Above inflation fare rises

[whole diary]

[didcotdean]

My own view is that some advances on some kind of absolute measure are ridiculously cheap, and some peak fares are ridiculously expensive. Under normal circumstances that would indicate a supply and demand mismatch. What the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) has is about the most aggressive market pricing.

In the Telegraph article the London to Edinburgh example appears to be a Super off-peak single, so by no means the most expensive one way single, which costs ^152. The cheapest advance at the moment seems to be ^20, not taking into account any EC promotion.

The fully flexible Milan to Rome price is around ^68. The cheapest advance is ^23.
The fully flexible Paris to Nantes fare seems to be ^59 at SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways). The cheapest advance is ^17.

[grahame]

.....I think this gives it some perspective;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11043893/Rail-fare-hike-Britain-vs-rest-of-Europe.html

Also this in the Telegraph (yesterday morning) ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11043581/To-put-the-railways-back-on-track-we-must-first-rip-out-the-waste.html

For those of us who have the misfortune of having to commute to work by train, the news that rail fares are going to rise another 3.5 per cent next year is a bitter pill to swallow. Being treated like cattle is bad enough; having to pay through the nose for the privilege of cancelled trains and overcrowded carriages is enraging.

Britain^s rail industry is ripe for reform. It is a bizarre mish-mash of public and private, of central planning and private enterprise, of politicised buck-passing and economic irrationality. Hardly anyone understands its costs, the details of its hybrid, semi-renationalised structure or who is really in charge and thus responsible.

[Continues]

A long article ...

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

The Adam Smith Institute ays (above) "Actually, a small engined car with four people in it has lower emissions, lower pollution, than four people traveling by train." But how many small engined cars on our roads do carry four people? I reckon that around here there are more chelsea tractors on the roads with one affluent occupant far exceeding the small engined cars with 4 occupants.
A couple of years ago I was waiting at a local bus stop at around 08.00 for a bus into Oxford that was in fact running about quarter of an hour late due to traffic congestion. To while away that 15 minutes or so I counted the number of passing vehicles, mostly rat run commuters avoiding the A40, and over 95% of vehicles had only one occupant. I bet the Adam Smith Institute would not want to hear that fact.

[mjones]

They are also confusing marginal costs and impacts with averages, something that should be a fairly basic concept to an organisation interested in economics...  If four people are making a decision as to whether to travel by train or car, then if they get on a train there are no significant additional emissions, as the train will run anyway. If they get in a car instead, then there are now the emissions from a car journey that would not otherwise have been made. More people per train means lower emissions per passenger km. Similarly, picking up the comment on subsidy per journey, each additional journey does not result in a corresponding increase the subsidy on the contrary the additional income reduces the total burden on the taxpayer.

Average costs and emissions have some use when making policy at  a strategic level, i.e. looking at millions of journeys in aggregate, but are meaningless at the level of individual journeys and hence individual decision making. Moving people from trains to cars increases, not reduces, overall emissions. Moving people from train to car increases, not reduces, the need for subsidy. 

Note also that the author doesn't take account of the external costs i.e. the costs arising from its societal impacts, emissions, accidents etc, which are higher for car travel than for rail.

[Rhydgaled]

The Adam Smith Institute ays (above) "Actually, a small engined car with four people in it has lower emissions, lower pollution, than four people traveling by train." But how many small engined cars on our roads do carry four people? I reckon that around here there are more chelsea tractors on the roads with one affluent occupant far exceeding the small engined cars with 4 occupants.

Even if there were more cars with occupancy==4, would you need to take all that many off the road to cover the emmissons of a solitary sprinter or pacer unit?

[Super Guard]

.....I think this gives it some perspective;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11043893/Rail-fare-hike-Britain-vs-rest-of-Europe.html

I'll see your story and raise you this...

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/telegraph-rail-fare-fail.html?m=1

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html

[IndustryInsider]

.....I think this gives it some perspective;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11043893/Rail-fare-hike-Britain-vs-rest-of-Europe.html

I'll see your story and raise you this...

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/telegraph-rail-fare-fail.html?m=1

http://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html

Not surprising to see that both writers have picked up on the same flaws in the article I did.

Gosh, Poland is cheap isn't it.  Wonder what the average wage is for people commuting in Warsaw? 

And I wonder how advance fares, which many people get very cheaply, compare on the London to Bristol and Marseille to Nice route (which, funnily enough is a coastal route between two large places nowhere near the capital city, so you'd expect cheaper prices).  I assume they've used walk-up fares for their comparison?

Oh, and what about journey times and frequency of train which should affect the price?  Marseille to Nice looks like it takes over two-and-a-half hours (around an hour longer than London to Bristol) with direct trains that run far less frequently. 

In short, comparisons like that are always terribly misleading and put very little into real perspective if you ask me.

Perhaps you'd like to add the evidence to go with the assumptions/speculation/rhetoric/sarcasm you've already supplied to allow us all to decide whether its a fair comparison?  Smiley

Any assumptions and speculation were made purely because the article you put forward as putting things into perspective doesn't give any detail whatsoever as to how it came to its findings.  Specifically, in the cast of London to Bristol fare, the article quotes the SOS fare at ^96.50, when the much cheaper SVS is ^42 and SSS is ^31.50.  The ^42 ticket is available on any train after 08:10 (except between 16:40 and 18:30).  The ^31.50 ticket is valid on any train from 10:10 (except between 15:02 and 19:00).  The ^31.50 ticket is available on any train at weekends or Bank Holidays.

This basically means that there are only 8 trains a day (9 if you count the slow train that goes via Trowbridge) on weekdays where you would need to pay the walk-up fare quoted in the article of ^96.50.  On most others it is well under half the quoted fare, and on many it would cost you less than a third of the quoted fare.  And that's before you look at the option of advance tickets, which are readily available for ^15 or even less.

Then there's the comparatively poor level of service frequency and journey time on the Marseille<>Nice route that I highlighted in my original post which also makes it a very poor comparison.

I wouldn't have minded the article quoting the ^96.50 fare, as long as they make it clear the details of that ticket and the much cheaper alternatives available on the vast majority of trains on the same route.  They didn't and personally I would say that makes the article misleading and certainly doesn't put anything into perspective like you claimed - but of course it's up to the individual to make their mind up. 

However, I would readily agree that many walk-on fares are too expensive as 'didcotdean' says, and the gap between advance fares and walk-on fares keeps growing apart when it should be closing.

[grahame]

Services between Chippenham and Bristol Temple Meads is set to rise to ^32 for a standard return, and a return from Great Bedwyn to London Paddington will come in at ^34.

From:

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/headlines/11419654._/?

Not sure I believe that - current fare is just over 11 pounds and I would expect it to not exceed 12 pounds from January.   Gazette and Herald has this online;  it's printed in the Wiltshire Times too ... 32 pounds looks like it will be right for an off peak first class ticket come 2015.     Bedwyn to Paddington at 34 pounds anytime at present is 56.50 as far as I can see ...

[TeaStew]

From:

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/headlines/11419654._/?

I had just finished reading that as it happens. I was baffled as to where they got ^32 from too! Almost tripling my commute costs! Who writes this stuff..?

Similarly the comments seem to ramble on about "the LIAR Duncan Smith". I have no idea who that is. IDS and Duncan Hames, yes.. Anyway, I usually try to ignore G&H/WT comments as they are usually just terrible.

Aside about bad quality local news and readership over...