Rail travel encouragement

[neilmc]

What Bletchleyite says is sound. On the few times I had to travel from Manchester to London for work, the train was half empty. The fare ramping got to the point that my company (a BIG high street bank) refused to pay for peak rail travel any more, they encouraged all meetings requiring people from out of London to travel to take place in the afternoons so that off-peak fares could be used, or failing this to use a cheap hotel plus off-peak travel or to book Advance fares at least one way. I reckon COVID and working from home just killed this market, I hope so anyway.

If £369.40 to travel between Manchester and London and back doesn't seem a rip-off to you, I doubt that anything will, or maybe you are perfectly content to let your business and its customers pay these extortionate fares instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given many trains are (or were pre Covid) running to capacity, fare reduction is actually the last thing you need because the demand is already there

Have you ever been on, or seen, a morning peak Manchester-London service?

 

[A0wen]

Simple fare structure is what is needed.....this industry is appalling for inefficient operations. I'm not surprised the operating costs are so high

Worth remembering most of the fare structure has been in place pre privatisation - there were advance fares, there were time limitations, there were specific fares - the big difference is that since privatisation the internet has taken hold so it's visible to the public, whereas previously you were sold whatever ticked the bloke at the counter told you about.

Have you ever been on, or seen, a morning peak Manchester-London service?

Not personally, but a good friend of mine lives near Crewe and travelled regularly into London and MK at peak times - he varied his route between both Liverpool (Crewe) and Stoke (Manchester) services - and I don't think they were deserted from what he told me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not personally, but a good friend of mine lives near Crewe and travelled regularly into London and MK at peak times - he varied his route between both Liverpool (Crewe) and Stoke (Manchester) services - and I don't think they were deserted from what he told me.

Liverpools tend to be busier because the frequency is a third of Manchesters, but they are certainly not anywhere near full.

Indeed, my personal experience and observation is that other than Friday evenings and Sunday mid-afternoons, the Manchesters are almost never anything like full. My experience is that getting a decent pair of seats by a window to yourself is a near certainty. Liverpools and fast Scotlands are busier as there is only one of each per hour. Most Chesters would fill a 5-car Voyager but nowhere near a 10-car, again with a few odd exceptions.

 

[matacaster]

As regards connections, there is plusbus from some /all? stations, but what is really needed is through booking / ticketing to bus and local taxi service. Simply saying catch next bus or find a taxi when you get to your destination station isn't good enough really. Many people with cars expect door to door transport.

 

[hooverboy]

What Bletchleyite says is sound. On the few times I had to travel from Manchester to London for work, the train was half empty. The fare ramping got to the point that my company (a BIG high street bank) refused to pay for peak rail travel any more, they encouraged all meetings requiring people from out of London to travel to take place in the afternoons so that off-peak fares could be used, or failing this to use a cheap hotel plus off-peak travel or to book Advance fares at least one way. I reckon COVID and working from home just killed this market, I hope so anyway.

If £369.40 to travel between Manchester and London and back doesn't seem a rip-off to you, I doubt that anything will, or maybe you are perfectly content to let your business and its customers pay these extortionate fares instead.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.A lot of companies will be looking to rationalise costs where possible after the pandemic.The use of zoom and virtual conferencing is certainly going to be retained. The use of alternative/cheaper means of conducting face to face meetings will also be encouraged.This would definitely include off peak and out-of-capital travel.
Due to ULEZ as well, I can see quite a few companies wishing to do business outside the hot zone.I've heard quite a few contractors are now declining work inside said zone, or if they do put in quotes, they are massively ramping up pricing to compensate.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Motorists here in Oxford seem either unaware of the pollution they cause and the effect on climate change or they aren't interested in travelling by any other means. They happily drive along Botley Road at 2mph on Saturdays in preference to using the park-and-ride. I honestly don't think you can wrest most motorists from their beloved cars. They couldn't live without them.

 

[A0wen]

Motorists here in Oxford seem either unaware of the pollution they cause and the effect on climate change or they aren't interested in travelling by any other means. They happily drive along Botley Road at 2mph on Saturdays in preference to using the park-and-ride. I honestly don't think you can wrest most motorists from their beloved cars. They couldn't live without them.

You've asked them where they started their journey and where it's ending to be certain they could use the P&R and just aren't?

That's the trouble with too many posters, quick to pass judgement without any facts to support their claims.

 

[Llanigraham]

Rail travel is being encouraged in many, many places, not least by Government, but how much reality is taken into account?
As a local example, Radio Shropshire this morning pointed out that in the last week alone, 35 trains from Shrewsbury to Birmingham were cancelled.

And what percentage of the total number of trains was that?
Has Covid been taken into account?
Have mechanical problems been taken into account?

Overcrowding is common on routes throughout the country, not least thanks to short trains.

Is it? I've used that route in the last two weeks and it was never crowded.

Connections are a thing of the past except by pure luck,

Are they? I wouldn't believe everything you hear on that radio station!

and fares are among the highest in the world.

But are they really?
I suspect it isn't the case but it does make a good sound bite.

 

[hooverboy]

Motorists here in Oxford seem either unaware of the pollution they cause and the effect on climate change or they aren't interested in travelling by any other means. They happily drive along Botley Road at 2mph on Saturdays in preference to using the park-and-ride. I honestly don't think you can wrest most motorists from their beloved cars. They couldn't live without them.

The car drives you door to door,when you want,in comfort ,and not subject to the elements.That's the convenience factor public transport cannot provide.That's the ultimate reason people cannot do without their cars.

You could also add into the mix, can do so while carrying heavy loads that would not be possible otherwise,( meaning multiple heavy bags of groceries or shopping).

There's only 2 ways to combat that.Remember even with ev's congestion charges will still cause congestion,just less pollution.
way 1 is road pricing,pay per mile excise duty for all road vehicles
way 2 is to make public transport so obscenely cheap,people will think twice about using their cars...that requires significant goverment subsidy,which the y seem unwilling to do, even though a lot of EU countries do have such a scheme.

 

[greyman42]

Rail travel is being encouraged in many, many places, not least by Government, but how much reality is taken into account?

Travel is not really being encouraged on LNER with their over the top announcements about mask wearing.

 

[Shrop]

You've asked them where they started their journey and where it's ending to be certain they could use the P&R and just aren't?

That's the trouble with too many posters, quick to pass judgement without any facts to support their claims.

So you think Oxfordblues is unreasonably quick to pass judgement? I presume, or judge if you like, that some people who take their cars to work, are actually capable of walking or cycling. I don't have facts to support this claim, but if you'd care to make a £1000 wager with me, I'll happily take you on. Another £1000 says that some of those who drive to work could take the train, and a further £1000 says some could take the Park and Ride. If your assertion is correct that people are too quick to pass judgement, then you'll take me on and all we then need is a few rules about what constitutes being capable of taking means other than the car, and the survey can commence ...

 

[greyman42]

Motorists here in Oxford seem either unaware of the pollution they cause and the effect on climate change or they aren't interested in travelling by any other means.

Most motorist have little interest in climate change and most people are not interested in travelling by any other means.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Travel is not really being encouraged on LNER with their over the top announcements about mask wearing.

Rail companies that take protection of their customers seriously get a thumbs up from me.

 

[Ianno87]

Rail companies that take protection of their customers seriously get a thumbs up from me.

The vast majority of people don't let mask messaging bother them (regardless of whether you wear one or not).

 

[ld0595]

Pretty simple solution that others have said. Reduce fare prices so they are actually affordable to most people and are somewhat comparable to driving by car.

I live in a Glasgow suburb which has decently priced fares into the city. However, prices are astronomical if I want to venture further out. My local service is now down to 1tph in the evenings as well, meaning I've had to wait nearly an hour to make one of my connections in the past.

Who in the right mind would take the train when it's cheaper, more convenient, more flexible and often quicker to take the car? When there's more than one person travelling, train is out the question entirely.

Fares should also be simplified. A walk up ticket from my station to Perth is £30 but from Glasgow Queen Street it's nearly half that. Why? Because the ticket machines don't offer any day return fares - only 1 month returns. That's confusing and off-putting for anyone who doesn't know the complexities of the fare structure here.

 

[JonathanH]

Fares should also be simplified. A walk up ticket from my station to Perth is £30 but from Glasgow Queen Street it's nearly half that. Why? Because the ticket machines don't offer any day return fares - only 1 month returns. That's confusing and off-putting for anyone who doesn't know the complexities of the fare structure here.

It isn't the ticket machines. It is the pricing manager who wants to set a headline fare from Glasgow to Perth but who doesn't extend that to other origin points within Glasgow. The ticket machine can only sell the tickets on offer. (To some extent it isn't actually confusing, there is a smaller range of fares from your origin, but it is inconsistent.) There are a lot of places in Scotland and the Northern area where 'city' to 'city' is priced cheaper than 'conurbation suburb' to 'distant city' which is some sort of market segmentation.

It probably comes down to competition with coaches. You can't buy 'conurbation suburb' to 'distant city' if travelling by bus and coach so the need to compete isn't there. There is a question as to whether the railways should really try to compete with coach fares. Obviously the railway will charge more but not so much more as to be out of scale. National Express charges less for 'city to city' travel than 'smaller town to city' travel on their coaches as well.

 

[ServerHoster]

I would be encouraged to rail more, if; Station Car Park costs were cheap. Using Sheffield as an example, its £19.50 over 8 hours. And I would sooner have less, but longer trains, improving reliability on anything medium to long distance.

And I thought £12 for a day at Crewe was expensive!

 

[Moonshot]

Pretty simple solution that others have said. Reduce fare prices so they are actually affordable to most people and are somewhat comparable to driving by car.

I live in a Glasgow suburb which has decently priced fares into the city. However, prices are astronomical if I want to venture further out. My local service is now down to 1tph in the evenings as well, meaning I've had to wait nearly an hour to make one of my connections in the past.

Who in the right mind would take the train when it's cheaper, more convenient, more flexible and often quicker to take the car? When there's more than one person travelling, train is out the question entirely.

Fares should also be simplified. A walk up ticket from my station to Perth is £30 but from Glasgow Queen Street it's nearly half that. Why? Because the ticket machines don't offer any day return fares - only 1 month returns. That's confusing and off-putting for anyone who doesn't know the complexities of the fare structure here.

A point I made further up. One thing that is going to discourage rail travel is industrial action. I made a comment earlier today on another thread about this. The opinion amongst my colleagues ( and mine as well ) is that we are going to see some significant strikes in the not too distant future. Obviously this will mean thousands of services just not running at all.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It really isn't. Many TOCs have "connection policies" by which a train can be held for up to X minutes to ensure connections are met.

It really is. At least 2 of the TOCs I use don't hold connecting trains. Unless I've been unlucky on nearly every journey

 

[thedbdiboy]

Regardless of the rest of the world, fares, especially walk-up fares, are outrageous. Attempts to justify this or claim it not to be true really do not help.

The fares system desperately needs sorting out, and there are indeed all sorts of fares that make no sense. But your sweeping statement reads:
'I am right. Please don't counter with information or facts as I do not want to know'.

The London - Manchester Anytime fare is the bogeyman everyone loves to quote and yes, there are plenty of other journeys that are overpriced that but there are plenty of walk up fares on large parts of the network that are not 'outrageously' overpriced, the issue being far more about the structure being unnecessarily complicated and off putting for the casual user. Put it this way: if all fares were cut by 50% but nothing else was done to sort the structure out, it would still be a mess.

The other thing that is unfortunately wilfully ignored by those that have the luxury of never having to actually come up with a credible alternative is the desire to get rid of all yield managed (advance purchase) products and just have a cheap walk up fare structure. Needless to say anyone advocating this would then distance themselves from the absolute chaos that would ensue with absolutely no way to manage crowding or offer choice to people. There's a lot that could be done to improve the Advance fare structure and integrate it better into the walk-up structure but these fares are massively popular and easily understood by ordinary people, and give access to some very low fares that would not be achievable any other way.

 

[A0wen]

So you think Oxfordblues is unreasonably quick to pass judgement? I presume, or judge if you like, that some people who take their cars to work, are actually capable of walking or cycling. I don't have facts to support this claim, but if you'd care to make a £1000 wager with me, I'll happily take you on. Another £1000 says that some of those who drive to work could take the train, and a further £1000 says some could take the Park and Ride. If your assertion is correct that people are too quick to pass judgement, then you'll take me on and all we then need is a few rules about what constitutes being capable of taking means other than the car, and the survey can commence ...

Question is who are you to dictate or pass judgement on how people choose to travel?

I believe in letting people make their choice based on what is best for them - it looks like you don't and want to dictate to people.

 

[JonathanH]

there are plenty of walk up fares on large parts of the network that are not 'outrageously' overpriced

Indeed, there is a huge swathe of incredibly reasonably priced walk up fares along the southern coastline of England, including at peak times. However, I doubt they are instrumental in getting people out of cars to any great extent because the desire for people to actually make those journeys is fairly limited.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

You've asked them where they started their journey and where it's ending to be certain they could use the P&R and just aren't?

For someone who goes on to say

That's the trouble with too many posters, quick to pass judgement without any facts to support their claims.

you're awfully quick to leap to judgment yourself.

There have been lots of traffic studies done into flows along the Botley Road in connection with the current works, and in the longer term, the Connecting Oxford programme which will see bus gates installed across the city. It's entirely plausible that @Oxfordblues has seen some of these studies. I certainly have.

Yes, the Westgate Centre is a massive trip generator. Given that it has 1000 parking spaces it couldn't not be. By definition, all inbound traffic along the Botley Road has passed the P&R, unless it originates on the road itself. You literally can't get to the road without doing so.

I grant you it's possible that Oxfordshire County Council is currently spaffing £9.1m up the wall on "major bus, cycle and pedestrian improvements" on the Botley Road without researching whether or not there is actually any potential for modal shift from cars. That they've decided they don't need an evidence base, and can just spend £9.1m without any fear of comebacks or censure. Certainly possible.

Let me guess, you haven't personally been to Oxford, but a good friend of yours has?

 

[Shrop]

Question is who are you to dictate or pass judgement on how people choose to travel?

I believe in letting people make their choice based on what is best for them - it looks like you don't and want to dictate to people.

Many people travel by car simply because they can, and never mind the consequences for anyone else. Putting more carbon into the atmosphere than you need to is increasingly becoming an issue, that's not me dictating, that's scientists around the world. Encouragement of sustainability is on the rise, but there is also value in reducing accident risks, reducing congestion, pollution, you name it. Its not me dictating, its those people around the world who have an environmental awareness and a conscience to go with it.

 

[6Gman]

Rail travel is being encouraged in many, many places, not least by Government, but how much reality is taken into account? (1)
As a local example, Radio Shropshire this morning pointed out that in the last week alone, 35 trains from Shrewsbury to Birmingham were cancelled. (2) Overcrowding is common on routes throughout the country, not least thanks to short trains (3). Connections are a thing of the past except by pure luck (4), and fares are among the highest in the world (5).
So just what is there to attract people out of their beloved cars? (6) Is Government taking this seriously? (7) Yes, we can slate the attitude of clueless politicians, but what positive ways forward might there be? (8)

To take each of your points (which I have numbered) in turn.

1. I think this is rhetorical.
2. Most train operators are currently shortstaffed as a direct and indirect result of Covid.
3. Short trains are generally the result of financial restrictions; longer trains mean higher fares or more subsidy.
4. Two relevant points here. Delay Repay at least means you have some compensation for delay. The move to "right time means right time, not within five or ten minutes" means the days of "we'll hang on for a couple of minutes" have gone plus the penalties for delay on a congested system.
5. Walk-up fares are indeed high but many advance fares are low by international standards.
6. A more relaxed journey; you can have an (alcoholic) drink on your trip out; you can enjoy the view; no parking woes.
7. Not really.
8. Personally I'd be happy with a flatter fares structure, higher fares/subsidy, and a "bigger" railway, but try selling that to the general public especially those who never use trains but would be expected to pay for them.

 

[JonathanH]

Many people travel by car simply because they can, and never mind the consequences for anyone else. Putting more carbon into the atmosphere than you need to is increasingly becoming an issue, that's not me dictating, that's scientists around the world. Encouragement of sustainability is on the rise, but there is also value in reducing accident risks, reducing congestion, pollution, you name it. Its not me dictating, its those people around the world who have an environmental awareness and a conscience to go with it.

Many people travel by train simply because they can, and never mind the consequences for anyone else. All travel has a carbon footprint (as does staying at home with the heating on and indeed other activities).

Ultimately, it isn't about cost or connections or quality or anything else, it is about how to manage consumption across the whole economy, while keeping people on side. As you say, the battle between conscience and 'fear of missing out' is a difficult one.

 

[Shrop]

For someone who goes on to say

you're awfully quick to leap to judgment yourself.

There have been lots of traffic studies done into flows along the Botley Road in connection with the current works, and in the longer term, the Connecting Oxford programme which will see bus gates installed across the city. It's entirely plausible that @Oxfordblues has seen some of these studies. I certainly have.

Yes, the Westgate Centre is a massive trip generator. Given that it has 1000 parking spaces it couldn't not be. By definition, all inbound traffic along the Botley Road has passed the P&R, unless it originates on the road itself. You literally can't get to the road without doing so.

I grant you it's possible that Oxfordshire County Council is currently spaffing £9.1m up the wall on "major bus, cycle and pedestrian improvements" on the Botley Road without researching whether or not there is actually any potential for modal shift from cars. That they've decided they don't need an evidence base, and can just spend £9.1m without any fear of comebacks or censure. Certainly possible.

Let me guess, you haven't personally been to Oxford, but a good friend of yours has?

Well said. It gets a bit wearing when people dispute the obvious just by claiming "there's no evidence", and yet they're not able to provide any evidence to the contrary.

 

[NoRoute]

The analysis needs to cover the full journey, not just the railway part because most people's journeys don't start and end at a railway station. It needs to consider the time required and the end-to-end cost. The bits which spring to my mind from past experience.

1. Plusbus needs fixing, last time I checked the process it wasn't possible to begin a journey taking the bus to the train station, unless you visit the station first to collect tickets or get tickets posted out several days in advance. This is crazy. One of the most beneficial parts of it would be getting a bus to the station.

2. Parking capacity at stations needs increasing and parking should be bundled either free or at low cost for train travel above a certain cost/distance threshold, to encourage a shift.

3. The e-scooter trials are worth watching and there could be a good escooter-rail combo opportunity, getting a scooter to the station, or, at the destination station to the actual destination. Or even a rail e-bike scheme, the opportunity to grab a bike at the destination station to complete the final part of the journey.

4. More flexibility on advanced fares, if there's unbooked seats on earlier or later trains, then give passengers the flexibility on the day of travel to arrive earlier or later and take that train. It costs the railway company nothing and it improves the passenger experience.

5. More focus on the passenger experience at stations. Every station to have a decent heated waiting room, with plenty of seats and all platforms to have a roof, to keep the passengers from getting soaked when it rains. Blindingly obvious to any business working in hospitality, still something not obvious to the today's railways.

 

[Shrop]

To take each of your points (which I have numbered) in turn.

1. I think this is rhetorical.
2. Most train operators are currently shortstaffed as a direct and indirect result of Covid.
3. Short trains are generally the result of financial restrictions; longer trains mean higher fares or more subsidy.
4. Two relevant points here. Delay Repay at least means you have some compensation for delay. The move to "right time means right time, not within five or ten minutes" means the days of "we'll hang on for a couple of minutes" have gone plus the penalties for delay on a congested system.
5. Walk-up fares are indeed high but many advance fares are low by international standards.
6. A more relaxed journey; you can have an (alcoholic) drink on your trip out; you can enjoy the view; no parking woes.
7. Not really.
8. Personally I'd be happy with a flatter fares structure, higher fares/subsidy, and a "bigger" railway, but try selling that to the general public especially those who never use trains but would be expected to pay for them.

Thanks for the analysis, I'll bite my tongue on responses, except to say that a lot of rail management policy is in serious need of a major overhaul, without which people won't be attracted to using them. And yes it needs meaningful Government support, with far better advertising of facts like cars being greater accident risks than trains, far greater polluters, far greater causes of economic costs (congestion etc). These are the types of things that justify using road travel to subsidise rail travel. And yes again, there is a huge roads lobby, car manufacturing industry and petrol head journalists standing in the way, but a strong Government would find a way to work WITH the car industry to benefit the country's transport. If only we had a strong Government.