Train Ticket Increases

[SARJ]

All over the news today. Most fares up by 3%.

Not a train user or commuter myself but appreciate this may be a kick in the teeth to anyone who uses trains frequently. I assume this will affect tickets on weekends for football away days also?

Lots of chat about re-nationalization solving the problems, but members of the older generation saying they remember the days of British Rail and don't want to return to it!

Don't really know what the solution is on this one.

During my Uni days (circa. 8 years ago) I regularly caught the train back from Cardiff to Bristol. It was a horrific experience of overcrowding, standing, poor service, lateness etc. When I moved back home I deliberately bought a flat in central Bristol to avoid such a commute and on today's news, so glad I did.

[LondonBristolian]

14 minutes ago, SARJ said:

All over the news today. Most fares up by 3%.

Not a train user or commuter myself but appreciate this may be a kick in the teeth to anyone who uses trains frequently. I assume this will affect tickets on weekends for football away days also?

Lots of chat about re-nationalization solving the problems, but members of the older generation saying they remember the days of British Rail and don't want to return to it!

Don't really know what the solution is on this one.

During my Uni days (circa. 8 years ago) I regularly caught the train back from Cardiff to Bristol. It was a horrific experience of overcrowding, standing, poor service, lateness etc. When I moved back home I deliberately bought a flat in central Bristol to avoid such a commute and on today's news, so glad I did.

Thing is, I'm not sure that renationalisation should or will mean a return to the days of British Rail.

What strikes me is that rail firms, in order to be interested in running a rail franchise, must be making money out of it.

That either means one of two things.

Either: 

1) Running a rail franchise is or can be a profit-making activity.

or

2) Running a rail franchise is not a profit-making activity but the state subsidises the losses rail firms make.

At the moment, I think the truth is probably that we have privatised the profits and socialised the losses so rail firms pay less than the market cost to run our rail franchises BUT the state offset the losses rail firms make. Which is all very well and good for people who run rail firms but bad for the rest of us. 

Personally I don't object to privatisation in and of itself but I do object to public services being privatised for ideological reasons when it is not in the national financial interest.  I find it interesting that the rail, along with the Post Office (again auctioned off at below the market value), was one of two areas where Margaret Thatcher thought privatisation was a step too far and that, when the East Coast railway forcibly came back under public ownership due to the failure of National Express's franchise, it was run efficiently and at a profit but still subsequently renationalised.

What frustrates me is

a) ticket increases that mean companies running the rail service increase their profits but do not invest in improving experiences for customers, especially as those profits are often moved abroad rather than spent with in the UK economy.

b) Spending a fortune for long train trips where I can't necessarily find a seat or get to and from the toilet (which is bad for anyone but really bad for me as I'm disabled and these are things I really need on a train trip)

I also feel that other countries seem to have a better understanding of how nationalised services can work so that they are run as businesses in order to make profit but that profit going to the public purse. I don't personally see any reason why, when the franchises run out, they be renationalised but run on business principles, albeit with an appropriate cap on fair rises and a commitment to investing x amount profit into improving the infrastructure and services.

I wouldn't have a problem with fares going up if I knew that

a) that money was being reinvested in our economy and on improving our public services.

b) I felt I was getting as comfortable a trip as possible for my money.

For some reason, we seem to assume in this country that nationalisation means running things badly or at a loss. And I'd happily admit part of that is that we have a history in this country of nationalised services being run badly at a loss. But that does not mean it is impossible for a state-owned business to do things well or even that private companies generally do things better than state-run countries.

I just feel towards privatisation has tended to mean selling things cheaply whilst absolving private companies of losses they make and without including penalties or opportunities to void contracts if things are not being delivered to an appropriate standard. And I genuinely don't get how the country gains from that. 

[Maesknoll Red]

I think that people saying ‘just re-nationalise’ the railways, have no understanding of the way it works, the cost implications and difficulty there would be in doing so.

Its not just the TOC’s (Train Operating Companies) involved, there are then the ROSCO’s (Rolling Stock Operating Companies) who own many of the trains and lease them to the TOC’s.  These mostly are banks and big financial institutions.  Then you have many other contracts, Agilty Trains/ Hitachi who have a 27 year contract to supply and maintain trains, Bombardier and Siemens have similar.  There are companies like MTU who have big engine supply and maintenance contracts, Wabtec, who supply many many rail services and I could go on.....

To buy out all those contracts would cost Billions of pounds, so it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon......

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I think that people saying ‘just re-nationalise’ the railways, have no understanding of the way it works, the cost implications and difficulty there would be in doing so.

Its not just the TOC’s (Train Operating Companies) involved, there are then the ROSCO’s (Rolling Stock Operating Companies) who own many of the trains and lease them to the TOC’s.  These mostly are banks and big financial institutions.  Then you have many other contracts, Agilty Trains/ Hitachi who have a 27 year contract to supply and maintain trains, Bombardier and Siemens have similar.  There are companies like MTU who have big engine supply and maintenance contracts, Wabtec, who supply many many rail services and I could go on.....

To buy out all those contracts would cost Billions of pounds, so it isn’t likely to happen anytime soon......

Where there's a will...

[The Bard]

British Rail was miles better than the current scenario. There was a massive, concerted media campaign to rubbish it for years in advance of privatisation.  In fact it was one of the best in Europe at the time but as people have said, the privatisation was ideological..

Look at Transport for London as an example of how public transport should be done.  Publicly run as a service. Integrated.

 

[WhistleHappy]

1 hour ago, The Bard said:

Where there's a will...

....there's a Bill.   

[Welcome To The Jungle]

8 hours ago, The Bard said:

British Rail was miles better than the current scenario. There was a massive, concerted media campaign to rubbish it for years in advance of privatisation.  In fact it was one of the best in Europe at the time but as people have said, the privatisation was ideological..

Look at Transport for London as an example of how public transport should be done.  Publicly run as a service. Integrated.

 

For me, when it concerns all things transport, this is the key. I can't be the only one to have got a 'Day Rider' on a First Bus, then try to use it on a Wessex Bus by mistake and be told I need to pay again. 

When it comes to the railways, they should be run in the public interest, as I believe all public transport should. You run it in the public interest, it becomes cheaper and more efficient so more people then use it.

This can result in less traffic, less emissions and a bit more cash in the governments back pocket, even if it isn't much.

[Maesknoll Red]

1 hour ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

For me, when it concerns all things transport, this is the key. I can't be the only one to have got a 'Day Rider' on a First Bus, then try to use it on a Wessex Bus by mistake and be told I need to pay again. 

When it comes to the railways, they should be run in the public interest, as I believe all public transport should. You run it in the public interest, it becomes cheaper and more efficient so more people then use it.

This can result in less traffic, less emissions and a bit more cash in the governments back pocket, even if it isn't much.

All very well encouraging more people to use public transport, when it comes to railways, there is a finite number of trains that can run on the tracks and we are virtually at saturation point on most busy routes.  So without major investment to add lines, ie make 2 track railways 4 track and 4 track, 6 track, there isn’t much more capacity.

I work in Swindon and would use public transport, but I work shifts and it doesn’t run to get me to work on time or without a ridiculously long journey time and it costs nigh on twice as much as driving.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

40 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

All very well encouraging more people to use public transport, when it comes to railways, there is a finite number of trains that can run on the tracks and we are virtually at saturation point on most busy routes.  So without major investment to add lines, ie make 2 track railways 4 track and 4 track, 6 track, there isn’t much more capacity.

I work in Swindon and would use public transport, but I work shifts and it doesn’t run to get me to work on time or without a ridiculously long journey time and it costs nigh on twice as much as driving.

The problem with the track issue has come from our system being so fragmented. In the same way some of our lines are electrified, some are not. If all things railway were under one organisation, and not scattered between network rail, all the operators etc, then things like laying new track would be easier and better placed due to data being all in one place.

[phantom]

I travel between Weston and Temple Meads every day, my annual ticket is due to go up £60

Over a year that is not too bad, I gain as use my ticket for footy too

Take off the 52 weekends (104 days) bank holidays and annual leave, I reckon I lose about 140 days - then add in 18 weekend City fixtures

So roughly 466 journeys a year or 243 days

When I renewed my ticket at the start of September I paid £1876 so will be about £1936

Works out approx £7.95 a day if I paid on the day it would be £11.10 

I certainly couldn't drive / park for anywhere near that cost

[Maesknoll Red]

8 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

The problem with the track issue has come from our system being so fragmented. In the same way some of our lines are electrified, some are not. If all things railway were under one organisation, and not scattered between network rail, all the operators etc, then things like laying new track would be easier and better placed due to data being all in one place.

Nothing to do with being fragmented, it’s the fact you cannot physically fit any more trains on the tracks at the busiest times of the day.  This will slightly improve when the old block section signalling goes and ECTS comes in, but not hugely.  To lay new track, it’s the cost and the land availability, which remains an issue whether the system is fragmented or not,  NR is not fragmented and NR would be the ones to fund and lay new track.

[Gibbs]

10 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

For me, when it concerns all things transport, this is the key. I can't be the only one to have got a 'Day Rider' on a First Bus, then try to use it on a Wessex Bus by mistake and be told I need to pay again. 

When it comes to the railways, they should be run in the public interest, as I believe all public transport should. You run it in the public interest, it becomes cheaper and more efficient so more people then use it.

This can result in less traffic, less emissions and a bit more cash in the governments back pocket, even if it isn't much.

How is that? Take a reasonable comparison such as France or Germany. They subsidise their rail considerably more, have a worse safety record, cost pretty much the same and dislike it in equal measure. 

[Slippin cider]

On 03/01/2018 at 00:31, The Bard said:

British Rail was miles better than the current scenario. There was a massive, concerted media campaign to rubbish it for years in advance of privatisation.  In fact it was one of the best in Europe at the time but as people have said, the privatisation was ideological..

Look at Transport for London as an example of how public transport should be done.  Publicly run as a service. Integrated.

 

BR carried far too many staff and was losing 50 million quid a year ....unsustainable.......

[The Bard]

13 hours ago, Slippin cider said:

BR carried far too many staff and was losing 50 million quid a year ....unsustainable.......

Guess that's where I differ from you. I'd rather deal with losing one Kyle Walker a year and keep people in work..

[Cowshed]

16 hours ago, Slippin cider said:

BR carried far too many staff and was losing 50 million quid a year ....unsustainable.......

Fifty million pounds is very little when compared to the subsidies in billions given to train operators from tax payers.

Indeed it is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends the same train operators reward their shareholders with.

Including good old first group.

A case of sipping cider quaffing champagne ... 

Britain also pays other states to run our trains.

Chinese, Dutch, French, German ... All profit from us.

That is unsustainable.

[Maesknoll Red]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Fifty million pounds is very little when compared to the subsidies in billions given to train operators from tax payers.

Indeed it is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of pounds in dividends the same train operators reward their shareholders with.

Including good old first group.

A case of sipping cider quaffing champagne ... 

Britain also pays other states to run our trains.

Chinese, Dutch, French, German ... All profit from us.

That is unsustainable.

First Group have not paid a dividend since 2013, their shares are bumbling along at a low level and aren’t a particularly sought after investment, so they aren’t paying millions to shareholders.

Having worked for BR and the privatised railway, both were/are wasteful, constrained by old procurement agreements, rules and regulations that no one seems to dare change and unions that maintain a tight grip - ie train crew that don’t have to work their booked Sundays.  Hardly helpful in keeping a 7 day railway running.

[Cowshed]

18 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

First Group have not paid a dividend since 2013, their shares are bumbling along at a low level and aren’t a particularly sought after investment, so they aren’t paying millions to shareholders.

Having worked for BR and the privatised railway, both were/are wasteful, constrained by old procurement agreements, rules and regulations that no one seems to dare change and unions that maintain a tight grip - ie train crew that don’t have to work their booked Sundays.  Hardly helpful in keeping a 7 day railway running.

First Group have paid dividends to shareholders. Train operators who receive heavy subsidies do pay their shareholders hundreds of millions in dividends. The UK has the most expensive train fares in Europe. Train operators do generate profit via public coffers not via their own proficiency. 

Yes that is wasteful in the extreme.

It is also not what a privatised rail service was meant to provide. Customers cannot take their custom elsewhere as they do with other services. Tax payer support was not meant to increase (double) and fares were not meant to increase year on year = Massively.

The Government bizarrely have no problem of publically owned companies fleecing UK rail users as long as they are not owned by the people of this Country. 

It is a failure of epic proportions.

[Maesknoll Red]

On 05/01/2018 at 17:11, Cowshed said:

First Group have paid dividends to shareholders. Train operators who receive heavy subsidies do pay their shareholders hundreds of millions in dividends. 

As I said, it’s five years since first group paid any dividends and many of the TOC’s are part of parent companies that are making or losing money aside from their rail operations.  As a share holder in First, I am well aware that my shares are at a low and I am not receiving any dividend from them.

[22A]

Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't looked at this page for a while.

Theoretically the train companies are private enterprises. However it is the Government who instruct them how much to raise fares by each January; Rate of Inflation + 1%. Why therefore does the Government instruct the other privatised industries, water, gas electric etc, when and by how much to put up their charges by?

Remember the days of SWEB providing electricity? Being state owned, they only had to make enough money to cover their costs. Any surplus went in to H M Treasury. Now they're private they have to make a profit in order to pay a dividends to their shareholders. Those worthies will be only too happy for your electric supplier to increase their charge by 10% whenever they feel like it.