Why are the Railways more expensive than air travel between Scotland & the South?

[Greenback]

When I were a lad, the BR fares system of Awayday/Cheap Day Return, Weekend Return Monthly Return and Open Return was clear and easy to understand. However, it did not not maximise revenue. To be fair, I don't think that the technology used in the 1970's would have permitted such a strategy.

You are correct to say that things are more sophisticated now.

 

[All Line Rover]

I've certainly travelled on an IC train on which apparently all the cheap fares had been booked out, only to walk down the train to find a carriage with only about four people in it.

On VTWC at least, that may be because there were no cheap Advance fares to begin with.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it's important that we still see this as yield management though: for long journeys with multiple changes, using low fares to manage demand is going to be a challenge because of intersecting routes, and changing demands as the journey goes on. You can leave Cardiff at 10:30 out of peak time and be arriving in Edinburgh between 17:00-18:00 in the evening peak - so it's difficult to apply a single fare to manage demand over that distance.

Nonsense. When VTWC charge £53 for a first class Advance ticket from London to Crewe, ATW charge £96 for a through first class Advance ticket to Nantwich. This being despite the passenger travelling on the same train from London to Crewe, and the Crewe to Nantwich portion of the journey consisting of an 8 minute journey after 10pm on an empty standard-class-only train terminating at Shrewsbury, with a Crewe to Nantwich walk-up ticket costing £3. It's not a case of "it's not possible". It's a case of "we won't do it".

Another example. VTWC charge £25 for a first class Advance ticket London Euston to Birmingham New Street. If changing for a CrossCountry service to Stoke on Trent, the through Advance fare is £124. But if changing for a London Midland service to Crewe, the through Advance fare is £43.

VTWC and London Midland co-operate well when setting fares. The same is true with VTEC and Northern (although Northern's introduction of short distance Advance fares is having a negative effect on this co-operation). ATW, on the other hand, like CrossCountry, refuse to co-operate at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

ATW, on the other hand, like CrossCountry, refuse to co-operate at all.

Slightly bizarrely, and very much the exception to the rule, is a EUS-MAN via BHM Advance fare which books onto an XC service. Mid-morning I think.

Just a data point.

 

[me123]

Depends what you're competing on. Clearly the route is not competitive on speed, but if that were the be-all and end-all, the trains would be empty and the prices rock bottom.

Clearly the route is extremely competitive to some sectors of the population, hence the ability to charge higher prices, so perhaps the issue is capacity.

My understanding of Advance pricing for longer routes is that there are quotas for each section (A journey between A-D would have a quota for A-B, B-C and C-D). The cheapest fare offered to the customer is the cheapest fare level in all the relevant sections. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

EDIT - I'm not wrong, although the ticketing guide possibly explains it better than I can.

If that is the case, then for a Scotland to South-West journey you'll be passing through multiple sections, which will be busier than the end to end flow. So there's probably hardly any people traveling on Edinburgh to Bristol Advance tickets (maybe no-one), but the quota's been taken up by people traveling Edinburgh to Newcastle, Newcastle to Birmingham, and Birmingham to Bristol. As such the price rises quickly, even though the journey in question isn't popular.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have wondered if it would actually be fairer, and make more sense, for Advance pricing to be based on a single train with no changes rather than a through journey. A booking engine could then construct and issue a set of tickets as required, one per train (this is not technically hard; DB's ticketing system could do it quite happily in the 1990s). If Advances weren't available for one of the trains, it would simply use the lowest applicable walk-up ticket for that segment.

Through ticketing would then only be issued as a walk-up (though I would suggest the NRCoC be modified to allow only one admin fee to be charged where such a split through Advance booking is made).

Would only work well where "half return" singles were offered, though.

This would remove the complexity and question of where "and connections" type tickets are offered, or where Advances aren't offered across two TOCs.

 

[All Line Rover]

My understanding of Advance pricing for longer routes is that there are quotas for each section (A journey between A-D would have a quota for A-B, B-C and C-D). The cheapest fare offered to the customer is the cheapest fare level in all the relevant sections. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

TOCs can set a lower quota for any Advance fare involving connecting services, which is what ATW has been doing for the last three years or so.

CrossCountry is usually expensive regardless of whether connections are involved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have wondered if it would actually be fairer, and make more sense, for Advance pricing to be based on a single train with no changes rather than a through journey. A booking engine could then construct and issue a set of tickets as required, one per train (this is not technically hard; DB's ticketing system could do it quite happily in the 1990s). If Advances weren't available for one of the trains, it would simply use the lowest applicable walk-up ticket for that segment.

Through ticketing would then only be issued as a walk-up (though I would suggest the NRCoC be modified to allow only one admin fee to be charged where such a split through Advance booking is made).

Would only work well where "half return" singles were offered, though.

This would remove the complexity and question of where "and connections" type tickets are offered, or where Advances aren't offered across two TOCs.

Apparently that is too difficult for the DfT.

The system you propose (which I have long been in favour of) would prevent unscrupulous TOCs from overcharging passengers while not preventing more co-operative TOCs from offering through Advance fares for journeys involving connecting trains (e.g. Edinburgh to London changing at Crewe, or Watford Junction to Wilmslow changing at Milton Keynes and Crewe, where to charge separate fares for each leg of the journey would result in uncompetitive fares, particularly as Advance fares are not available for shorter journeys such as Watford Junction to Milton Keynes). Watford Junction to Wilmslow would increase from a minimum of £43 to a minimum of £73 (first class) if each leg were required to be priced separately.

 

[Starmill]

Rail should be easily competitive for journeys like Cardiff to Edinburgh against air travel.

Domestic air travel is highly damaging for the environment and produces many times the Carbon emissions of rail for the equivalent distance. The total external cost of flying is from Cardiff to Edinburgh is huge compared to that of taking the train. If the true cost of air travel were taken into account, its very unlikely that many domestic flights in a country as small as the UK would be economical.

If a passenger is making a return journey and can travel after 0930, the Off-Peak Return at £173.10 (£86.55 each way) is expensive per mile but not outrageous. I wouldn't want to pay that much myself but I don't believe that its uncompetitive with air. Rail has important work to do to reduce fares like this in recognition of the economic and environmental benefits of reduced air travel where rail can compete. Sadly it doesn't look like they're too interested.

 

[mrmartin]

Just to add to this, I often travel between London and Scotland. When I had a YP rail card I would always get an open off peak return for around £80.

Now I don't have one I nearly always get Ryanair. Its often £30 return and the departure times are good. Even adding stansted express it comes out £60 cheaper.

 

[Greenback]

Rail should be easily competitive for journeys like Cardiff to Edinburgh against air travel.

Domestic air travel is highly damaging for the environment and produces many times the Carbon emissions of rail for the equivalent distance. The total external cost of flying is from Cardiff to Edinburgh is huge compared to that of taking the train. If the true cost of air travel were taken into account, its very unlikely that many domestic flights in a country as small as the UK would be economical.

I don't disagree with you, but to make it otherwise would require a dramatic change in government policy.

No recent government has shown any interest in involving itself too much in fares matters. It seems to be the current way of thinking that the market is supreme and that transport operators must be free to set their own fares within the constraints of the law, naturally.

Didn't Labour hold a view that it was nto going to go back tot he days when flying was only done by the rich?

If a passenger is making a return journey and can travel after 0930, the Off-Peak Return at £173.10 (£86.55 each way) is expensive per mile but not outrageous. I wouldn't want to pay that much myself but I don't believe that its uncompetitive with air. Rail has important work to do to reduce fares like this in recognition of the economic and environmental benefits of reduced air travel where rail can compete. Sadly it doesn't look like they're too interested.

The railway industry wants to maximise revenue. It has no interest in attracting business for long distance flows if it can make more money from intermediate journeys.

For instance, let's say for argument's sake that it's £180 for a return from Swansea to Perth.

Instead of selling a ticket at that price, the TOC's could easily end up making more money by selling tickets such as Swansea to Cardiff (£10), Cardiff to Bristol Parkway (£15), Bristol Parkway to Cheltenham (£8), Cheltenham to Birmingham (£15) and so on.

(All the fares I've quoted are made up and for illustrative purposes only!)

The way of doings things today is so different form those of the past, that a different fares strategy is essential. In the old day sof my youth, there were no stock shortages, carriages were lying around all over the country, sometimes used only a couple of times a week, and it was easy to match capacity to demand.

Today, as we all know, fixed formations and multiple unit operation means that demand has to be matched to capacity, rather than vice versa.

 

[cuccir]

Nonsense. When VTWC charge £53 for a first class Advance ticket from London to Crewe, ATW charge £96 for a through first class Advance ticket to Nantwich. This being despite the passenger travelling on the same train from London to Crewe, and the Crewe to Nantwich portion of the journey consisting of an 8 minute journey after 10pm on an empty standard-class-only train terminating at Shrewsbury, with a Crewe to Nantwich walk-up ticket costing £3. It's not a case of "it's not possible". It's a case of "we won't do it".

I grant you that- the point I was making was in reference to long journeys as originally asked, but yes there are plenty of other instances where Advance fares aren't available because the TOCs can't be bothered to make them so. However, the point stands with regards to longer trips IMO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rail has important work to do to reduce fares like this in recognition of the economic and environmental benefits of reduced air travel where rail can compete. Sadly it doesn't look like they're too interested.

Then vote for a political party that will nationalize the railways - which is, I think what this comes down to. We have TOCs, we have profit maximization; we have a state-run railway, we have an obligation to promote greener travel, to promote travel to disadvantaged places, to make travel affordable for the poor. I'm not necessarily making the case for nationalization here, but presuming that most TOCs aren't so incompetent as to be missing out on profit, it seems that appeals to their goodwill for cheaper fares have little basis.

 

[Greenback]

Then vote for a political party that will nationalize the railways - which is, I think what this comes down to. We have TOCs, we have profit maximization; we have a state-run railway, we have an obligation to promote greener travel, to promote travel to disadvantaged places, to make travel affordable for the poor. I'm not necessarily making the case for nationalization here, but presuming that most TOCs aren't so incompetent as to be missing out on profit, it seems that appeals to their goodwill for cheaper fares have little basis.

Exactly. A government promoting greener travel, social equality and affordable travel is quite simply incompatible with the present set up that we have.

 

[me123]

Rail should be easily competitive for journeys like Cardiff to Edinburgh against air travel.

Domestic air travel is highly damaging for the environment and produces many times the Carbon emissions of rail for the equivalent distance. The total external cost of flying is from Cardiff to Edinburgh is huge compared to that of taking the train. If the true cost of air travel were taken into account, its very unlikely that many domestic flights in a country as small as the UK would be economical.

If a passenger is making a return journey and can travel after 0930, the Off-Peak Return at £173.10 (£86.55 each way) is expensive per mile but not outrageous. I wouldn't want to pay that much myself but I don't believe that its uncompetitive with air. Rail has important work to do to reduce fares like this in recognition of the economic and environmental benefits of reduced air travel where rail can compete. Sadly it doesn't look like they're too interested.

The environmental argument is a very real consideration, and I think that we should be doing more to encourage a shift back onto the rails. But the reality of travel between Central Scotland and the South West is that the journey times are not competitive. I could easily manage 4 hours end-end for my house to Cardiff by plane. The train journey by comparison comes in at well over 6 hours, plus travel to/from either end. The time saving alone is significant, and the prospect of 6.5-7.5 hours on a train is very off-putting for lots of people, particularly business people. You can argue that they can work on the journey, but at the same time that's a whole working day spent traveling.

I think it's very simplistic to say that better fares alone will solve this problem. I don't think that that is the answer. I think you need to improve the infrastructure and journey times on this corridor as well if you want to make any real impact. When a rail journey can easily take twice the time of the air journey (depending on exact travel points of course), then it will not be seen as competitive and the airlines could probably push their fares up further without a significant loss to the rail market. But bring the journey times down and introduce more competitive fares, then you have the potential to compete with easyJet and flyBe.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If that were true then National Express wouldn't exist. People weigh up price vs comfort vs speed, and everyone has their own tolerance for each factor. (For many people, for example, an extra two hours on the train is mitigated by being more easily able to do some work on a laptop.)

The problem is that rail fares on these flows are becoming so uncompetitive as to distort the equation. I'd pay an extra £50 for a 'desk' where I can work, but not an extra £100.

 

[Clip]

If that were true then National Express wouldn't exist. People weigh up price vs comfort vs speed, and everyone has their own tolerance for each factor. (For many people, for example, an extra two hours on the train is mitigated by being more easily able to do some work on a laptop.)

The problem is that rail fares on these flows are becoming so uncompetitive as to distort the equation. I'd pay an extra £50 for a 'desk' where I can work, but not an extra £100.

Its got to be asked though - what is the demand for such long end to end journeys from the SW and Wales to Scotland?

No point selling cheaper tickets for the whole journey when you can fill a train three or four times on route for shorter journeys but even more money. Thats how it works.

 

[Greenback]

Clip is right. Under the present system, there is no incentive for anyone to try and encourage long distance travel by reducing the price. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The profit incentive will ensure that companies will focus on the more lucrative and shorter flows.

To change that, the entire system needs to be overhauled. Basically, that means nationalisation or at least a non profit type of organisation which can be instructed to pursue policies that are considered to be more in line with strategic national interest.

 

[Clip]

Clip is right. Under the present system, there is no incentive for anyone to try and encourage long distance travel by reducing the price. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The profit incentive will ensure that companies will focus on the more lucrative and shorter flows.

To change that, the entire system needs to be overhauled. Basically, that means nationalisation or at least a non profit type of organisation which can be instructed to pursue policies that are considered to be more in line with strategic national interest.

Its quite naive to think that nationalisation would bring about any sort of lower prices - the railway will still need to pay for itself and more profit to help do that would mean pricing would still be the same. Im aware that sounds very cynical but the money would stil have to come from somewhere and thats the passenger.

 

[infobleep]

Who decided that advance tickets should include and connections? For example to get from Weymouth to York via Kings Cross you could use an advance ticket.

However to get from Weymouth to Hastings you can't get an advanced purchase ticket I believe. Yet both cross multiple TOCs.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just using random examples without actually checking them off hand.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Starmill]

Of course the infrastructure needs to be improved, but in a way there's already a good prospect of that. One day, I'm sure HS2 will reach Scotland, from when journeys to places like Cardiff and Bristol via Birmingham will be at very competitive journey times. Unfortunately, that's much more likely than the Cardiff to Edinburgh Off-Peak Return going down in price. This thread was started as a discussion of price which is why I didn't really allude to infrastructure changes. I'm confident that they will come - we are having investment in railway infrastructure. Or course, it could come more quickly.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Then vote for a political party that will nationalize the railways - which is, I think what this comes down to. We have TOCs, we have profit maximization; we have a state-run railway, we have an obligation to promote greener travel, to promote travel to disadvantaged places, to make travel affordable for the poor. I'm not necessarily making the case for nationalization here, but presuming that most TOCs aren't so incompetent as to be missing out on profit, it seems that appeals to their goodwill for cheaper fares have little basis.

BR showed no particular desire to make fares cheaper. They were too busy trying to get their costs down.
In fact the fares system we have is pretty much BR's of 1994 in terms of regulated fares (seasons and off-peak, mostly).
TOCs have taken the non-regulated fares to extremes, and don't try very hard to link their separate schemes.
They are also constrained by geography and history.
Actually Labour invented the "inflation + 3%" fares escalator, and instituted the policy of passengers paying a higher proportion of the fare than the taxpayer.

 

[Taunton]

Split ticketing is in the railway's interest because they can then report two journeys, and the overall number of journeys per year is a headline figure presented to the government and the media to show "how much more the railways are being used".

Travel by air has of course significantly cheaper infrastructure costs because there is very little infrastructure needed, apart from a few radio beacons, between origin and destination. Travel by road is similar because once you have bought your tax disk equivalent, the overall income from which broadly equates to overall highways maintenance expenditure, you can do what you like without additional cost. Only the railway is charged by the mile by the vehicle for infrastructure usage,

 

[Master29]

Not this one again. Reminiscent of that now, not so famous teenager who told everyone he could fly to Sydney cheaper than travel to his local sports centre. OK exaggeration but a similar situation really as has been well explained on this thread.

 

[island]

To be fair, the comparison is a bit more nuanced than the typical "compare anytime train fares with inflexible plane tickets booked months in advance and the cost of only fuel for a car and not apportioning less frequent costs".

 

[yorksrob]

Travel by road is similar because once you have bought your tax disk equivalent, the overall income from which broadly equates to overall highways maintenance expenditure, you can do what you like without additional cost. Only the railway is charged by the mile by the vehicle for infrastructure usage,

Which is precisely why the railway needs a National travelcard if it is ever going to compete with the motor car, otherwise it will never be able to compete with the psychological effect of recovering that sunk cost encouraging repeat travel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The other thing that would help would be if the DfT were to place more emphasis on filling seats, as opposed to just revenue generation in Key Performance Indicators.

 

[AlterEgo]

The other thing that would help would be if the DfT were to place more emphasis on filling seats, as opposed to just revenue generation in Key Performance Indicators.

Given that the DfT is quite rightly charged with extracting the maximum financial value from each franchise, how do you propose they balance this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is precisely why the railway needs a National travelcard if it is ever going to compete with the motor car, otherwise it will never be able to compete with the psychological effect of recovering that sunk cost encouraging repeat travel.

Indeed. I would pay a significant sum for an annual National Railcard (somewhere around the price of a "workaround" Gold Card - the only reason I don't have one of those is that it doesn't include VTWC validity, and a Network Railcard does most of the local journeys I want, the long distance ones tending all to involve VTWC in some form).

FWIW, that car "funding model" does work. If you absolutely need a car for work, it is perfectly valid to apportion all fixed costs to the cost of commuting, with all other journeys being at the marginal[1] cost. Many people can't accept that, but it really does depend on the reason to own the car. Another valid model is the purchase of the car as a lifestyle choice at a fixed cost, again not really related to journeys made with it - this is often the choice made when an impractical car is chosen that has higher purchase/running costs than the strictly necessary small, economical, cheap one, but brings non-monetary value to the journey, i.e. you want to drive even if it costs more because it's enjoyable.

[1] Fuel plus a small amount of wear and tear on tyres, brake linings etc - on modern cars service intervals are so long that they are annual for most people, and insurance doesn't jump much with added mileage.

 

[yorksrob]

Given that the DfT is quite rightly charged with extracting the maximum financial value from each franchise, how do you propose they balance this?

They would be charged with extracting maximum revenue - within the perameters of meeting load targets for each section of the day.

 

[AlterEgo]

They would be charged with extracting maximum revenue - within the perameters of meeting load targets for each section of the day.

So essentially they'll just let people on for free, because unless they hit their load target they don't hit the revenue target, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583280/Flybe-asked-actors-to-fill-empty-flights.html

 

[yorksrob]

So essentially they'll just let people on for free, because unless they hit their load target they don't hit the revenue target, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583280/Flybe-asked-actors-to-fill-empty-flights.html

What a peculiar extrapolation to make of an argument !

It would just mean that if a TOC was suffering from three times as many people crowding on to the first off-peak train as the one before, the load target for the previous period might be adjusted up so that the TOC would e encouraged o adjust their fares accordingly.

 

[AlterEgo]

What a peculiar extrapolation to make of an argument !

It would just mean that if a TOC was suffering from three times as many people crowding on to the first off-peak train as the one before, the load target for the previous period might be adjusted up so that the TOC would e encouraged o adjust their fares accordingly.

It's not a peculiar extrapolation at all.

If you simply wish to mandate that the TOC to carry more passengers during certain times, then there are easy ways for them to do that, in order to satisfy the terms of their contract.

You would end up - at an extreme point - with the TOC simply allowing passengers to travel for free (or paying them, look at Flybe!). Excellent for track bashers, not so good for the Government's stated aims of encouraging modal shift.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not a peculiar extrapolation at all.

If you simply wish to mandate that the TOC to carry more passengers during certain times, then there are easy ways for them to do that, in order to satisfy the terms of their contract.

You would end up - at an extreme point - with the TOC simply allowing passengers to travel for free (or paying them, look at Flybe!). Excellent for track bashers, not so good for the Government's stated aims of encouraging modal shift.

Your argument simply does not stack up.

If people were willing to pay to travel in sardine like conditions at say 19:00 later than they would choose, it stands to reason that they would also be prepared to pay to travel earlier, albeit maybe less than the TOC was currently asking.

If it turned out that later on at say 22:00 the TOC were having to give away seats for free, DfT could safely loosen any load targets for this time as this would probably not affect overcrowding at other times and generating some revenue would become a greater priority.