Only one thing needs to be done. Don’t renew rail franchises

IT fantastic Miliband now finds a way of making rail fares cheaper, his time in Labour even as an advisor did not state anything except the New labour line, then Brown’s line not sure that was even a Labour line.

Thirteen years of Labour proved that prices on trains went up 3.to 8% higher then inflation so these group could make better railways , they did not they paid it to share holders.

Labour playing a silly game forgetting the last labour period in office.

Just a practical point on season tickets for part-time workers. Check at your local station whether they do carnets. Mine does but it doesn’t advertise them. You get a discount on the tickets, use them whenever you like, use off peak when you can, and you don’t have to queue every day.

1. Make clear in franchises that train companies enter into a compact with the public – in return for running services and making a profit, they have to provide the wider social and environmental benefits of running a railway for all

The train companies do enter into a compact with the public. They run the services. They make a profit. The wider social and environmental benefits are available to all. What precisely does this mean?

2. Change the current formula for regulating most fares from 1% above RPI inflation to 1% below, as it was before 2004. Costs have to come in the railway but support is still needed to bring down fares.

And so the train companies go bust. Might not be a bad idea actually. But the government is not doing this without cause.

3. Introduce a season ticket for part-time workers, particularly as the number of part-time workers is now at record levels.

How do you tell if someone is a part time worker? Ask to see their tax return?

4. Make the advance fare system actually work for passengers rather than the convenience of train companies. Advance tickets have to be used on specific services but people value flexibility and being able to turn up and go”.

And what does that mean? Advance tickets do work for people. You mean that they should offer cheap tickets to people who want to travel on a whim?

It’s time for politicians to cease blaming the industry for the high fares we pay and start to take some responsibility for providing a railway for all.

Sure. Let’s blame the genuinely guilty – the Unions.

4. Make the advance fare system actually work for passengers rather than the convenience of train companies. Advance tickets have to be used on specific services but people value flexibility and being able to turn up and go”.

More people would buy advance tickets if they didn’t think that the train there are buying the ticket for could be cancelled at any time and they weren’t worried about what the cost would be in that case.

One way train fares could be reduced for ordinary people:

Nationalise the railways!

Or we could do the most obvious and sensible thing one does with a natural monopoly and public good – nationalise the damn thing.

6. J

One way train fares could be reduced for ordinary people: Nationalise the railways!

All experience suggests otherwise.

I notice a lack of any proposals to cut the cost of operating a railway network.

Without cost cutting you can’t cut the cost of the service – unless you increase the burden on tax payers to subsidise the service.

To my surprise, I agree wholeheartedly with this article, except possibly #2.

And so the train companies go bust

Erm, no. What would happen if the fare rise formula were changed would be that when franchises were renewed, the TOCs would bid a smaller premium to the DfT (or a larger subsidy, if it’s a subsidised franchise) , reflecting their lower ability to generate revenue. Which would mean more direct taxpayer support, obviously.

More people would buy advance tickets if they didn’t think that the train there are buying the ticket for could be cancelled at any time and they weren’t worried about what the cost would be in that case.

If that’s true, which I doubt, the problem is lack of communication from the industry. Trains are very seldom cancelled, but when they are, advance tickets for the cancelled train are always valid on the next service.

Richard @OP:

Genuine I-don’t-know question re your para:

“The British rail system has seen record numbers of travellers in recent years, with better punctuality and recorded satisfaction levels. But most of the public feel they’re being ripped off when they travel by train”

I’m happy to believe you re: recorded satisfactions (as it is contra your general theme), but is there any source data on “most of the public feel ripped off when they travel by train”? There’s stuff here about the balance between needs/views of short distance daily commuters and longer distance passengers, and whether the latters’ views get more press/weight even though they’re smaller numbers. But as said, I really don’t know.

The only way rail fares can be made cheaper is by subsidies out of taxation. Tell me again why I should be subsidising rich commuters in the rich *home counties*?

Oh, one more point – eighty five per cent of pasenger kilometres in the UK are by car. Trains account for about eight per cent, and that’s with the crowded trains we’ve all got used to. So if trains are subsidised out of taxation they’ll be even more crowded and since they are already at capacity (crowded) it won’t make even a small dent on how most people get around.

But you’re right about the prices – far too high – which is why when I had to go to an evening event in London in July I drove there. At 45 mpg, and since it was after the congestion charge, and parking was free, it cost me thirty quid compared to a return of seventy eight pounds by train. Okay, I couldn’t have a drink but so what.

Nationalise them and problem solved.

Nationalise them and problem solved.

It wouldn’t ‘solve’ the problem, it would alleviate elements thereof.

Rail subsidies to ‘private’ companies might be twice what it cost to run BR, but it doesn’t change the fact that BR still lost a lot of money.

@ 12 Northern Worker

“Tell me again why I should be subsidising rich commuters in the rich *home counties*?”

Because they would be paying rather more to subsidise you (or at least people in your area)? Cheap reliable transport is a great leveller, as it gives people on lower incomes greater choice of jobs. Don’t reject it just because it could be (mis)interpreted as subsidies for the South.

The only way rail fares can be made cheaper is by subsidies out of taxation.

Incorrect, introducing a genuinely competitive market system would reduce the fares just as it did in the early days of US railways when fares went through the floor and the uncompetitive went out of business as they should do.

Free markets have got a rather pleasant way of making that happen.

Does anyone know whether regulated fares apply to all tickets or just the cheapest tickets available for each journey (i.e. those ones with limited availability that you have to buy about 3 months in advance and agree to travel on a specific train during your outwards journey)? There’s a huge difference in the price.

You ought to be able to buy a ticket on the day for any train going to the right place at a price agreed with the government.

Does anybody know whether state-run railways do tend to be cheaper than privately run railways when all costs are taken into account? is there data on, say, cost per passenger/mile? I suppose number and quality of stations is hard to control for.

Chaise: the cheap advance tickets are unregulated: the company offers them because they’re profitable, not because it’s made to. The regulated tickets are season tickets and Off-Peaks (ie the turn-up-and-go ones which are valid on trains outside rush hour).

I see people have happily swallowed that convenient “rail passengers subside rich southerners” line. In fact, the large number of London commuters and high population density in the South East make those services the ones that are closest to profitability. Not that anyone but the most devout believers in the “free market” religion actually think a natural monopoly should be run on market logic.

Given that private rail operators receive over twice as much subsidy in real terms as British Rail did before it was broken up, nationalisation would save a fortune. At the moment, over half of the taxpayers money that goes to our rail system is paying for a bit of bubbly for the shareholders.

@ 20

Thanks. In that case I’d say the government is letting companies charge far too much for “standard” tickets, especially if the officially controlled prices are on off-peak tickets: if we want our trains to support workers, we have to take into the account the fact that most people travel to work during peak hours.

@8 SMFS

6. J

One way train fares could be reduced for ordinary people: Nationalise the railways!

All experience suggests otherwise.

Really!? And which evidence is this perchance? I think you’ll find that the Swiss, German, French, Itallian, Swedish etc railways are all far superior to ours and are, guess what!, nationalised.

@19. Luis Enrique

Does anybody know whether state-run railways do tend to be cheaper than privately run railways when all costs are taken into account? is there data on, say, cost per passenger/mile? I suppose number and quality of stations is hard to control for.

Well we can certainly compare our railways when they were state run to how they have been since privatisation. And the comparison is less than flattering to say the least.

Before privatisation, British Rail was one of the most cost efficient rail operators in Europe, requiring one of the lowest levels of public subsidy per head. Ironically BR was forced to become very efficient because of Margaret Thatcher’s funding squeeze.

Try reading this: http://turniprail.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-steven-norris-in-1990s-british-rail.html

After privatisation, however, the cost of running the railways has spiralled out of control, and they now cost four to five times more to run than they did under BR.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2010/11/rail-657-an-open-letter-to-sir-roy-mcnulty/

This is partly to do with the insane structure (used in no other country) where the infrastructure is split from the train operators, meaning effective management and cost control is impossible. And partly because of the private companies taking a cut of profit out of public subsidies and fares.

None of these issues are confronted in this rather poor OP, which seems to believe that all we need to do is make little tweaks to the present fundementally flawed structure!

There is only one necessary course of action.

NATIONALISATION. And then give it the money BR never got.

@4. So Much For Subtlety: “How do you tell if someone is a part time worker? Ask to see their tax return?”

Nobody needs to know whether a traveller works full time or part time. Tickets are priced and sold on the basis of when the journey takes place. Thus a discounted season ticket for “part time workers” could incorporate an outbound journey at peak time and a return journey off peak, or two off peak journeys.

@8 – Yes, if you once more ignore facts and argue to disrupt the conversation.

Want to defend Railtrack? Both the Tories and Labour consider Network Rail to be a state company, for reference. And our trains are by the most expensive to run in Europe thanks to the inept handling of the operators.

Don’t renew their operating licences, and bring back British Rail! (merging national rail back into it…)

@17 – And the American railways now…oh right. Thanks for suggesting that the British railways be effectively abolished.

In that case I’d say the government is letting companies charge far too much for “standard” tickets, especially if the officially controlled prices are on off-peak tickets: if we want our trains to support workers, we have to take into the account the fact that most people travel to work during peak hours.

Not sure I agree. Workers travel on season tickets, which are regulated. Peak hour non-season tickets are primarily sold to business travellers (ie paid for by the company, not by the individual).

The logic in controlling off-peak fares but not the peak ones is that it ensures you can still get to (e.g.) your nan’s funeral at a reasonable price on no notice, but that businessmen who need a full day’s work pay the full economic value of their travel (ie “a price that’s equivalent to hiring a car, driving it to London and parking it for the day”).

Really!? And which evidence is this perchance? I think you’ll find that the Swiss, German, French, Itallian, Swedish etc railways are all far superior to ours and are, guess what!, nationalised.

What are you basing that comparison on? French railways, aside from the TGV and the RER, are absolutely awful (couple of trains per day on most local lines, bustituted on weekends). German railways are OK but I wouldn’t say significantly better than ours, and local services are run by private contractors. Swedish railways are a mixed private-public system, not entirely unlike the UK; Swiss railways are also a private-public mix. Dunno about Italy.

Well we can certainly compare our railways when they were state run to how they have been since privatisation. And the comparison is less than flattering to say the least.

Trains in GB cost a great deal more to run than before privatisation, and also provide a vastly better service than before privatisation. And it’s universally accepted the 2001 collapse of everything was due not solely to Railtrack’s (undeniable) incompetence, but also the knackered nature of the infrastructure it inherited. In other words, the pre-privatisation setup was unsustainably cheap – everything would have fallen apart no matter what the ownership structure.

Want to defend Railtrack? Both the Tories and Labour consider Network Rail to be a state company, for reference. And our trains are by the most expensive to run in Europe thanks to the inept handling of the operators.

Railtrack was awful. That’s why it went bust and was replaced by NR. Re your second sentence, [CITATION NEEDED].

Thanks for the links Graham.

it’s still hard to figure out: if the railways were underfunded pre-privatisation, running down infrastructure, rolling stock etc., then you’d expect a big jump in costs with catch-up spending. There has been a lot of spending on new trains and station upgrades hasn’t there? Plus some increase in journeys made. But can that account for a 5x increase in costs?