meerkat]

And the country, including residents of all income levels, needs a functioning public transport system that enables medium and longer distance transport. Bus isn't adequate for that system.

It does enable that. If money is an issue coaches clearly are adequate.

If your oversimplification that lower income people "don't go as far" were true, why do we provide discounts to pensioners on the basis that they have a lower income ?

It is true. If you are struggling for money you don’t go to the theatre etc in London, you don’t go for a weekend in Edinburgh, you don’t go to all your team’s away games, and you are very unlikely to be a long distance commuter.
Pensioners get a soft deal for historical reasons. One that is arguably hard to justify now on age terms alone considering how many of them there are and how much longer they live than back in the day. And to an extent its off peak capacity filling isn’t it.

 

[yorksrob]

It does enable that. If money is an issue coaches clearly are adequate.

It is true. If you are struggling for money you don’t go to the theatre etc in London, you don’t go for a weekend in Edinburgh, you don’t go to all your team’s away games, and you are very unlikely to be a long distance commuter.
Pensioners get a soft deal for historical reasons. One that is arguably hard to justify now on age terms alone considering how many of them there are and how much longer they live than back in the day. And to an extent its off peak capacity filling isn’t it.

Coaches have their market, however they aren't suitable for mass transport.

In many ways I think that they'd be better following @Bletchleyite and pegging rail fares to motoring costs, since the Government are so determined to throw away tax income on them.

 

[Dr Hoo]

In many ways I think that they'd be better following @Bletchleyite and pegging rail fares to motoring costs, since the Government are so determined to throw away tax income on them.

Well, if the incoming government takes the opportunity to make Fuel Duty ‘catch up’ with inflation not only would motoring become much more expensive (for petrol and diesel vehicles anyway) there might be scope to increase rail fares ‘in line’ with the new comparator.

Hmm…