Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Rail fares to rise by RPI + 1%
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2011, 10:15 AM
FGW rail fares are to rise by approx 6% in the new year.
Is this good value bearing in mind that it is reported that motoring costs have risen by twice that amount in the last 12 months?
Is the extra revenue to go on shareholders dividends or to be re-invested in the infrastructure as we are told?
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 21 2011, 10:22 AM
I'm no train buff, but I use them from time to time for work.
The only thing I find odd about FGW is they do not seem to participate in advance purchase schemes.
If I travel to London I don't seem to be able to do it for less than #40+, any time of day and any period in advance. I recently travelled to Birmingham new Street at 0900 for #19 with Virgin (via Reading). Same when I have looked at train options to the West Country, but just as long a journey up the east coast (via London) can be really cheap.
To me it makes it hard to get my head round the pricing strategy, let alone marketing the train as a viable option.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2011, 01:21 PM
Is this good value bearing in mind that it is reported that motoring costs have risen by twice that amount in the last 12 months?
Is the extra revenue to go on shareholders dividends or to be re-invested in the infrastructure as we are told?
By my estimate the real-terms cost of motoring fell by 2.4% this year. Every year after the spring budget the AA publish true cost-of-moting tables for a variety of car sizes and annual mileages (see http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/diesel2010.pdf, and http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/diesel2011.pdf). Comparing the cost-of-motoring for a typical family diesel car in the £17,000 to £20,000 price range and an annual milage of 10,000 gives a cost per mile increase of 2.9%, and with the March all-items RPI at 5.3% this represnets a real-terms reduction in the true cost of motoring for a typical family car of 2.4%.
On this basis an RPI+1% increase is equivelent to Cost of Motoring Index + 3.4% increase.
However, I'm not sure how helpful it is to compare the cost of rail travel in these terms. For starters, what's the comparable cost of rail travel? For example, Birming Park and Ride Kings Norton to Five Ways, £3.70 return with free parking at Kings Norton, that's less than half the cost of the equivelent car journey and then you'd have the not insignificant difficulty of parking in central Birmingham. However, take a first class Anytime Return from Newbury to Bath Spa at £194 and that's about 155p per mile, and that's two and a half times the equivelent cost of the car journey, and if you actually have a car then the comparative cost of the car journey is more like 15p per mile as you've already paid for the insurance and depreciation and stuff whether you drive the thing or not, and if you're carrying passangers they're free in the car but full-fare on the train.
Just saying that comparing cost of rail with car is not at all simple.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2011, 01:25 PM
Agree, but that is what the TOC's are doing this time it would appear.
Not necessarily true.
There is a deal called "Groupsave" for parties of travellers.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2011, 01:57 PM
Of course not, but what is true is the rail network could not cope with a massive swing to train usage. It is without doubt our rail provision is a mess.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2011, 02:00 PM
Sounds almost Orwellian. I don't take the train much, but there has always seemed to be too great a variety of ticket - even the ticket office doesn't always understand the best ticket to sell you.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2011, 02:01 PM
Going up to town isn't great, but the picture nationally can be very different.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 21 2011, 03:31 PM
The prices are going up because we need to pay for public sector pensions. 
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2011, 04:09 PM
Seems a rather spurious thing to say - you might as well say the public sector pay restraint is necessary because of the state subsidy of the railways. Care to explain why freezing fares and increasing tax-payer support for rail would be the right thing to do?
Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 21 2011, 04:15 PM
Don't forget that the 5.9% increase isn't all fares - only those that are regulated
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 21 2011, 04:21 PM
No thanks. The Railways should not get any tax-payer support. They should be run as a business. If the business model fails a better one will replace it.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2011, 04:36 PM
I wouldn't bet on it.
Posted by: scott Dec 21 2011, 05:13 PM
I wouldnt mind paying more than the £51.50 i currently pay for a peak travelcard if they would guarantee me a seat!!
Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2011, 05:19 PM
Can't help agreeing! - Won't say anymore Biker!!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2011, 06:12 PM
Then the rail fare increase is entirely unrelated to public sector pensions.
Posted by: user23 Dec 21 2011, 06:53 PM
Posted by: On the edge Dec 21 2011, 08:28 PM
TDH mentioned business models meaning not necessarily rail...
Posted by: user23 Dec 21 2011, 08:41 PM
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2011, 10:13 PM
No, feel free!
I am on your side with this one.
Guaranteeing a seat is unlikely but the current overcrowding on some peak trains is unacceptable for the money paid.
FGW is trying to do something about it but as soon as more capacity is gained it is taken up by the extra passengers whose numbers, for whatever reason, are still increasing.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2011, 10:21 PM
The railways have not paid for themselves since WW2 and have relied on state help since then.
I don't know what the consequence would be of withdrawing it completely but I wonder if the transport infrastructure of this country could handle being devoid of it's rail system?
If not then surely state aid, and running as a public service, is the only way?
Posted by: Vodabury Dec 22 2011, 09:26 AM
The only thing I find odd about FGW is they do not seem to participate in advance purchase schemes.
If I travel to London I don't seem to be able to do it for less than #40+, any time of day and any period in advance.
I travel into London periodically and always try and make late morning appointments. Travelling after 1000 hrs with a railcard gives a one day Travelcard (NBY to PAD return with bus/tube) for £16.50 currently. The only thing is that the ticket is not valid for a return on fast trains departing PAD between 1630 and 1930 hrs or thereabouts.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 22 2011, 09:54 AM
Read the thread properly. The context mentioned railways, the suggested outcome didn't.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 22 2011, 10:04 AM
We don't consider transport provision as a whole. In the case of rail, the investment cycle inevitably runs beyond the period of government. So politicians are somewhat loathe to spend on something they might not see delivered. What's happened on the Underground is a good outline - Chris Woolmer's book describes this in great detail.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 22 2011, 10:15 AM
You could argue that the Railways actually stop innovation. If they did not exist and petrol prices continue to increase how would we get about the Country? I'm sure someone would come up with a greener, quicker, more efficient and cheaper solution in the long run. It's called progress. Also - we are best at innovation with our backs against the wall. Look at the massive forward steps in innovation taken in World Wars in the past. It's just my humble opinion.
Posted by: xjay1337 Dec 22 2011, 10:47 AM
The problem with trains is that they are not a sustainable method of transport. They are inherently flawed (like Susan Boyle) that is, say you want to go to Park Way (I know no-one would choose to go there, it's just hypothetical), and you didn't drive, you'd have to take a train into Newbury and then walk the mile or so to Park Way.
They you have to do your shopping and walk back the mile or so while carrying all of your bags of shopping (and the plastic bags chop your fingers off)
Trains never take you to where you want to go, they take you to the town of the place where you want to go, sometimes not even that! It's like an aeroplane just not as good. Basically it's like flying Ryanair
Unless prices have changed, it used to be about £3.20 for a return to Newbury during peak times. When I did have to train into work when I was 16 (so 4 years ago!!) I remember I'd get a seat probably 1 in 3 days, normally being squashed by an oversize lady sitting next to me - and even then being a person of slightly higher than normal height, found myself physically unable to "sit" in the seat. Forget "lack of legroom" - there wasn't any! I'd have to sit at a 45 degree angle with my legs where another person would be. I had to take the train to my job in Basingstoke last year, so Thatcham - Reading West - train swap - Basingstoke. It was horrible. Both days I had to stand the ENTIRE way and only on one of the two days did I get a seat on a return train. Not only that but I fell over some old biddies bicycle when the train lurched violently on the rails. Most miserable days of the year.
To drive into Newbury and back home outside of rush hour costs me about £1.20 in diesel. I don't need to pay parking as I work in Newbury and park in my work car park. 3 minute walk. In rush hour (so for example driving to work) it probably costs me about £2.50 due to the stop-start nature of my journey. Plus I am guaranteed a seat and don't need to sit next to poor people who smell. Plus I can play my music as loud as I like and have people laugh at my orange winter wheels.
I don't think trains should get tax-payer support as it is a business model. They should get grants, for using new technology such as electric/diesel trainsetc, as Newbury/Reading buses do however they should not be funded or "supported" by the state. If the business model fails there are 2 explanations, either it's managed poorly, in which case a new group will take over the projects or the very core of the business is flawed (because trains are crap) and people don't use them in general.
Trains have their place, for example travelling into London or other towns with good public transport links, Tubes, buses, etc - however going into small to medium sized towns, they are pointless if you have the ability to drive. If they cut down the commuter trains and had more of the longer distance trains at a fair price (as in not £150 to go to Exeter) then they might make a few more pennies.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 22 2011, 11:21 AM
The 'solution' resides in reducing the need to travel.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 22 2011, 11:35 AM
Too true. If we're talking about state subsidy for rail then we also have to talk about state subsidy for road. Franchise the road network, scrap car tax and fuel duty and let RoadCo charge by use, and then road and rail are free to compete on equal terms.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 22 2011, 12:49 PM
They already are - significantly, seeing as they are state owned!
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 22 2011, 01:04 PM
They you have to do your shopping and walk back the mile or so while carrying all of your bags of shopping (and the plastic bags chop your fingers off)
Trains never take you to where you want to go, they take you to the town of the place where you want to go, sometimes not even that! It's like an aeroplane just not as good. Basically it's like flying Ryanair
Unless prices have changed, it used to be about £3.20 for a return to Newbury during peak times. When I did have to train into work when I was 16 (so 4 years ago!!) I remember I'd get a seat probably 1 in 3 days, normally being squashed by an oversize lady sitting next to me - and even then being a person of slightly higher than normal height, found myself physically unable to "sit" in the seat. Forget "lack of legroom" - there wasn't any! I'd have to sit at a 45 degree angle with my legs where another person would be. I had to take the train to my job in Basingstoke last year, so Thatcham - Reading West - train swap - Basingstoke. It was horrible. Both days I had to stand the ENTIRE way and only on one of the two days did I get a seat on a return train. Not only that but I fell over some old biddies bicycle when the train lurched violently on the rails. Most miserable days of the year.
To drive into Newbury and back home outside of rush hour costs me about £1.20 in diesel. I don't need to pay parking as I work in Newbury and park in my work car park. 3 minute walk. In rush hour (so for example driving to work) it probably costs me about £2.50 due to the stop-start nature of my journey. Plus I am guaranteed a seat and don't need to sit next to poor people who smell. Plus I can play my music as loud as I like and have people laugh at my orange winter wheels.
I don't think trains should get tax-payer support as it is a business model. They should get grants, for using new technology such as electric/diesel trainsetc, as Newbury/Reading buses do however they should not be funded or "supported" by the state. If the business model fails there are 2 explanations, either it's managed poorly, in which case a new group will take over the projects or the very core of the business is flawed (because trains are crap) and people don't use them in general.
Trains have their place, for example travelling into London or other towns with good public transport links, Tubes, buses, etc - however going into small to medium sized towns, they are pointless if you have the ability to drive. If they cut down the commuter trains and had more of the longer distance trains at a fair price (as in not £150 to go to Exeter) then they might make a few more pennies.
If all this is true (and I am not arguing that point) then why do so many people use them, hence the overcrowding??
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 22 2011, 02:07 PM
Yes. Did my comment suggest otherwise?
Posted by: On the edge Dec 22 2011, 02:28 PM
Suspect that's right - there is an interesting balance! OK, new thinking might cost us in the interim, but in all probability you are right - there has to be a better, greener way. Might seem a joke and far fetched, but some of the 1950's futuristic cartoon features might, just might provide an answer. 'Individual 'pods' that transport you swiftly to wherever you want to go... possible today using computer aided direction systems and magnetic levitation... Keep thinking - we need the ideas.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 22 2011, 02:31 PM
ONE potential option. The hair shirt/ride bike/work from home approach simply isn't sustainable or over practical. Smoothing transport peaks is another - being mooted by TfL right now; a return of workman's fares.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 22 2011, 02:34 PM
Sorry Xjay - you haven't met my sister! Susan Boyle CD and she travels from Swindon to go to Park Way.... even I think she's odd!
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 23 2011, 09:06 AM
Yes they did slightly - but I stand corrected.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 23 2011, 11:14 AM
OK. I agree, roads are supported to a huge degree by the tax payer. IMHO there's a good argument for that being right in that roads are a common good, but it's nonsense to talk about the state support for the railways without also considering the state support of road transport. I don't know, but it's entirely possible that rail would compete favourably with road if the state support was pulled from both and fares were deregulated.
Posted by: xjay1337 Dec 23 2011, 11:57 AM
Difference is with the road transport, we pay road tax, fuel duty tax plus VAT on all of that. The roads are made by councils, governments etc where as trains are private. No comparison.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 23 2011, 12:17 PM
That's today's model - which makes comparison very difficult indeed. As to ownership, arguably the Roads are one of the last nationalised industries - the Government had to take over the turnpike trusts (private) when they started to fail. Starting with a clean sheet of paper - the comparitor costs / benefits are quite interesting. Take an example which affects us. A34 say Oxford to Southampton hundreds of lorries all needing 'hundreds' of engines and drivers - whereas one train on the closed railway would have replaced good number - with one biggish engine and one driver.
Posted by: xjay1337 Dec 24 2011, 12:32 AM
The problem with trains comes true here completely. Trains can only go to one location - Southampton train station. How do the goods unload themselves from there and reach Sainsbury?s which I'd guess is not built directly adjacent to Southampton train station (at least I hope not or my point is a bit moot)
With roads, you can go where you want, when you want. Unless you get randomly pulled over for a spot check by the police. In which case you are slightly delayed but no worry, if you want to pull over and admire the scenery, you can. Spot of tea? No bother - unfortunately with trains you go back and forth at a pre-set speed and have timetables to adhere to.
Trains are still used for transport of certain goods, mainly to major construction sites which, conveniently, often have mini rail terminals which go directly into the building site itself...they work, because they are practical in that situation. Like all things there's a time and a place and for the majority of goods, sugar, clothes, and food, they are poor due to logistics
Do do do, do do do, do do do, do do do, that's logistics.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 24 2011, 09:17 AM
No they are not in the true sense of the word.
Network Rail who own and maintain the infrastructure (track, signalling, stations etc.) are government owned and the TOC's are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
It is the DFT who decide many things on the railway such as rolling stock allocation etc. so, unlike the other former nationalised industries such as energy and telecomms, the government and the taxpayer still has a large part to play in the railways.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 24 2011, 11:02 AM
I've noticed that container ships have a similar problem. How do you think they manage?
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 24 2011, 01:15 PM
Not to mention accidents, breakdowns, roadworks, prat drivers, jams, speed limits - I could go on.
The point I am trying to make is that both have advantages and drawbacks.
As for freight you may find a few answers http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/
As usual I am not extolling either, just trying to maintain a balanced view.
Posted by: xjay1337 Dec 24 2011, 11:04 PM
The point I am trying to make is that both have advantages and drawbacks.
As for freight you may find a few answers http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/
As usual I am not extolling either, just trying to maintain a balanced view.
Hmm interesting link. It's good you can remain balanced, I'm all for the road and think the freedom over public transport you get is amazing but hey.
They then use either rail which later utilises road or road from the start!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)