• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Will UK rail fares ever come down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Some fares do get reduced i do believe.

What you should be asking on here is 'How can i reduce the price of my train travel'
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
Probably not.

At best they will only remain the same, so effectively go down relative to the value of the pound, due to inflation. However the government would like the railways to be fully self-funded, so won't are very unlikely to allow a wholesale decrease in all fares.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Not in absolute terms (i.e. actual pounds/pence), but there's a possibilty that they'll come down in real terms (i.e. as adjusted for inflation). Highly unlikely under a Conservative government however.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,622
Not in absolute terms (i.e. actual pounds/pence), but there's a possibilty that they'll come down in real terms (i.e. as adjusted for inflation). Highly unlikely under a Conservative government however.

Not quite sure how it relates directly to having a conservative government if I’m honest. I don’t have many positive views of them for reference but that seemed like a stereotypical dig at them for just being who they are.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Not quite sure how it relates directly to having a conservative government if I’m honest. I don’t have many positive views of them for reference but that seemed like a stereotypical dig at them for just being who they are.

It is relevant because it is current government policy that rail users should pay a higher amount of what it costs to run the network than what they historically have. So obviously fares have gone up quicker than they otherwise would have. As such, if a future government decided they wanted to pursue a different policy, it is possible that fares could fall.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
It is relevant because it is current government policy that rail users should pay a higher amount of what it costs to run the network than what they historically have. So obviously fares have gone up quicker than they otherwise would have. As such, if a future government decided they wanted to pursue a different policy, it is possible that fares could fall.

That policy was invented by Labour.
They offered an "attractive fares deal" at the last election, along with nationalisation, but never said what that meant.
Judging by his other thread on Glasgow-London fares, I think the OP's expectations on lower fares are very unlikely to happen under any government.
The underlying problem is the cost of maintaining the infrastructure (something like £10 billion a year).
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
In about 2010/11, a number of fares did reduce very slightly (in absolute terms) owing to RPI inflation being so low/negative following the financial crisis.

Special offer/TOC only fares often have an effect of restricting fares growth or offering an effective fares reduction (in association with accompanying restrictions), e.g. London-Birmingham, London-Cambridge. But very much exception rather than rule, admittedly.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Not quite sure how it relates directly to having a conservative government if I’m honest. I don’t have many positive views of them for reference but that seemed like a stereotypical dig at them for just being who they are.

In the recent election (and the one before it), Labour pledged to freeze rail fares for a year. That would amount to a small real-terms cut in fares. The (Labour) Mayor of London has also frozen TfL fares until 2020. Other political parties are available...
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
A fares freeze won't make much of a difference to the noncompetitive prices many journeys have compared to other transport. For instance if I were to go from Colchester to Ulverston, if I did not have my 26-30 railcard it would be more economical to drive. I would only pay the full adult fare if I did not have my car, as even booking well in advance, split ticketing and booking off-peak barely wins out compared to driving.

Hopefully the 26-30 railcard trial may eventually spur an open-age national railcard if it is shown to be revenue neutral, and could be charged at more than £30. Well it is understandable running trains has to make some commercial sense, there is little sense in carting regular loads of fresh air, public infrastructure is always going to lose money to some degree. Do roads generate a profit once fuel duty and all other taxes raised from motoring (including VAT on car sales and maintenance) are taken into account?
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Didnt the average fare drop in London when oyster was introduced . I cannot imagine there were £.1.50 singles for travelling off peak on paper tickets.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Fares do go down in absolute terms. The cheapest interavilable return between Preston and Lancaster costs less now than it did 3 years ago.

For someone travelling on Saturday from Bournemouth to Southampton the fare went down when a Weekend Super Off-Peak was introduced. Grater Anglia were forced to reduce the price of London to Stansted Airport tickets because the trains aren't well loaded enough, or at least they won't be when all services are 12 car in a couple of years.

Unfortunately fares go up more than they go down. Most local fares in Grater Manchester have doubled in under 3 years.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Funny how BBC aren't outside the local Shell station every week shouting about how Petrol has risen again.
If the price rose by 10% at every petrol station overnight thenn that might change. And unlike car fuel, rather a lot of taxpayers money goes into the railway.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
It is relevant because it is current government policy that rail users should pay a higher amount of what it costs to run the network than what they historically have.
That's because the government has very little money after Labour spent it all.

The answer is no.
If a ticket costs £50, it will never go down to £48.

Train companies will make more and more advance fares available (along with the associated advertisment saying they've reduced hundreds of fares), but for so many people, sticking to certain trains isn't really an option.

It doesn't need complicating by saying "inflation... in real terms..." - the answer is still no. The fare will never reduce in price.



Hopefully the 26-30 railcard trial may eventually spur an open-age national railcard if it is shown to be revenue neutral, and could be charged at more than £30.
If everyone had a railcard, it almost negates the point in having one.
You may as well just reduce the fares as you're only penalising those who travel infrequently but usually long distance.
The administration, paper, app development, website, promotion - too much faff and cost to make it worth it.

It's like Alton Towers' compensation policy.
If you've had cheap/half price/free tickets to get in, you'll get less in compensation if rides break down. If you've paid full whack, you'll get more.
But then their model of pricing is different. It's about the secondary spend inside the park instead of the gate price. Trains don't have that secondary spend (on board food doesn't really count) so much rely on the initial tickets.
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
In the recent election (and the one before it), Labour pledged to freeze rail fares for a year. That would amount to a small real-terms cut in fares. The (Labour) Mayor of London has also frozen TfL fares until 2020. Other political parties are available...

TfL now seems to be struggling and finding all sorts of ways to make cuts that will likely be detrimental to passengers. Doesn't bode well for any such promise for the national railway network. Someone has to pay...
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,169
That's because the government has very little money after Labour spent it all.

I think you'll find that, just before they spent it, they borrowed it all. Which is why we have a national debt of around £1.8 trillion.
 

ScotTrains

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2014
Messages
376
Location
Scotland
Since privatisation (thanks to to the conservatives) we now have increased competition within the rail network.

Up here in Scotland, Abellio competed for and won the Scotrail franchise promising to introduce new low advance fares starting at £5 (£7.50 1st class). This has resulted in much cheaper fares than before (no 1st advance fares ever existed). Abellio have so far introduced £10 1st class fares. If they are to keep to their word (this is Abellio after all!) this should reduce to £7.50 in the future.
The next franchisee may introduce even lower fares!
 
Last edited:

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
T

It doesn't need complicating by saying "inflation... in real terms..." - the answer is still no. The fare will never reduce in price.

.

And yet Starmill above has pretty much pointed out certain fares that HAVE gone down and im sure there will have been others too so your statement of fact is very much one of fiction
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,569
Location
Yorkshire
That's because the government has very little money after Labour spent it all.

I think you'll find that, just before they spent it, they borrowed it all. Which is why we have a national debt of around £1.8 trillion.

Although Labour borrowed rather a lot when the banks caused the economic crash, the total amount borrowed has more than doubled since they left power, so it seems a little unfair to blame them for all of it.

uk_government_debt_in_cash.png
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,169
Although Labour borrowed rather a lot when the banks caused the economic crash, the total amount borrowed has more than doubled since they left power, so it seems a little unfair to blame them for all of it.

View attachment 45979
I'm not blaming them for all of it, but looking at your graph, if the rate of borrowing had stayed at "Labour" levels, the total amount would have tripled by now.

But back on topic, as others have pointed out, most tickets won't go down, but some might.
 

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
761
That's because the government has very little money after Labour spent it all.

The answer is no.
If a ticket costs £50, it will never go down to £48.

Train companies will make more and more advance fares available (along with the associated advertisment saying they've reduced hundreds of fares), but for so many people, sticking to certain trains isn't really an option.

It doesn't need complicating by saying "inflation... in real terms..." - the answer is still no. The fare will never reduce in price.




If everyone had a railcard, it almost negates the point in having one.
You may as well just reduce the fares as you're only penalising those who travel infrequently but usually long distance.
The administration, paper, app development, website, promotion - too much faff and cost to make it worth it.

It's like Alton Towers' compensation policy.
If you've had cheap/half price/free tickets to get in, you'll get less in compensation if rides break down. If you've paid full whack, you'll get more.
But then their model of pricing is different. It's about the secondary spend inside the park instead of the gate price. Trains don't have that secondary spend (on board food doesn't really count) so much rely on the initial tickets.

Universal railcards are available in the Netherlands and Germany. The advantage is is that it's a sunk cost and guaranteed income for the railway.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,336
I think you'll find that, just before they spent it, they borrowed it all. Which is why we have a national debt of around £1.8 trillion.
More than half of that has been accumulated since 2010.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Although Labour borrowed rather a lot when the banks caused the economic crash, the total amount borrowed has more than doubled since they left power, so it seems a little unfair to blame them for all of it.

View attachment 45979
More than half of that has been accumulated since 2010.
O/T but you do understand how interest works and that you have to keep borrowing to pay debts makes it an immense number?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
And yet Starmill above has pretty much pointed out certain fares that HAVE gone down and im sure there will have been others too so your statement of fact is very much one of fiction
As a sweeping statement yes, it's perhaps fiction.
But the tickets that people regularly buy and care about... IE, season tickets, day returns... not found any that have gone down in the past few years in areas around here. I suspect the list of those that have will be less than 10, compared with the hundreds that will have gone up - making it hardly worth worrying about :P

Introducing new tickets isn't a fare going down. It's a new cheaper fare that has been created.

Although I was reading in The Intercity Story about how Gatwick Express (?) had to chaneg their pricing structure when X train company (Anglia?) got their paths to Gatwick - maybe it wasn't them, or that airport, but I know it was an Airport service that had to reduce their fares.
I should read again to see what and who it was...
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
Well seasons will never really come down in price as it' just how it is really.

But yes go and read what you read again and come back.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
As a sweeping statement yes, it's perhaps fiction.
But the tickets that people regularly buy and care about... IE, season tickets, day returns... not found any that have gone down in the past few years in areas around here. I suspect the list of those that have will be less than 10, compared with the hundreds that will have gone up - making it hardly worth worrying about :P

Introducing new tickets isn't a fare going down. It's a new cheaper fare that has been created.

Although I was reading in The Intercity Story about how Gatwick Express (?) had to chaneg their pricing structure when X train company (Anglia?) got their paths to Gatwick - maybe it wasn't them, or that airport, but I know it was an Airport service that had to reduce their fares.
I should read again to see what and who it was...
Effectively some fares have massively reduced though - you have to give credit where it's due. In NFM64 (1996), as far as I can tell, the cheapest return ticket from Birmingham to London cost £12.50 without a railcard and involved a slower route than the fast Intercity Euston shuttle which then operated every half an hour.

Nowadays, the slowest trains - West Midlands Trains - take not much longer than this fast shuttle, and they run every 20 minutes. There are half-hourly Chiltern trains which take slightly less time than the Euston shuttle. And there are VTWC trains - which are significantly quicker - every 20 minutes. The lowest price of a two Advances on, say West Midlands Trains (which would be broadly comparable to the service you might have seen on 1996's cheapest ticket), is £12.00 without a railcard. I have seen this tier (C7S) available on many trains around lunchtime, late in the evening, or on weekends, even only booking a few days or a week in advance.

Back in 1996, no matter how far in advance you booked or how empty the train was, you wouldn't as a member of the public regularly be able to get a return price less than £12.50. Nowadays, there are many more trains per hour than there were 22 years ago, many of the journeys are quicker, and you can do it for less in absolute amounts than you could then. If you adjust £12.00 for inflation, it would be about £22.85 nowadays. So the minimum price of such a journey is indeed significantly (47%) lower than it was 22 years ago, despite the many improvements.

Of course, if you compare Anytime tickets then these have indeed skyrocketed - an Any Permitted Anytime Return would have cost £57.50 in 1996, or £105.09 in 2018 pounds. The price is currently £176.00. That's 67% higher than it ought to be if it were purely increased by inflation.

So - what has privatisation brought? On competitive routes, a larger diversity in the cost of tickets, starting at the equivalent of around half as much as the previous lowest fare, but topping out at two thirds more than the previous highest fare. On less competitive routes (and especially those where the government has applied pressure on franchisees to increase revenue - cf XC, TPE etc.), the increases have been much more marked and there has been less downwards movement in terms of the lowest fare. So competition can work, but only where there is genuine rail-on-rail - or perhaps air-on-rail in the case of very-long-distance journeys - competition.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,336
O/T but you do understand how interest works and that you have to keep borrowing to pay debts makes it an immense number?

Treasury bonds are now earning close to 0% interest - that is, interest rates are negative in real terms. So, one actually pays the government to lend it money. I have been told by people who are paid to know these things that interest rates will rise - but they've been telling me that for years. I'm not a deficit denier, I am just saying that the current government hasn't been very successful in reducing the deficit, even using their own criteria for success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top