Great Western Coffee Shop

Two views

http://www.anorak.co.uk/380858/money/train-fares-rise-blithering-sutpidity-from-the-campaign-for-better-transport.html/?

and

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/451557/How-ministers-will-make-a-profit-from-soaring-train-fares

Today's 'story' appears to be based on the same press release in almost every outlet, with exactly the same examples, and the same pretty hopeless and incorrect explanation of which fares are regulated and which aren't.  Just like last year, and probably the year before, they find a particular season price that has just broached the ^5000 mark, and imply it is somehow unusual.   Then in the next paragraph they feign amazement that somewhere else a fare has just reached the ^4000 mark. 

Both 'amazing discoveries' are a racing certainty, and will be reported exactly the same next Jan 2nd.  Yet they never actually seem to mention what a bargain some of these fares are on a pro-rata daily rate basis, especially when compared with the equivalent walk up Anytime fare...

Paul

Chiltern's Thomas Abelman tried to draw a comparison with driving the same number of miles.

I think he forgot the obvious Economies of Scale, and the fact that you get to travel with who you choose, and go when you want to.

I think if services improved, overcrowding was reduced, capacity increased, people could get a seat, reliability improved, the system was robust enough not to grind to a halt at the slightest sign of falling leaves/cold/warm/wet weather (the current storms excepted), less bustitution etc etc then the fact that we have the highest, and ever climbing fares in Europe may be less of a "story"?

Aren't those three wishes effectively the same thing?  ;)

I dream of the day when all London trains from a station like Taplow headed into the city beyond Paddington and are formed by brand new, air-conditioned, electric, 10-carriage trains, complemented by with brand-new, air-conditioned, electric trains of at least 4-carriages forming services to Reading and perhaps beyond. Ask me that question ten years ago as to when that date may have come and I'd have shrugged my shoulders, whereas now it is only a few years away.  Indeed part of the current service fragility at times is due to the enormous amount of work going on to prepare everything for that day.

Railways do not make a profit, they never have and never will. Why are CFBT sprouting such nonsense?
(Yes, some core individual routes which are busy all day everyday probably do. But that is a smokescreen for the enormous cost of running a railway and the fact that these routes need the unprofitable bits to make a profit.)

However, they are a public service and their "cost" should consider social, economic and environmental benefits! But where to set the fare is a difficult one...

Is it unfair that a St Albans commuter pays 25% of his salary to travel to work?
Or is it unfair that a taxpayer from the North East pays higher taxes to subsidise the St Albans ticket price allowing the fat cat banker to live in leafy suburbia?

Clearly a line has to be drawn.

They must have done before nationalisation at least most of the time.

[Clears throat in surprise] Well said, Btline.   ;)

I'd be surprised if many St Albans fat cat commuters are paying 25% of their salary to travel to work. Even with a travelcard it's ^4,000 a year, so 25% would equate to around ^20k of before tax salary.

Is it fair that all rail users (regardless of geographical location and income) continue to subsidise unlimited free travel for current and retired rail staff and their families adding up to hundreds of thousands of people?

Clearly a line has to be drawn  ;)

To add data to this north / south discussion, I took a regional day business trip (Swindon - Paddington, peak) in our area and compared it to similar distance journeys going "up country".   In each case I've gone for east / west journeys that are reasonable by rail and of roughly the same distance.   All tickets are for a day round trip, bought on the day for any train, travelling standard class.

London - Swindon 81.3 miles ^121.00
Peterborough - Birmingham New Steet 85.7 miles ^77.50
Liverpool Lime Street - Sheffield 82.7 miles ^50.40 (via Huddersfield), ^43.00 via Stockport, no "any route"
Leeds - Blackpool North 85.6 miles ^47.80
Newcastle - Workington 90.6 miles ^29.90
Edinburgh - Gourock 74.3 miles ^33.80
Inverness - Kyle of Lochalsh 78.6 miles ^36.30

Looking away from the apparent north / south divide out west - away from London

Newport South Wales - Carmathen 76.8 miles ^24.60
Exeter - Truro 87.5 miles ^46.00
Eastbourne - Southampton Central 87.5 miles ^90.00 any permitted, ^36.30 "Clapham Junction not London"

I have NOT gone for any particular journeys based on "that will be a cheap one" - purely by looking for a journey of roughly the same distance each time - distances from AA as the road is the real compentiton.

However, Doncaster to Birmingham is ^99 Anytime Return for around 100 miles.

Swindon to Paddington does involve travel by  upto 8 coach HST at speeds of upto 125 mph. Doncaster to Birmingham is by 4 coach Voyager and at upto 125 mph, even if the overall journey time is not very fast (just over 90 minutes for 100 miles).

Most of your east/west journeys are in DMUs and at low average speeds.

Perhaps my sample are mostly DMUs (and a Voyager is a DMU too, but an HST is just a DU) - because the faster stuff runs on north - south axes.    Here are some more selected not quite for the same randomess, but because they are predominantly high speed services away from London

Crewe - Lancaster 81.6 miles ^70.00 (interesting, just 111.90 for a week season!)
Newcastle - York 88.9 miles ^58.00
Carlisle - Motherwell 83.6 miles ^53.50

Interestingly, Paddington to Didcot and Didcot to Swindon, 58 + 43, 101 pounds, split ticket, London to Didcot based on dmu?

Rugby - London 85.7 miles ^128 (intercity) ^69 (interurban)

Thanks for the further thoughts and examples.    I think I'm seeing a pattern that London journeys are mile for mile much more expensive

So, logically, ...


needs to be answered with the question "And is unfair that the tax payer from St Albans has to pay in taxes so that the rail traveller in the north east can travel at bargain rates well below average on a railway that requires tax subsidy?"

But isn't it a bit like the arguments about paying tax anyway .....
..Why should I pay for schools as I have no children...
.. Why should I pay for roads when I don't run a car ...
.. Why should I pay for ......  and so on!

That's the price of living in a civilised (?) society, I think.  Politicians get paid to decide these issues, and give the rest of us the opportunity to criticise them for it.

Returning to rail fares many of the Anytime Fares, especially to London and Birmingham are based on what the market will bear, as there is a heavy demand, and these fares are not the regulated ones.

Your comments about Weekly Season tickets being about 1.5 times the cost of one Anytime Return are reflected in many places, especially on InterCity type routes into London.
Plymouth to Paddington is ^271 SOR and ^489.70 Weekly season ( even cheaper per day if a Monthly Season) for 225 miles.

Comparisons with similar journey lengths from London Terminals do, however, suggest First Great Western fares are about 10% higher than East Coast, but cheaper than Virgin.

That's an interesting question.  I'm guessing that with companies barring staff from using some of the busiest trains, and despite many thousands of people being eligible, that number is tiny compared with the revenue stream and sheer number of 'ordinary' passengers? 

Of course, many people who work within large organisations get some sort of discount/allowance on the goods/services their employers provide.

So, if say it is fair on balance.  Perhaps I'm biased though?

I can't think of any company that gives current/retired employees free goods and/or services though.

In the retail sector it is typically just a 10% discount.

FYI, only staff employed/retired pre-privatisation/1996 retain free travel across the whole rail network - this was agreed between BR & the Government.  The rest of us "newbies" have to pay a discounted rate for other TOCs and no discount available on TfL services.

I had a chat with a Sky phone rep once, who told me they didn't pay a penny for any Sky product... Is it fair I have to pay Sky so much money in monthly subscriptions to subsidise their free employee's Sky?  ;)

That discounted rate being 75% off Anytime fares (PRIV), for the employee, their spouse/partner and any resident children. Quite a concession, especially when so many staff know they can be canny and split longer distance journeys into Anytime Day fares. This is in addition to any travel concessions offered by the TOC or the TOC's owning group. All of whom offer staff travel benefits in addition to PRIV.

I often hear staff complain, "but we only get 75% off Anytime fares". As if this isn't worthwhile. Yet that gives, as an example, a day return journey at any time between Swindon and London for around ^25 (using splits) or ^30 without. Compared with around ^83 for Joe Public using the same splits.

Having a Sky employee in my family (sort of - partner of nephew) I'm told that it's Sky+ HD and Broadband for free. Line rental, calls, sports, movies, on demand etc aren't free. Some are discounted, some aren't. Oh, and Sky isn't an industry that is heavily subsidised by the state.

I don't dispute that rail employees should have staff discounts. I just think the amounts given are very generous compared to other industries.

........last time I looked, SKY wasn't subsidised by the taxpayer, so you're not comparing apples with apples.

Indeed, however there are many examples where staff have found it's actually cheaper to buy an Advance ticket, than a discounted anytime fare (although some prefer the flexibility the anytime gives them).

75% is very good yes, I was merely pointing out that it isn't "unlimited" free travel for all staff/dependants as was previously claimed.

Also the dependents have to pay full rate for their own commuting, it is only free/discounted leisure travel available to them.


The phone op said he "gets it all free", so I can only go on what I was told... And the Sky example was more jovial then a serious comparison - well, we could get into a debate about Murdoch's control of the media and his relationships with successive governments, but that's probably off-topic  ;D

Also the comment was "I can't think of any company that gives current/retired employees free goods and/or services though.", and there is an example of sorts.


Indeed, I don't disagree, we are very lucky.  I would be interested to know what actual cost figure the bean counters put on this staff benefit though?  We have no right to a seat if a member of the public is standing, so I guess the additional weight costing fuel might be the extent of it?

Also, just to add, those ex-BR staff who have full travel concessions I believe actually get taxed on this benefit in some way, so the government makes some money back via taxation.

To be fair to TaplowGreen, he didn't use the word 'all'. Whether the 'protected' current and retired employees and their families add up to 'hundreds of thousands' can't be known for certain, but it wouldn't surprise me if the number is low to mid six digits. The industry was, and still is to some extent, labour intensive. Although I believe post 1996 entrants to Railtrack/Network Rail get very little, if anything, by way of free/discounted travel.

.....as at 2011, the figure for those who enjoyed this privilege (free or 75% discount) was 500,000

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/half-a-million-rail-staff-and-families-get-discount-travel-6438182.html

A better article, quoting sources for the figures, and breaking them down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8729312/Half-a-million-rail-workers-enjoy-free-or-discounted-travel.html

Aren't there some in the travel industry?  Airlines?  Bus companies?

http://www.nationalexpress.jobs/about-us/general-benefits.aspx

_Cough 15%, in my case.  But certainly not 'free'.  :P

In my experience, it's pretty standard in the bus industry for free staff and family travel to be a benefit.

BA used to give their staff very generous discounts on flights, they are still pretty good albeit mostly on a standby basis......best I ever got was a card giving 10-20% off some of our supply chain partners which was great.......if you wanted to buy building materials!!!

Moral seems to be, if you're after pretty good perks, work in the rail/transport sector! Might perhaps explain why those who do are so blas^ about the annual price rises affecting the rest of us!  :)

The difference is where an employer supplies a service where the marginal cost of providing that service can be seen as zero, or very close to it. So an extra passenger on a train costs next to nothing, until such time as the number of those passengers causes the train to be overcrowded (as happened in Wales with free travel for pensioners on the HoW Line).

Same could be said of a Sky subscription.

However, for those employed by supermarkets, clearly, the marginal cost of supplying an item is not zero, so the retailer would be making a cash loss on such a perk. There would also be a problem of ensuring that the goods were not then sold on.

It also confirms my earlier point the benefit for ex-BR staff is taxable and the government therefore receive some money back through taxation.

I know no-one on here is suggesting that staff benefits are scrapped, but does anyone honestly think by doing so it would effect fares in anyway for the public?

I also know that efforts have been made in the past to "buy" the free boxes offered to ex-BR staff.


Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think i've seen any member of staff being blas^ about fare increases... Especially when it is us front line staff that will get the wroth of public opinion.

I do think it's wrong of the media to talk only about ^5,000+ season tickets, without having a comparison of the alternatives over a 12 month period to see whether it is good value for money or a massive rip-off.

There is also a discrepancy (certainly in longer-distance travel) between commuting into London from South of the Thames (SouthEastern, Southern & SWT) & north/west of the Thames (FGW, Chiltern, FirstCC etc), and these days, this really ought not to be.

Check out the Ashford, Folkestone, Dover, Southampton & Brighton seasons with equal milage tris from the North & west. The latter are pretty much dearer. I couldn't believe the price from Southampton....

Two points on generous staff travel perks.

1, it is a good thing that staff use the network widely.  It means that they know their product.   Would you buy a car from someone who couldn't drive or your meat from a vegetarian butcher?

2, whatever providing the perks cost it is presumably less than it would cost in salary to have the same positive effect on staff retention and recruitment.

with the above southampton season ticket example, is it normal to have the different prices for a particular route (e.g. Southern only) versus any route?

The 'Southern only' fare isn't that unusual, in that there are matching walk up fares available as well.  But then the Southern route to 'London terminals' from Southampton is around an hour longer at least.   I'd be surprised if many people are prepared to do an extra two hours travelling each day for whatever the cost saving is.

Paul

...............Best beer I ever drank was from a teetotal landlord!  :D