UK Rail fares

nicensleazy

We are set to see an increase in rail fares in 2010. We already have the most expensive rail fares in Europe. How have we got in this pathetic position? If you travel at a certain time its one price. If you book before its another price. If you choose another rail operator its another price. A COMPLETE SHAMBLES! The rail network should be owned by the people and run for the people. This is what happens when you introduce private 'fat cat' share holders into such an operation. We seem to want to apply capitalism to every essential public service within the UK. It just doesn't work! Why does the railway network need to make a profit. Surely, it should need to make enough money to pay its staff and update the rolling stock and other work which needs to be carried out! But, its the good old fare paying British public which will foot the bill! Fuc&ing mess!!!

nwallace

Dundee to Glasgow 133km £32.10
Dundee to Perth to Glasgow still 133km £21.30 (there seems to be some off deal for tickets in/out of perth that makes them dirt cheap)
Leuchars to Glasgow 153km £24.20

beverick

Railways aren't essential - the majority of the UK's population do quite nicely without them.

Also, the fare should represent the full economic cost of the journey and not be kept artificially low by taking £7bn (+/-) per year out of the public purse (that's 1/3rd of the tax paid by road users in 2008/9).

Lets finish what Beeching started. Close routes, stations and journeys that can't pay their way (like the four coach train I saw near Leeds on Tuesday night with no-one other than the driver on it) and put the savings into more practical forms of transport such as high speed lines to compete with air routes and providing a road network that will support the demands put on it.

Bob

antooony

My other half travels from London Victoria to Wolverhampton by coach to visit her sister. Easier than driving, no stress and can sit and read a book and sleep.

She can get a return ticket for £12 by coach. The same journey by train costs anywhere between £50 and £100 depending on when you travel. In the car it costs £50 in petrol.No brainer really.

Trains are dear, she commutes into London 4 times a week. Its roughly a 15 mile journey. For the pleasure of this it costs her just over £1000 a year and quite often she can't even get a seat on the train.

markwalker

theyre expensive because the whole staffing and union issue ramps up costs. not only in the operating of trains but mostly in the endless designs and redesigns, contracts issued (at cost) minds changed and contracts cancelled( even greater cost) there is so much waste its staggering.

squired

The Government is gradually reducing the subsidies it pays towards rail travel, to make it "fairer" to the taxpayer. Given how much more expensive rail travel is in England relative to everywhere else I do wonder how much other countries subsidise their trains. If it is more than us, why is the level not fair to the taxpayers here?

My feeling is that trains are simply too expensive to run. If it would be cheaper for my brother and I to drive into London and pay the congestion charge than to go on a train where you are packed in like cattle and have no chance of sitting down, something is seriously wrong. They might as well just remove the train tracks and put down tarmac, run coaches on the routes and turn the train stations into mega car parks.

Last week I was feeling ill and decided to take the train. My office is out in the countryside, so there is a train from my station in the morning, but not in the evening. In fact, to get to it I have to take a train that goes to the next station (Same travel zone and train fare). The problem is that I then need to buy a ticket that includes the next station. On this day the guy who works in the ticket office was on the platform clearing snow. I couldn't buy a correct ticket from the single machine (which had a queue of 20 people) and there is only one train per morning. The guy working at the ticket barriers was no help, telling me it wasn't his job to sell me a ticket, even though there was no way of actually getting the one I needed. He even opened the barrier and told me to get on the train without a ticket and risk a fine for fare evasion. I did point out that this was stupid as I was trying to actually buy the ticket I needed, but wasn't able to. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it is a perfect example of what a joke the trains are. So many use the trains because there isn't an adequate alternative. I'd like a government to fix them, but clearly they aren't a vote winner like health or education.

Lagavulin

Nationalise them or tarmac them over? The current situation is utter sh!te though.

A mate of mine returned from Istanbul and having paid the silly fare on the Gatwick Express, was then met at the ticket office with the offer of £104 single from Kings Cross to Newcastle Central or £105 (seriously) return.

I've been on the trainline.com, the old GNER and National Express sites when considering travel and fares just seem to pop up and then disappear mid-search. Also pre-booking is fine, perhaps you should be rewarded for booking in advance but on the flip side, nor should you get financially raped for turning up and needing to travel to the tune the train operating companies see fit. Bus fares in this country are extortionate but at least you have some idea of what you are likely going to pay when one turns up. The train station is a lottery.

Ollieda

I've been issued rail warrants for work travel expenses sometimes and these only cover you to travel on the train so rather reluctantly I have to...

Cheltenham to Oxford (via didcot parkway) around £40 and 2 - 2.5 hours

However Cheltenham to Oxford on the bus £7.50 and 1.5 hours how can the train companies realistically expect that sort of money for the trip and service offered.

What really annoys me is if there is a problem with the line they don't offer a replacement bus service but instead decided it's better to reroute by switching at Birmingham! Surely thats just costing them more money.....and me more time, almost 4 hours!

rally200

Heard some rail industry type on the wireless this morning cliaming it was possible to do London - Edinburgh for £12 ! somehow it doesn't come up on National Rail einquiries

Crapaud

rally200 wrote:

Heard some rail industry type on the wireless this morning cliaming it was possible to do London - Edinburgh for £12 ! somehow it doesn't come up on National Rail einquiries

I heard a rail industry spokesman on BBC News 24 say that the rises were good news for passengers! :? Talk about spin?

nolf

I get a return ticket to York for £50.
Tats a good 500 mile round trip.

markos1963

The reason why coach operators can offer cheap fares is they only pay road tax which covers them for all their journeys, train operators have to pay for every journey they make so that ramps up the cost. During BR times the railways could earn money from other areas than fares, rent from shops, fares from the ferries they owned, hotels, pubs and restaurants all pooled the money into BR. BR also built, owned and maintaned its own rolling stock all for a non profit service. Post privatisation all these parts of the service have been scattered to various private companies all trying to make a profiit from the Train Operating companies. Who has to pay for this profit? you dear readers/travellers, thats why your fares are so high. Now I know I didn't vote for privatisation because I didn't vote for John Major, but did you? well if you did and your complaining now, TOUGH!

nicensleazy

Rail works extremely well in France, Germany and other parts of Europe and indeed the world. Rail is a great way to carry passengers and cargo. People bleat on about carbon emissions from vehicles on the road plus congestion etc. Also, too many HGV vehicles on the road, use the rail network. As I said before - for the fare paying public, it does not need to run at a profit, however, it could do extremely well with business and commercial goods.

Frank the tank

The public transport system should be a service not something to make masses of profit for the wealthy few.

Certainly trains, If for no other reason than in the event of a incident in which people perrish we all know where the book ultimately stops. I find it an absolute disgrace that (Ithink it was Potters Bar) no-one carried the can and it was because the system was over complicated and this allowed shysters to shirk their responsibilities and avoid legal action. Shameful.

nicensleazy

Frank the tank wrote:

The public transport system should be a service not something to make masses of profit for the wealthy few.

Certainly trains, If for no other reason than in the event of a incident in which people perrish we all know where the book ultimately stops. I find it an absolute disgrace that (Ithink it was Potters Bar) no-one carried the can and it was because the system was over complicated and this allowed shysters to shirk their responsibilities and avoid legal action. Shameful.

Good point Frank

mrushton

nicensleazy wrote:

Rail works extremely well in France, Germany and other parts of Europe and indeed the world. Rail is a great way to carry passengers and cargo. People bleat on about carbon emissions from vehicles on the road plus congestion etc. Also, too many HGV vehicles on the road, use the rail network. As I said before - for the fare paying public, it does not need to run at a profit, however, it could do extremely well with business and commercial goods.

Euro countries (and others) regard railways as a vital way of moving freight and passengers quickly thro' their country so don't expect it to make a profit. They regard it as a service. They charge a fare to get from one place to another, not a variety of fares based on wealth/time etc. Railways have been chronically underinvested in by UK Govts for years and the process was accelerated under Thatcher. The Road Haulage Association and other road based transport groups also played their part.

markos1963

Frank the tank wrote:

The public transport system should be a service not something to make masses of profit for the wealthy few.

Certainly trains, If for no other reason than in the event of a incident in which people perrish we all know where the book ultimately stops. I find it an absolute disgrace that (Ithink it was Potters Bar) no-one carried the can and it was because the system was over complicated and this allowed shysters to shirk their responsibilities and avoid legal action. Shameful.

This a symptym of privatisation, Potters Bar was a debacle because of the mix of private and public interest, Railtrack as it was known then was a private profit making monopoly, if someone was going to get prosecuted then it could have ahd reprocussions for the government.

Another example of the shame of privatisation is the Ladbrooke Grove crash. More than 10 years after this event the private rail companies and Network Rail still haven't installed the ATP system that was available than and is still available today which would stop this sort of incicdent from ever happening. The company I work for posted £55m profit last year which was shared out to the shareholders and management, that money would have paid for ATP to be installed on our fleet of trains.

Isn't privatisation great! You were supposed to have cheaper fares due to competition, newer rolling stock(I currently drive 40yo trains!), safer railways and reduce the sudsidy that the taxpayer gives to the railway(currently 5 times the amount that BR recieved.

The Chingford Skinhead

To those suggesting that railways be covered in tarmac and be given over to cars - how do you suggest that people who do not drive travel any distance? That's 30-40% of households and all the people in the households that do have a car that don't drive. Trains are far far safer than private motor vehicles and cause far less damage to the environment.

beverick

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

To those suggesting that railways be covered in tarmac and be given over to cars - how do you suggest that people who do not drive travel any distance?.

Leeds-Londion this morning Train = £82.50

Or I could use the Megabus at £11.50 or even fly from Leeds/Bradford to Gatwick (£35) and then 'easybus' to Victoria (£2).

Both are substantially cheaper than the train.

Now, where's that tarmac layer.........

Bob

ThreeLionsBrian

How did you get on with your bike on the coach? They don't let you down ere!

Cressers

As we all know, getting our bikes on the train is a pain as well.

Trains do offer higher station to station average speeds and shorter journey times. It's reflection of our declining status that 'developing' nations such as China are building rail infrastructure that puts ours to shame.

What really gets my goat are urban trams. What is the point of an expensive, inflexible system that can be better served by a fleet of busses?

beverick

ThreeLionsBrian wrote:

How did you get on with your bike on the coach? They don't let you down ere!

You can take a folder on any coach but full-sized bikes are not carried - much the same as most rail companies (most of whom won't, at the very best, let you take a bike on 'peak time' trains - which is exactly when you'd want to take them on the train of course!).

The difference is that you know the situation before you travel. As coach operators are up front with their conditions of travel you won't be met with some officious little git with a braided cap telling you that you can't take your bike on the train because they've had a bad day even though there's no logical reason why you shouldn't.

Bob

markos1963

Bikes on trains, another victim of privatisation, under BR Conditions of Carriage all trains had to be capable of taking bikes(gaurds vans in those days). Nowerdays I believe Southern ban bikes on most trains but you can take a surfboard with you(previously banned) complete madness.

Sirius631

I'm not in favour of subsidies for the sake of subsidies, after all it comes out of the tax payers' pockets whether you use the trains or not, but if it helps meet CO2 reduction targets (if they still exist) then the Government should subsidise rail travel.

beverick

Sirius631 wrote:

I'm not in favour of subsidies for the sake of subsidies, after all it comes out of the tax payers' pockets whether you use the trains or not, but if it helps meet CO2 reduction targets (if they still exist) then the Government should subsidise rail travel.

Surely only removing subsidies and increasing the cost of travel would reduce CO2?

Bob

Le Commentateur

rally200 wrote:

Heard some rail industry type on the wireless this morning cliaming it was possible to do London - Edinburgh for £12 ! somehow it doesn't come up on National Rail einquiries

Sounds like RyanAir have gone into the railway business.

Le Commentateur

My experience is that if you disguise your bike as luggage you can take it on pretty much any coach or train you like.

nicensleazy

It about sums this country up!

beverick

Le Commentateur wrote:

rally200 wrote:

Heard some rail industry type on the wireless this morning cliaming it was possible to do London - Edinburgh for £12 ! somehow it doesn't come up on National Rail einquiries

Sounds like RyanAir have gone into the railway business.

He said that you had to travel befode 5:30 am and book at least three months in advance if I remember correctly.

You can certainly do Euston to Glasgow for £17.50 on Virgin trains.

Bob

gimboid

antooony wrote:

Trains are dear, she commutes into London 4 times a week. Its roughly a 15 mile journey. For the pleasure of this it costs her just over £1000 a year and quite often she can't even get a seat on the train.

Paying ~£1k for a season ticket into London is nothing really! I pay more than £2k and my journey is 15 miles straight line. If I change to a ticket valid on the high speed line including tube that rises to £3,940. I'd be thrilled if my ticket were only a grand a year

crapaud wrote:

I heard a rail industry spokesman on BBC News 24 say that the rises were good news for passengers! Confused Talk about spin?

Depending on how much a ticket has risen by it might turn out to be a good deal. E.g. my ticket has gone up by a small amount, say 1%. But if we come out of recession and inflation increases this year, then my ticket will have actually decreased in real terms. Of course this scenario would be an excuse for a bigger increase in 2011, so its all relative At least thats my understanding.

nicensleazy

nationalise the railway!