Train ticket prices

Prestwich_Blue said:
Germany manages to run a state railway perfectly adequately. So much so that Deutsche Bahn own or part own the companies that run a lot of our UK franchises. I was in the USA recently and looking at travelling from Phoenix to LA by train. The journey is 420 miles, so approximately a return trip from Manchester to London. I could do that London round trip in four and a half hours yet to do the same distance in the USA would take over 15 hours and the one service only runs three times a week.
Click to expand...

It's not quite as straightforward as that. Germany tends to have cheaper suburban rail, but off peak it's considerably more expensive than here. Like for like comparisons are more complex than picking our standard walk up fare and their apex ones. Likewise, they subsidise commuter routes heavily, and we don't at all. In fact the subsidy is far, far higher over there and around Europe full stop than here. So it's still paid for, just out of taxation to the greater extent. They aren't cheaper because they're more efficient, but because they pay differently.

If you feel those who don't use trains should subsidise those who do to a greater extent, that's fine - it's a political question - but it's not, and never has been about the Brits being rubbish, just different choices.

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/everything-you-know-about-british-train-fares-wrong-704
 
Chippy_boy said:
It isn't because of privatisation.

As I said, if privatisation doesn't work then how come Amazon gives you great service and low prices?

Privatisation doesn't work when there's insufficient competition, since private companies seek to maximise profits and will do so at the expense of investment and customer service if able to do so.

If they have competition - or a competent regulator - then they are not able to do so.

Why do you think private retailers often offer "no quibble money back guarantees"? Is it because that costs them nothing and increases their profits? Of course not, quite the opposite. It costs them money, but nevertheless they do it since they are in a competitive environment and have learned that better customer service = better customer loyalty and repeat business = more revenues = more profits.

This whole customer driven ethos is completely missing from the train companies since they have no competition for the duration of their franchise agreement. and a regulator who lets them get away with murder. Tickets that can't be cancelled and refunded; being treated like a criminal if you sit in the wrong seat or catch the wrong train; relentless price increases; lack of investment etc etc etc. This is all because the train companies are being allowed to get away with it, since the regulator is useless and they have no competition on the service they are providing.

Done properly, privatisation works.
Click to expand...
These private companies would only ever accept monopoliies on the routes that they operate. Monopolies on the railways and privatisation go hand in hand. It's the same as Sky and TV rights. The value to Sky exists only in their ability to exclusively broadcast the football. Take the exclusivity out of the equation and the value falls through the floor and no one is arsed about having the rights because it no longer guarantees revenue.

Railways are expensive to run and the only way a private firm would ever entertain running one is via monopolosing their routes, end of. Putting it in public hands removes the firms' need to generate profit and worry about competition.
 
hawkhurst said:
These private companies would only ever accept monopoliies on the routes that they operate. Monopolies on the railways and privatisation go hand in hand. It's the same as Sky and TV rights. The value to Sky exists only in their ability to exclusively broadcast the football. Take the exclusivity out of the equation and the value falls through the floor and no one is arsed about having the rights because it no longer guarantees revenue.

Railways are expensive to run and the only way a private firm would ever entertain running one is via monopolosing their routes, end of. Putting it in public hands removes the firms' need to generate profit and worry about competition.
Click to expand...
That's a fair (no pun intended) point and a reasonable hypothesis, but is there any evidence for it?

I remember when Orange first set up in the UK and the investment required from Hutchison to get it going, ran into the billions. But they did it, since they saw the business opportunity. They weren't offered a monopoly. Easyjet have invested billions and they don't have a monopoly. There's plenty of examples of businesses having to invest heavily in order to gain market share, increase efficiencies, increase revenues and increase profits. I just don't see the train companies doing it.

But let's say I accept what you say. If that is indeed the case, then the government should subsidise the running of trains. If running trains to the standard and at a cost that we as a nation deem appropriate, is unprofitable, then this does not mean we ought to nationalise it. If nationalising things makes them run better, then OK perhaps, but the very opposite is empirically demonstrated to be true. Remove the financial imperative and service levels decline, costs spiral. It's what the public sector does.
 
Henkeman said:
It's not quite as straightforward as that. Germany tends to have cheaper suburban rail, but off peak it's considerably more expensive than here. Like for like comparisons are more complex than picking our standard walk up fare and their apex ones. Likewise, they subsidise commuter routes heavily, and we don't at all. In fact the subsidy is far, far higher over there and around Europe full stop than here. So it's still paid for, just out of taxation to the greater extent. They aren't cheaper because they're more efficient, but because they pay differently.

If you feel those who don't use trains should subsidise those who do to a greater extent, that's fine - it's a political question - but it's not, and never has been about the Brits being rubbish, just different choices.

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/everything-you-know-about-british-train-fares-wrong-704
Click to expand...
Just read your post after typing mine. Agree entirely.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Honestly they have long since been a complete joke, haven't they.

I used to do the Bristol to London Paddington run quite regularly, having moved to Bristol in 1982 and needing to go to London quite often. For 36 years now, I've seen the prices go up and up and up, and usually with price increased greater than RPI.

I wrote to my MP about it some 3 or 4 years ago and was told that we'd had "a decade plus of above RPI increases, to pay for new investment". So now perhaps 14 years of RPI+ increases. To the extent that a normal 2nd class return from Bristol Parkway to London Paddington - a journey of only about 100 miles - is now £211.40

How UTTERLY bonkers is that? It's gone beyond "expensive" and is now firmly in the realms of UTTERLY ridiculous. And after all these years of "investment", it's the same shitty rolling stock since I started doing the journey 36 years ago. All they have done is refurbished the seats.

I may be about to start a new job, which very generously will pay for 1st class rail travel. A first class return is £311 !!! So today I checked how much it would cost for a 1 year 1st class season ticket for this journey.

Are you sitting down?

£24,388. Yes, TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS for a fucking train ticket.

I am the most right wing person I know and do not advocate nationalising anything since imo everything government touches, turns to shite. But nevertheless, SOMETHING has to be done, because this is just completely and utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Dublin to Kerry is a €50 return and we complain.
 
I think a competitive model would work, but there would need to be much fewer routes. The current London-Manchester, London-Bristol/Cardiff, London-Newcastle has to change, it should be simplified enormously. No monopolies.
 
Chippy_boy said:
...

But if you seriously think that nationalising these businesses is the way forward, you honestly need your lumps feeling. My sister worked for British Rail when you left school in 1984. She worked from 7 in the morning until 1pm. After 1pm she was paid double time for several hours, but was actually sent home to do nothing and was paid for doing so, on the basis that "they needed to pretend they were very busy and need the staff". I am not making this up.

...
Click to expand...

Why do I think you are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.