Should we have a "maximum" fare for any journey?

Energy · 28 Feb 2024

JonathanH said:
It does nothing for "expensive" flows like Crewe to Chester, York to Leeds, Reading to Paddington etc.

What do you consider to be a better use of subsidy, reducing a day return of 8 miles from £10, or reducing a day return of 250 miles from £120?

It isn't intended to be a permanent fix or to reduce the cost per mile. It's a blanket ban to fix extremely expensive fares on the assumption that it won't cost much as few people pay that much. For long journeys, it assumes that few people would want to do a 6-7hr train journey. Rail gets a bad reputation for triple-figure standard-class tickets, even if very few people pay for them.

Fixing the high price-per-mile fares would require more complex fare reform. Doing so would be a good thing but it takes a lot more time than a £99 cap which can be implemented short term.

RailUK Forums

6Gman · 28 Feb 2024

Mikw said:
You could make the same argument for people who never use NHS services, they pay for the greater good - and they may need and be glad of it one day.

No, you really couldn't because the service is there if they need it.

If they live in Bala, or Bude, or Blandford Forum, or Lampeter, or ... you get my point, the railway service isn't there.

(And very, very few people never use NHS services.)

Mikw said:
Well, we do the same for education and health. I don't have kids but don't begrudge paying taxes for those that do. Education, and travel, are life enriches.

I assume you went to school yourself though?

Mikw · 28 Feb 2024

6Gman said:
No, you really couldn't because the service is there if they need it.

If they live in Bala, or Bude, or Blandford Forum, or Lampeter, or ... you get my point, the railway service isn't there.

(And very, very few people never use NHS services.)

I assume you went to school yourself though?

Of course i did, but i'm unlikely to have kids myself, but pay tax for the greater good. I'm more annoyed with all the waste and cronyism that goes on. That kind of thing takes money away from ordinary people.
And yes, many use NHS services. But, if you have private healthcare, or rarely get ill then you're still paying taxes for something you get little or nothing from.
I hardly think a reasonable maximum fare is anything for people to object too. But being tonked with a huge walk up fare is a real handicap and grossly unfair for those on a low income. What should be a mass working class people mover and enabler of social mobility shouldn't be out of reasonable reach.

JonathanH · 28 Feb 2024

Mikw said:
But being tonked with a huge walk up fare is a real handicap and grossly unfair for those on a low income. What should be a mass working class people mover and enabler of social mobility shouldn't be out of reasonable reach.

Indeed it is, but you are describing a need to keep local fares cheap, not long distance ones.

Bevan Price · 28 Feb 2024

Hadders said:
The Treasury/DfT/RDG disagree. They want to see higher fares at popular times lilke Sunday afternoon whch is why LNER has introduced their trial of removing off-peak fares between London and Newcastle/Berwick upon Tweed/Edinburgh.

But they are out of touch with reality. Anyone not on an expense account, and faced with £200+ fares will probably:
(i) travel by car (if available), or,
(ii) decide not to make the journey.

Selling 2-3 tickets at around £50-60 brings more revenue than selling zero high price tickets.

6Gman · 28 Feb 2024

Bevan Price said:
But they are out of touch with reality. Anyone not on an expense account, and faced with £200+ fares will probably:
(i) travel by car (if available), or,
(ii) decide not to make the journey.

Selling 2-3 tickets at around £50-60 brings more revenue than selling zero high price tickets.

But selling one ticket at £200 brings in the same as three at £67 - but only needs one seat.

And given that long distance trains generally run with good loads (indeed in excess of capacity on frequent occasions) how is additional capacity to be provided without additional cost?

geoffk · 28 Feb 2024

Perhaps a National Railcard for those aged 31 to 59 would be a better alternative to what's being suggested here but that's a discussion for another thread.

yorksrob · 29 Feb 2024

JonathanH said:
Indeed it is, but you are describing a need to keep local fares cheap, not long distance ones.

Not at all, all economic classes will have the need to travel long distance on occasion.

6Gman said:
But selling one ticket at £200 brings in the same as three at £67 - but only needs one seat.

And given that long distance trains generally run with good loads (indeed in excess of capacity on frequent occasions) how is additional capacity to be provided without additional cost?

The taxpayer funds the railway and the vast majority will be in the bracket that won't pay £200+ for a fare, therefore taxpayers would be within their right to instruct train companies to offer their seats at £67 rather than £200+, even though that might not be a commercial decision.

The joy of such walk-on fares is that you have the choice of sitting in an aisle or waiting for a less busy train.

JonathanH · 29 Feb 2024

yorksrob said:
Not at all, all economic classes will have the need to travel long distance on occasion.

Yes, but the better off can demonstrably pay (most of) the current fares.

zwk500 · 29 Feb 2024

yorksrob said:
Not at all, all economic classes will have the need to travel long distance on occasion.

Is that need so great as to justify the use of a continuous subsidy?

yorksrob said:
The taxpayer funds the railway and the vast majority will be in the bracket that won't pay £200+ for a fare, therefore taxpayers would be within their right to instruct train companies to offer their seats at £67 rather than £200+, even though that might not be a commercial decision.

Tnaxpayers have the right to ask their representatives to insist on lower fares, they cannot instruct directly. However those same representatives have just authorised LNER's ticket changes, so it seems if you want lower fares you'll need a new government.
More to the point though, if you instruct a TOC to lower fares to £67 and only 1 extra person buys the ticket, suddenly that company has £70+ less with which to pay its staff, or to invest in better trains, or in renovating stations.
There are two ways of covering this shortfall, so Either, which publicly funded services should be cut to subsidise long distance travel, or which railway costs should be reduced to cover the revenue gap?
And BTW if you say train leasing, please explain how you fund the purchase outright of trains for less interest costs than the leasing costs.

yorksrob · 29 Feb 2024

JonathanH said:
Yes, but the better off can demonstrably pay (most of) the current fares.

That depends. If the LNER proposals are adopted and the cap on advanced purchase fares is removed, they may end up not being able to travel when they need.

zwk500 said:
Is that need so great as to justify the use of a continuous subsidy?

Tnaxpayers have the right to ask their representatives to insist on lower fares, they cannot instruct directly. However those same representatives have just authorised LNER's ticket changes, so it seems if you want lower fares you'll need a new government.
More to the point though, if you instruct a TOC to lower fares to £67 and only 1 extra person buys the ticket, suddenly that company has £70+ less with which to pay its staff, or to invest in better trains, or in renovating stations.
There are two ways of covering this shortfall, so Either, which publicly funded services should be cut to subsidise long distance travel, or which railway costs should be reduced to cover the revenue gap?
And BTW if you say train leasing, please explain how you fund the purchase outright of trains for less interest costs than the leasing costs.

Of course the need for people to travel justifies continuous subsidy. That is why the railway has been subsidised for the past fifty years.

I'm under no illusions that there will need to be a political change to improve the fares system.

As to what I would sacrifice for it, I would happily forego some of the recently announced road building bonanza. Fundamentally though, I note that the Government is choosing to subsidise the £2 bus fare scheme, so where there's a political will to introduce reasonable fares, there's a way.

deltic · 29 Feb 2024

Krokodil said:
According to CAA statistics there has been.

The annual 2023 numbers have not been published yet but Dec 2019 saw 248k travelling between London airports and Edinburgh and Dec 2023 saw 243k so the change is marginal - which suggests Lumo have grown the market.

zwk500 · 29 Feb 2024

yorksrob said:
Of course the need for people to travel justifies continuous subsidy. That is why the railway has been subsidised for the past fifty years.

That's answering a completely different question. Does the occasional need for somebody to travel Newcastle to London who has insufficient notice for an advance fare and no means of paying (or being paid) for the walk-up fare justify the level of subsidy it would require to keep fares to an affordable level? This is not about disconnected communities or short-distance commuting.

yorksrob said:
As to what I would sacrifice for it, I would happily forego some of the recently announced road building bonanza.

Capex is funded by borrowing against itself, so this is not available for opex support to the railway.

yorksrob said:
Fundamentally though, I note that the Government is choosing to subsidise the £2 bus fare scheme, so where there's a political will to introduce reasonable fares, there's a way.

Indeed, although how many bus fares were slashed by £50 to introduce the £2 pilot?

RT4038 · 29 Feb 2024

yorksrob said:
That depends. If the LNER proposals are adopted and the cap on advanced purchase fares is removed, they may end up not being able to travel when they need.

Of course the need for people to travel justifies continuous subsidy. That is why the railway has been subsidised for the past fifty years.

I'm under no illusions that there will need to be a political change to improve the fares system.

As to what I would sacrifice for it, I would happily forego some of the recently announced road building bonanza. Fundamentally though, I note that the Government is choosing to subsidise the £2 bus fare scheme, so where there's a political will to introduce reasonable fares, there's a way.

The £2 bus fare scheme is relatively inexpensive and whilst technically available to all, is mainly benefitting the socio-economic groups that have been hit hardest by the cost of living increases going about their daily business. Rail fare reductions will not be inexpensive, will not mainly benefit those socio-economic groups and will likely generate lots of additional trips not currently undertaken at all.

Howardh · 29 Feb 2024

Has the £2 cap on bus fares increased the number of passengers which would make up some of the shortfall?

As for the railways, we are asking taxpayers to subsidise the railways yet fares are so high many can't afford to use what they have paid for.

I like the idea of a national Railcard for all, maybe there could be one for all times travel at, say £200 for 1/3 off - and one for off peak travel only at £30, but that only helps regular pax rather than those needing to travel immediately due to emergency.

zwk500 · 29 Feb 2024

Howardh said:
As for the railways, we are asking taxpayers to subsidise the railways yet fares are so high many can't afford to use what they have paid for.

A higher fare on a busy route helps cross-subsidise a much more socially important regional line as well, of course. Plenty of areas with very reasonable walk-up fares for local journeys to their local big town/city. Cap the big IC fares and see other fares creep up...

Howardh said:
I like the idea of a national Railcard for all, maybe there could be one for all times travel at, say £200 for 1/3 off - and one for off peak travel only at £30, but that only helps regular pax rather than those needing to travel immediately due to emergency.

Very much on board with the idea of a national railcard.

RT4038 · 29 Feb 2024

Howardh said:
As for the railways, we are asking taxpayers to subsidise the railways yet fares are so high many can't afford to use what they have paid for.

The same could be said about the Arts.

I doubt very much that there are many people who 'can't afford what they have paid for' [they have made a contribution to??]. Yes, they may not be able to afford as many journeys as they would like, but not afford any rail journeys, of any length?

Howardh · 29 Feb 2024

Oh really...?? Either he's doing something wrong or this is light-speed ridiculous. He doesn't say one ticket or for more than one - or whether it's single or return so details are sketchy; even if it were for four it's still a rip-off even if it's peak. Maybe advances haven't been released yet?? Think someone should ask him to come on here!

https://twitter.com/carryonkeith/status/1763121494475804885

I was looking at train times for a trip from Newcastle to Bristol a few weeks from now, and up popped the 1st class option. Usually I ignore it, but at £780 how could I? SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY POUNDS! But it does include non-alcoholic drinks, snacks and cold sandwiches.

Energy · 29 Feb 2024

Howardh said:
Oh really...?? Either he's doing something wrong or this is light-speed ridiculous. He doesn't say one ticket or for more than one - or whether it's single or return so details are sketchy; even if it were for four it's still a rip-off even if it's peak. Maybe advances haven't been released yet?? Think someone should ask him to come on here!

https://twitter.com/carryonkeith/status/1763121494475804885

A first class anytime return from Newcastle to Bristol is £747.90. Off peak standard return is £188.80.

There are many advances for many operators but these insane fares really harm rail's reputation.

zwk500 said:
A higher fare on a busy route helps cross-subsidise a much more socially important regional line as well, of course. Plenty of areas with very reasonable walk-up fares for local journeys to their local big town/city. Cap the big IC fares and see other fares creep up...

Not really, a £99 cap would only do that if significant numbers of people were paying significantly more than £100.

Passengers already use split ticketing, railcards, advances booked in advance etc. Few are paying tickets that high regularly.

This isn't going to make rail actually much cheaper for everyone, its to kill off the insane fares which get into the headlines.

Howardh · 29 Feb 2024

Energy said:
Off peak standard return is £188.80.

Hence me pleading for a "maximum" fare; even if there are advances available later, if the pax could book now certain of the price the TOC would have the money in the bank, right now. What might happen is he looks at the current fare, decides it's too expensive, and decides to take the coach or drive = the railway gets nothing.

JamesT · 29 Feb 2024

Howardh said:
Hence me pleading for a "maximum" fare; even if there are advances available later, if the pax could book now certain of the price the TOC would have the money in the bank, right now. What might happen is he looks at the current fare, decides it's too expensive, and decides to take the coach or drive = the railway gets nothing.

Surely the people doing the ticket pricing understand the elasticity of demand and have worked out the current model optimises the revenue gained? Within the constraints set by fares regulation.

Bletchleyite · 29 Feb 2024

JamesT said:
Surely the people doing the ticket pricing understand the elasticity of demand and have worked out the current model optimises the revenue gained? Within the constraints set by fares regulation.

This then comes down to "what is the railway for?"

Personally, as a taxpayer, I really strongly object to subsidising something that's primarily for the rich - they can pay for it themselves.

As such, rail should be capacious and the pricing accessible as part of the agreement to subsidise it for the greater good.

Howardh · 29 Feb 2024

JamesT said:
Surely the people doing the ticket pricing understand the elasticity of demand and have worked out the current model optimises the revenue gained? Within the constraints set by fares regulation.

What is the point of having a fare as a starting point which is way beyond the reach of the vast majority of the public?? As I alluded to, even if the price is flexible and goes down, many won't know that or even assume that if they try later it will be reduced; or they might not be able to travel on given advances anyway, so they will walk away and look elsewhere. In these days of environmental concerns, all it is doing is forcing pax to maybe fly from, say, Newcastle to Paris and back to Bristol for a fare a fraction of the railways.

bib · 29 Feb 2024

Appreciate its geographically limited and maybe there isn't a huge amount of 'long distance' travel, and no first class or anytime returns, but the fares structure for Northern Ireland railways is effectively capped by the price of the iLink unlimited travel day card. It's also skewed so that short journeys are more expensive and the incremental cost for going further is pretty low. Eg it might be £8 for a 30min journey, £12 for 1hr, £14 for 1hr30, £15 for 2hr, unlimited day travel £18.
Would be tricky to do something similar in England when doing Manchester-Euston peak time day return is £360 or so, presumably people are actually paying those prices. But as the OP proposed just looking at off-peak standard returns and capping at £99, it could be doeable. If you assume few people are going to be travelling for more than 4-5hrs in a day a cap in the £100-150 range for off peak single/returns probably wouldn't affect that many frequently used fares eg Euston-Glasgow is £120 single off-peak with plenty of short notice advances available for £76, so it might not make much difference . But it might make long distance travel more affordable and compeditive with air for the time-rich, and would make it possible to get to most bits of the country for eg £100 if you needed to travel on the day, as long as you left after 9/10am.

JamesT · 29 Feb 2024

Bletchleyite said:
This then comes down to "what is the railway for?"

Personally, as a taxpayer, I really strongly object to subsidising something that's primarily for the rich - they can pay for it themselves.

As such, rail should be capacious and the pricing accessible as part of the agreement to subsidise it for the greater good.

I'd consider that an argument for not capping the ticket prices, charge those who can afford the high prices those, which allows lower prices for the rest of us.

Howardh said:
What is the point of having a fare as a starting point which is way beyond the reach of the vast majority of the public?? As I alluded to, even if the price is flexible and goes down, many won't know that or even assume that if they try later it will be reduced; or they might not be able to travel on given advances anyway, so they will walk away and look elsewhere. In these days of environmental concerns, all it is doing is forcing pax to maybe fly from, say, Newcastle to Paris and back to Bristol for a fare a fraction of the railways.

Someone is put off by a high rail fare, but is willing to contort themselves to take a couple of international flights instead? The flights which will be a fixed date and time like an advance rail ticket.

Given the direct route between those two cities is a diesel train, can the railway really wave its environmental credentials highly?

zwk500 · 29 Feb 2024

Howardh said:
What is the point of having a fare as a starting point which is way beyond the reach of the vast majority of the public?? As I alluded to, even if the price is flexible and goes down, many won't know that or even assume that if they try later it will be reduced; or they might not be able to travel on given advances anyway, so they will walk away and look elsewhere.

The walk-up fare isn't the starting point, but the final price. The advances are the starting point. For Bristol-Newcastle that starting point for an undiscounted adult is £37.30 (https://www.brfares.com/!fares?orig=BRI&dest=NCL&period=20240205)

Howardh said:
In these days of environmental concerns, all it is doing is forcing pax to maybe fly from, say, Newcastle to Paris and back to Bristol for a fare a fraction of the railways.

Nobody's forcing them to fly such a route. For instance, I can book a National Express coach from Bristol to Newcastle tomorrow at 10am for £38.80. It takes 9 hours and has an hour's layover in Birmingham between coaches, but it's there and only £1 more than the cheapest rail ticket.

yorksrob · 29 Feb 2024

zwk500 said:
That's answering a completely different question. Does the occasional need for somebody to travel Newcastle to London who has insufficient notice for an advance fare and no means of paying (or being paid) for the walk-up fare justify the level of subsidy it would require to keep fares to an affordable level? This is not about disconnected communities or short-distance commuting.

Well, yes it does - to an extent. I'd say having a sensibly priced layer of off-peak fares is an important part of a national transport system that enables people to go about their business and is worth subsidising.

It certainly beats subsidising the railway to be "a rich mans toy" as one transport secretary called it recently.

Abolishing fares altogether etc is too far the other way.

zwk500 said:
Capex is funded by borrowing against itself, so this is not available for opex support to the railway.

Indeed, although how many bus fares were slashed by £50 to introduce the £2 pilot?

But we're told that barely anyone uses the overpriced anytime fares, so it won't make that much difference anyway.

The railway establishment tries to have it both ways:

"Oh, don't worry about the overpriced anytime fares, hardly anyone buys them anyway" but try and get rid of them and they scream blue murder.

Howardh · 29 Feb 2024

zwk500 said:
The walk-up fare isn't the starting point, but the final price. The advances are the starting point. For Bristol-Newcastle that starting point for an undiscounted adult is £37.30 (https://www.brfares.com/!fares?orig=BRI&dest=NCL&period=20240205)

Nobody's forcing them to fly such a route. For instance, I can book a National Express coach from Bristol to Newcastle tomorrow at 10am for £38.80. It takes 9 hours and has an hour's layover in Birmingham between coaches, but it's there and only £1 more than the cheapest rail ticket.

Nine hours....probably fly in three even with a connection!! £38.80 isn't bad, but I don't think I could cope with that length of time on a coach. However I understand Flix (who probably don't do that route) allow one to buy the seat next to you if available for a reduced cost, much more bearable!

yorksrob · 29 Feb 2024

RT4038 said:
The £2 bus fare scheme is relatively inexpensive and whilst technically available to all, is mainly benefitting the socio-economic groups that have been hit hardest by the cost of living increases going about their daily business. Rail fare reductions will not be inexpensive, will not mainly benefit those socio-economic groups and will likely generate lots of additional trips not currently undertaken at all.

I know lots of people in higher socioeconomic groups who have enjoyed making lots of additional bus journeys due to the £2 fare.

I also know some in lower socio-economic groups who use trains.

I'd like to see some sort of cost comparison between the £2 bus fare scheme and, for example introducing a national railcard. It would be interesting to see if the difference was as great as some like to assume.

Krokodil · 29 Feb 2024

deltic said:
The annual 2023 numbers have not been published yet but Dec 2019 saw 248k travelling between London airports and Edinburgh and Dec 2023 saw 243k so the change is marginal - which suggests Lumo have grown the market.

You'll find that some of the other months have rather a wider gap.

Besides, what's wrong with growing the market if it's electric (as Lumo is)?

Should we have a "maximum" fare for any journey?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member