Should a new Northern Network Railcard be introduced?

[ainsworth74]

My bad, you are correct, the discount is only on Travelcards.

Just make it discount PlusBus as most (all?) other railcards do. For Sheffield Trams that gets you your discounted travel as PlusBus is valid on the whole tram network (same as Nottingham PlusBus). Manchester is trickier as the Metrolink isn't covered by PlusBus. But perhaps they could be persuaded to either offer a discount on their All Zones Day ticket or to join PlusBus.

 

[Neptune]

We don't need railcards, just cheaper fares across the board.

I suspect even if fares were reduced across the board the same few people would still want their own railcard to make it even cheaper.

It always sounds more like FOMO to me than a genuine need (others can have it so why can’t I sort of thing).

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect even if fares were reduced across the board the same few people would still want their own railcard to make it even cheaper.

It always sounds more like FOMO to me than a genuine need (others can have it so why can’t I sort of thing).

If all fares were reduced, there theoretically wouldn't be a need for any railcards.

I really don't see why us working age people who don't happen to live in the South East, seem to be left paying sometimes extortionate fares with no recourse.

Other, normal countries on the continent seem to manage - we seem to be some weird throwback when it comes to public transport.

I notice it's the usual suspects who object to such a railcard.

 

[Neptune]

If all fares were reduced, there theoretically wouldn't be a need for any railcards.

I really don't see why us working age people who don't happen to live in the South East, seem to be left paying sometimes extortionate fares with no recourse.

Other, normal countries on the continent seem to manage - we seem to be some weird throwback when it comes to public transport.

I notice it's the usual suspects who object to such a railcard.

Where did I say I objected? Nowhere have I ever said that. However I personally believe those with less disposable income should be first in line for railcard discounts such as students, pensioners and families with young children. People using the train as a hobby don’t really fall into the group of the more needy.

Don’t you take advantage of the sometimes extremely cheap AP’s available the year round? Also Northern have fire sales every so often? Fares need not be so extortionate with a little careful planning (which most people in your situation seem to do). Cutting the cloth accordingly so to speak.

 

[yorksrob]

Where did I say I objected? Nowhere have I ever said that. However I personally believe those with less disposable income should be first in line for railcard discounts such as students, pensioners and families with young children. People using the train as a hobby don’t really fall into the group of the more needy.

Don’t you take advantage of the sometimes extremely cheap AP’s available the year round? Also Northern have fire sales every so often? Fares need not be so extortionate with a little careful planning (which most people in your situation seem to do). Cutting the cloth accordingly so to speak.

There are plenty of wealthier pensioners and working age low income households in the country, so unless you means test all railcards, they're never going to serve as a pure means for reducing inequality.

And you have to embellish your argument by implying that any rail user who's not eligible for a railcard must be a track basher or hobbyist.

Most of the people who express surprise to me about the lack of a working age railcard are not rail buffs in any way, just normal, occasional rail passengers.

And no, whilst I will usually plan ahead for a long journey, I object to being shoehorned into particular services for day-trip type journeys, as would the majority of passengers. The idea that the general public will be prepared to plan a day to the seaside weeks in advance is rail-think and completely detached from the reality of the general public.

 

[Neptune]

There are plenty of wealthier pensioners and working age low income households in the country, so unless you means test all railcards, they're never going to serve as a pure means for reducing inequality.

And you have to embellish your argument by implying that any rail user who's not eligible for a railcard must be a track basher or hobbyist.

Most of the people who express surprise to me about the lack of a working age railcard are not rail buffs in any way, just normal, occasional rail passengers.

Tell me who do you think isn’t eligible for a railcard then please? Because if you think everyone is then what is the point?

And no, whilst I will usually plan ahead for a long journey, I object to being shoehorned into particular services for day-trip type journeys, as would the majority of passengers. The idea that the general public will be prepared to plan a day to the seaside weeks in advance is rail-think and completely detached from the reality of the general public.

And yet they’re so unpopular that they sell out on most trains. Interesting.

 

[paul1609]

There are plenty of wealthier pensioners and working age low income households in the country, so unless you means test all railcards, they're never going to serve as a pure means for reducing inequality.

And you have to embellish your argument by implying that any rail user who's not eligible for a railcard must be a track basher or hobbyist.

Most of the people who express surprise to me about the lack of a working age railcard are not rail buffs in any way, just normal, occasional rail passengers.

And no, whilst I will usually plan ahead for a long journey, I object to being shoehorned into particular services for day-trip type journeys, as would the majority of passengers. The idea that the general public will be prepared to plan a day to the seaside weeks in advance is rail-think and completely detached from the reality of the general public.

From my experience of heritage railways only a small group of people plan and book their trips "weeks in advance" but when the deadline for advance tickets is midnight the day before and you discount the trip by (in our case) £3 by far the majority of people now book that way, to the extent that turn up and go is relatively small part of our business. Some of the railways in primarily holiday areas are around 20% ahead of us. I cant really think of a reason why a visit to the seaside would be different, theres a minor portion of the population who are hysteric about the need to book the day before and still insist on paying cash but they are very much in a decreasing minority. The Swanage Railway (primarily a seaside railway) had reached 96% of its income being card payment when it decided to go cashless this season. I believe that some of the Welsh narrow Gauge railways are at that level of advance bookings.

 

[yorksrob]

Tell me who do you think isn’t eligible for a railcard then please? Because if you think everyone is then what is the point?

And yet they’re so unpopular that they sell out on most trains. Interesting.

It's clear that people of the wrong age and in the wrong place aren't eligible for a railcard.

A railcard is a marketing device to get people purchasing more of the product to recoup their sunk cost. That's the same psychological process across all age groups.

From my experience of heritage railways only a small group of people plan and book their trips "weeks in advance" but when the deadline for advance tickets is midnight the day before and you discount the trip by (in our case) £3 by far the majority of people now book that way, to the extent that turn up and go is relatively small part of our business. Some of the railways in primarily holiday areas are around 20% ahead of us. I cant really think of a reason why a visit to the seaside would be different, theres a minor portion of the population who are hysteric about the need to book the day before and still insist on paying cash but they are very much in a decreasing minority. The Swanage Railway (primarily a seaside railway) had reached 96% of its income being card payment when it decided to go cashless this season. I believe that some of the Welsh narrow Gauge railways are at that level of advance bookings.

A heritage railway is the destination, not the means to get there. People might want to decide on the day whether to go to the seaside because of the weather, because they don't know if they'll have a cold, if they don't know whether gran will be having one of their turns.

You don't expect motor travellers to plan their movements weeks in advance, so why does the industry expect passengers to.

 

[Neptune]

It's clear that people of the wrong age and in the wrong place aren't eligible for a railcard.

If everyone was entitled to a railcard it would be meaningless. Fares would therefore have to rise higher than normal to make up the shortfall.

A heritage railway is the destination, not the means to get there. People might want to decide on the day whether to go to the seaside because of the weather, because they don't know if they'll have a cold, if they don't know whether gran will be having one of their turns.

Most people plan ahead to get the best value. If we all decided to just do things on the day ‘just in case’ we’d end up going nowhere. The same applies to holidays, the earlier you book the cheaper it is.

You don't expect motor travellers to plan their movements weeks in advance, so why does the industry expect passengers to.

You say that but most motorists like myself do plan ahead (we’ll go on a day out in x weeks on Saturday as we’ve got a free day, or we’ll go out on this coming Sunday as the weather will be nice for instance).

I’m sorry but it seriously sounds like a case of sour grapes because you, like the majority of the nation are not entitled to a railcard.

 

[yorksrob]

If everyone was entitled to a railcard it would be meaningless. Fares would therefore have to rise higher than normal to make up the shortfall.

This is something that you've made up.

If universally available railcards were meaningless, how come so many other countries have them.

Most people plan ahead to get the best value. If we all decided to just do things on the day ‘just in case’ we’d end up going nowhere. The same applies to holidays, the earlier you book the cheaper it is.

You say that but most motorists like myself do plan ahead (we’ll go on a day out in x weeks on Saturday as we’ve got a free day, or we’ll go out on this coming Sunday as the weather will be nice for instance).

You can't compare planning a holiday with an off the cuff day out.

You must be the only person who's never gone anywhere spontaneously.

I’m sorry but it seriously sounds like a case of sour grapes because you, like the majority of the nation are not entitled to a railcard.

Yes, I do object to continually having my fares jacked up and I object to this country being particularly rubbish at providing value for money fares.

 

[Neptune]

This is something that you've made up.

Explain how you’d fund everyone in the country having a railcard then please without loss to the treasury/industry.

If universally available railcards were meaningless, how come so many other countries have them.

We’re not other countries though and I’m sure we’re not the only ones.

You can't compare planning a holiday with an off the cuff day out.

You must be the only person who's never gone anywhere spontaneously.

I do do things spontaneously and if it costs more then so be it. If I couldn’t afford it I just wouldn’t do it. It’s called cutting your cloth accordingly.

Yes, I do object to continually having my fares jacked up and I object to this country being particularly rubbish at providing value for money fares.

Except the excellent value AP fares and locally subsidised fares that you seemingly object to of course.

 

[A0wen]

The real elephant in the room which you ignore is why train fares in the UK are so much higher than in most other European countries. Presumably their governments see the value of subsidising fares to a much greater degree than ours does. All our policy does is force more people into polluting cars, further congest our towns and cities, and disadvantage all the poorer citizens who can neither afford their own vehicles nor the exorbitant rail fares. The proportion of 'track-bashing' enthusiasts to normal passengers must be infinitesimal.

We don't need railcards, just cheaper fares across the board.

Well to increase government subsidy in order to reduce fares would mean increasing taxes.

Since rail has about a 10% modal share that would mean all taxpayers being hit with a bill to subsidise a small minority - and given rail tends to be used by the better off, because of the nature of the journeys rail supports, unlike the bus where the opposite is true, you can't even argue such a move is "progressive".

 

[yorksrob]

Just to give some idea of what we're up against in the North, I looked to buy a day return from Wakefield to Buxton recently, and the only ticket they had was the anytime return for around £39. That's for a relatively slow journey that involves lots of changes. This is illustrative of the poor value railway we have.

Explain how you’d fund everyone in the country having a railcard then please without loss to the treasury/industry.

First of all, the whole premise of this question is nonsense as its highly unlikely that everyone in the country will bother with a railcard.

Secondly, I can think of a few budgets that are sacred to the Establishment that I would trim. The freeze on fuel duty, the Rwanda nonsense are just two.

We're not other countries though and I'm sure we're not the only ones.

Meaningless exceptionalism is no argument. Any government worth its salt should be looking for ideas to make the country better, not doing the same things for the sake of ideology.

I do do things spontaneously and if it costs more then so be it. If I couldn’t afford it I just wouldn’t do it. It’s called cutting your cloth accordingly.

Bully for you, however in a country where peoples cost of living is being increasingly squeezed (and since no one seems concerned about our over reliance on imports I cant see that changing) affordable public services are going to be one of the few ways of keeping living standards up.

Except the excellent value AP fares and locally subsidised fares that you seemingly object to of course.

Locally subsidised fares can be good value (although they'd be a lot better if they got rid of the ridiculous evening peak) but they don't go far enough. They're the equivalent of having a Network card only covering greater London.

AP don't always suit peoples needs, particularly on local journeys.

 

[JonathanH]

Just to give some idea of what we're up against in the North, I looked to buy a day return from Wakefield to Buxton recently, and the only ticket they had was the anytime return for around £39. That's for a relatively slow journey that involves lots of changes. This is illustrative of the poor value railway we have.

The anytime short return is £55.70. The £39.80 fare you are describing is an off-peak return. However, you are describing a journey of at least 60 miles each way. You have to decide whether to travel based on the fare on offer, and weigh it up against other options, for example going by train from Wakefield to Chesterfield and using buses in the Peak District.

I think it is difficult to assess value for that journey. Is £40 actually too much? Why is it too much?

 

[urbophile]

Well to increase government subsidy in order to reduce fares would mean increasing taxes.

Since rail has about a 10% modal share that would mean all taxpayers being hit with a bill to subsidise a small minority - and given rail tends to be used by the better off, because of the nature of the journeys rail supports, unlike the bus where the opposite is true, you can't even argue such a move is "progressive".

False logic there. It's like saying that people without school-age children shouldn't have to pay tax towards the education system. Efficient transport, like efficient education, is vital to the well being of the whole of society. It's in the interests of everyone that the country has a well-educated workforce; similarly it's in the interests of everyone that are roads aren't clogged up, our atmosphere isn't polluted, and the environment destroyed, by encouraging (effectively forcing) people to use private cars.

 

[yorksrob]

The anytime short return is £55.70. The £39.80 fare you are describing is an off-peak return. However, you are describing a journey of at least 60 miles each way. You have to decide whether to travel based on the fare on offer, and weigh it up against other options, for example going by train from Wakefield to Chesterfield and using buses in the Peak District.

I think it is difficult to assess value for that journey. Is £40 actually too much? Why is it too much?

So it is.

I expect the reason it seems so expensive is that theres no cheap day return, even though the journey is perfectly reasonable for a day trip.

One thing's for sure, a railcard discount would bring it more in line with expectations.

 

[JonathanH]

it's in the interests of everyone that are roads aren't clogged up, our atmosphere isn't polluted, and the environment destroyed, by encouraging (effectively forcing) people to use private cars.

While that is absolutely true, there is also the matter of whether the fares should be set at a level which encourages travel, or whether people have to think whether it is worth their while.

As with many things, it is unfortunate that personal wealth and income determines consumption but it isn't really clear how else it can easily be done.

 

[yorksrob]

While that is absolutely true, there is also the matter of whether the fares should be set at a level which encourages travel, or whether people have to think whether it is worth their while.

If the cost of travel needs to be set to discourage it, they need to be ramping up fuel duty and ditching the £2 bus fare. It shouldn't just be rail passengers who have to consider their travel.

 

[HullRailMan]

False logic there. It's like saying that people without school-age children shouldn't have to pay tax towards the education system. Efficient transport, like efficient education, is vital to the well being of the whole of society. It's in the interests of everyone that the country has a well-educated workforce; similarly it's in the interests of everyone that are roads aren't clogged up, our atmosphere isn't polluted, and the environment destroyed, by encouraging (effectively forcing) people to use private cars.

This line of argument is nonsensical. 90%+ of people will use the education system at some point in their lives. 90%+ of journeys are not made by rail. I appreciate it’s a hard message to hear for some on this forum, but rail is irrelevant for most people and always will be. Comparing it to any universal service is apples and pears.

 

[yorksrob]

This line of argument is nonsensical. 90%+ of people will use the education system at some point in their lives. 90%+ of journeys are not made by rail. I appreciate it’s a hard message to hear for some on this forum, but rail is irrelevant for most people and always will be. Comparing it to any universal service is apples and pears.

I'd be surprised if 90% of people didn't use the railway at some stage.

Yes, there will be some who rarely ever use the train. There will also be a large cohort of people who use the train occasionally, for specific reasons and these people need the service when they need it.

To say that the railway is "irrelevant to most people" is drivel.

It's also worth noting that while fewer people use the railway in comparison to universal services such as health, education and social security, this is more than accounted for by the fact that public spend on rail is dwarfed by public spend on each of those universal services, and still would be with better value fares.

 

[urbophile]

This line of argument is nonsensical. 90%+ of people will use the education system at some point in their lives. 90%+ of journeys are not made by rail. I appreciate it’s a hard message to hear for some on this forum, but rail is irrelevant for most people and always will be. Comparing it to any universal service is apples and pears.

90% or more people need to live in a country, and a world, that is not being destroyed by short-sighted individualism. Whether or not people use trains themselves, railways are one of the means of alleviating the environmental crisis. Think of people living near an inner-city trunk road who suffer the effects of pollution (reduced but not eliminated by greater use of electric vehicles), congestion, and the greater risk of accidents. They themselves might have little cause (or even money) to make much use of trains, but they would benefit enormously if much of this road traffic transferred to rail.

Transport is, or should be, a 'universal service', and rail is an important part of this. My analogy remains valid: it's as important for society to have a functioning transport network as it is for it to have an educated population or a healthy one. The NHS is another example: it too is under threat because of short-sighted individualism, but it really is important that life threatening diseases are treated, for the benefit of all and not just those – hopefully a minority – who suffer from them.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

22 miles according to TheTrainline

https://www.thetrainline.com/train-...:text=It takes an average of,22 miles (36 km).

Still reckon it's more like 25 miles. It's 8 miles from Manchester Piccadilly to Cheadle Hulme, another 9 and a half miles from there to Macclesfield and just under 8 miles from Macclesfield to Congleton. Wouldn't automatically trust what Trainline was saying even if they were telling me that today was a Friday.

 

[A0wen]

90% or more people need to live in a country, and a world, that is not being destroyed by short-sighted individualism. Whether or not people use trains themselves, railways are one of the means of alleviating the environmental crisis. Think of people living near an inner-city trunk road who suffer the effects of pollution (reduced but not eliminated by greater use of electric vehicles), congestion, and the greater risk of accidents. They themselves might have little cause (or even money) to make much use of trains, but they would benefit enormously if much of this road traffic transferred to rail.

Transport is, or should be, a 'universal service', and rail is an important part of this. My analogy remains valid: it's as important for society to have a functioning transport network as it is for it to have an educated population or a healthy one. The NHS is another example: it too is under threat because of short-sighted individualism, but it really is important that life threatening diseases are treated, for the benefit of all and not just those – hopefully a minority – who suffer from them.

Bit in bold - except most of that traffic will be local traffic - exactly the kind of traffic the train *can't* take, because they are short, point to point journeys.

And your criticisms of "individualism" are misplaced - societies which limited individualism in favour of some kind of "socialism" have tended not to succeed as the old eastern bloc demonstrated. People want their individualism, their freedom, which you want to limit.

 

[HullRailMan]

I'd be surprised if 90% of people didn't use the railway at some stage.

Yes, there will be some who rarely ever use the train. There will also be a large cohort of people who use the train occasionally, for specific reasons and these people need the service when they need it.

To say that the railway is "irrelevant to most people" is drivel.

It's also worth noting that while fewer people use the railway in comparison to universal services such as health, education and social security, this is more than accounted for by the fact that public spend on rail is dwarfed by public spend on each of those universal services, and still would be with better value fares.

Holding an opinion that doesn’t match yours doesn’t make it ‘drivel’. I highly doubt that if you ask people nationally to name their top 15 political priorities, rail would feature very much. However, I bet potholes and fuel prices would crop up.

90% or more people need to live in a country, and a world, that is not being destroyed by short-sighted individualism. Whether or not people use trains themselves, railways are one of the means of alleviating the environmental crisis. Think of people living near an inner-city trunk road who suffer the effects of pollution (reduced but not eliminated by greater use of electric vehicles), congestion, and the greater risk of accidents. They themselves might have little cause (or even money) to make much use of trains, but they would benefit enormously if much of this road traffic transferred to rail.

Transport is, or should be, a 'universal service', and rail is an important part of this. My analogy remains valid: it's as important for society to have a functioning transport network as it is for it to have an educated population or a healthy one. The NHS is another example: it too is under threat because of short-sighted individualism, but it really is important that life threatening diseases are treated, for the benefit of all and not just those – hopefully a minority – who suffer from them.

If you’re that worried about what you call the ‘environmental crisis’, and you want a ‘universal service’, you’ve made the case for bus investment. After all, buses are used by many time more people and receive a fraction of the investment that rail gets. Addressing that imbalance would get more people out of cars, and benefit the lowest paid who are more likely to use buses over rail.

 

[urbophile]

If you’re that worried about what you call the ‘environmental crisis’, and you want a ‘universal service’, you’ve made the case for bus investment. After all, buses are used by many time more people and receive a fraction of the investment that rail gets. Addressing that imbalance would get more people out of cars, and benefit the lowest paid who are more likely to use buses over rail.

It's not 'what I call' the environmental crisis. That is a fact, and an overwhelming one.

I agree with you about buses, of course. But it's not either/or. And what would help both sectors would be a properly integrated transport network across all modes. Including cars.

 

[yorksrob]

Holding an opinion that doesn’t match yours doesn’t make it ‘drivel’. I highly doubt that if you ask people nationally to name their top 15 political priorities, rail would feature very much. However, I bet potholes and fuel prices would crop up.


If you’re that worried about what you call the ‘environmental crisis’, and you want a ‘universal service’, you’ve made the case for bus investment. After all, buses are used by many time more people and receive a fraction of the investment that rail gets. Addressing that imbalance would get more people out of cars, and benefit the lowest paid who are more likely to use buses over rail.

Whether rail is peoples top fifteen priorities or not is not synonymous with it being "irrelevant to most people"

People want pot holes filled and they want their train service to run. Balls up the railway too much will create a bigger stink than potholes.

 

[urbophile]

Bit in bold - except most of that traffic will be local traffic - exactly the kind of traffic the train *can't* take, because they are short, point to point journeys.

And your criticisms of "individualism" are misplaced - societies which limited individualism in favour of some kind of "socialism" have tended not to succeed as the old eastern bloc demonstrated. People want their individualism, their freedom, which you want to limit.

'Most' will be local traffic on a trunk road? I doubt it. And even local traffic can be alleviated by a better bus service, which itself would be improved by more co-ordination between modes.

I don't want to limit individualism; I'd just like to see a society where all people, and not just the rich and powerful, were able to flourish and achieve their potential. Not easy in the rat-race of contemporary capitalism (which is fast devouring itself).

 

[A0wen]

'Most' will be local traffic on a trunk road? I doubt it. And even local traffic can be alleviated by a better bus service, which itself would be improved by more co-ordination between modes.

I don't want to limit individualism; I'd just like to see a society where all people, and not just the rich and powerful, were able to flourish and achieve their potential. Not easy in the rat-race of contemporary capitalism (which is fast devouring itself).

Yep - almost certainly. Look at the A5 through Milton Keynes, of the A40 through High Wycombe or the A4 through Reading and Slough - long distance traffic isn't using those roads, that'll be on the M1, M40, M4.

Given there are 40m full driving licence holders in the UK and 8m holding provisionals (2021 figures, source https://www.insurancerevolution.co.uk/news/driving-licence-statistics-2021-overview ) I hardly think motoring is the preserve of the "rich and powerful" when almost 3/4s of the population have a driving licence.

 

[urbophile]

You misunderstand. I don't mean 'through' traffic; I mean traffic heading to a city centre along roads that were not designed for the number of cars they have to cope with nowadays. Count the number of occupants of most cars during the 'rush hour': I'll bet that a majority have a driver only. Many of whom could either car share, drive to a suburban park and ride, or use public transport the whole way. By 'local' traffic I mean those doing very short journeys for whom there may be no realistic alternative (though there are usually buses).

Ordinary motorists are among the collateral damage of a society run by and for the rich and powerful. I'm not suggesting that most of them fall into that category themselves.

 

[HullRailMan]

Ordinary motorists are among the collateral damage of a society run by and for the rich and powerful.

What exactly is that meant to mean? It has more than the whiff of conspiracy theory about it.

Meanwhile, maybe most motorists don’t want to give up their independence and personal space?