Two-coach Oxford-London fast train

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Oxford to Paddington
119.60 7 day season
58.00 Anytime Day (Carnet 10, 522.00)
26.70 Off Peak period
24.20 Off Peak Day

Banbury
132.10 7 day season
73.00 Anytime Day
38.60 Off Peak period
28.90 Super off-peak Period
No Off Peak Day

As you can see, very little room for manoeuvre.....

[ChrisB]

Oxford/Didcot to Paddington
119.60 7 day season
58.00 Anytime Day (Carnet 10, 522.00)
26.70 Off Peak period
24.20 Off Peak Day

Bicester North
115.10 7 day season
56.20 Anytime Day
27.50 Off Peak period

Bicester Town
119.60 7 day season
58.00 Anytime Day
26.70 Off Peak period
24.20 Off Peak Day

So, in fact, the Bicester Town fares are now identical to the Oxford/Didcot fares, which frankly is unsustainable & plainly unfair. The Bicester North fares will shortly also be the same as Oxford/Didcot too.

Difficult to work out where the level of fares from Oxford Parkway will fit in to these...?? If set at the Oxford/Didcot, everyone would stick with the oxford fare simply because it'll be available either way to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) or MYB^▸ (London (Marylebone)). But Chiltern will only get a share with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) of this fare bucket, whereas if they set their own lower fare from Oxford, they'd get to keep 100%. But I can't see how they currently can? Maybe they're happy with a fare bucket share?

But I can see Didcot customers upgrading to Oxford fares as it'll give them a lot more availability, even if it isn't any quicker

[ellendune]

Oxford to Paddington
119.60 7 day season
58.00 Anytime Day (Carnet 10, 522.00)
26.70 Off Peak period
24.20 Off Peak Day

Banbury
132.10 7 day season
73.00 Anytime Day
38.60 Off Peak period
28.90 Super off-peak Period
No Off Peak Day

As you can see, very little room for manoeuvre.....

Which leads to 3 questions:

Why is it acceptable for Swindon to have higher fares than Banbury via Didcot?
Why not increase the Banbury via Didcot fares (since the obvious an best route has been Via Bicester North and High Wycombe for over 100 years) and leave the via High Wycombe fares the same?


Swindon to Paddington

227.50 7 day season
No Anytime day return available.  (^121 Anytime period)
55.00 Off peak period
44.00 Super Off peak
No Off peak day

[ChrisB]

Which leads to 3 questions:

Why is it acceptable for Swindon to have higher fares than Banbury via Didcot?

Service quality for a start. HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) x 4 an hour, every hour.
Otherwise, it's historic, going back to Network SouthEast era. That area was the recognised commuting area for London, and the Government of the day actually kept fare amounts restricted to affordable figures for commuting, while fares outside the area were unrestricted in what could be charged. Peterborough has the same problem.

It's the same with Travelcard zones. Fares within the Travelcard area are kept down by TfL^» (Transport for London - about) while fares to stations just outside have climbed further & further from fares just inside.

But Swindon will always be more expensive with their level of almost turn up & go.

Why not increase the Banbury via Didcot fares (since the obvious an best route has been Via Bicester North and High Wycombe for over 100 years) and leave the via High Wycombe fares the same?

Currently, the ticket from Banbury is valid either way to London (in fact, valid various ways from Reading too). There would rightly be uproar if the Any Permitted fare was hiked away from a 'route High Wycombe' fare, and Chiltern couldn't do it under current regulations as the fare setter.

There would be a very valid reason to price rail travel across the country by pence/pounds per mile, with off-peak fares set at a % below these fares, and Advance fares set at whatever level the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) felt they could still sell enough of them at. Otherwise, I'm a nimby, and would fight to protect my season from Banbury. It's extremely good value with the massive availability it gives you.

One could argue that Oxford fares are too low, not that Swindon fares are too high.

[ellendune]

Otherwise, it's historic, going back to Network SouthEast era. That area was the recognised commuting area for London, and the Government of the day actually kept fare amounts restricted to affordable figures for commuting, while fares outside the area were unrestricted in what could be charged. Peterborough has the same problem.

You mean that it is all managed by a London based government of commuters who cannot upset there little world at the expense of the rest of the country. 

One could argue that Oxford fares are too low, not that Swindon fares are too high.

I could live with that to some extent if it would stop my fares growing further.

There would be a very valid reason to price rail travel across the country by pence/pounds per mile, with off-peak fares set at a % below these fares, and Advance fares set at whatever level the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) felt they could still sell enough of them at.

What a very good idea, it would of course have to be phased in over a period of years. If there is a premium for using track which is in high demand than the charge per mile could be increased for that section so that is was borne equally by all users. In like fashion government or councils and PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) could subsidise the per mile rate on some routes (for all users) and these per mile rates could decrease.

I would even consider allowing a premium for non-stop high speed trains provided there was always a slower alternative. However, I recognise this might create more problems than it solves. 

Otherwise, I'm a nimby, and would fight to protect my season from Banbury. It's extremely good value with the massive availability it gives you.

That makes me feel alot better that that is what I am paying for.  I must remember that the people of Banbury are so needy that they must be supported by the people of Swindon. 

A further reflection. If fares are lower around Oxford because there is competition that are FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (and even government as franchising authority) abusing the monopoly position in Swindon and the the West where there is no competition?  If that is the case should there not be an investigation of rail fares by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)?

Sorry mods I seem to have hijacked this thread.

[ChrisB]

The only way that Swindon fares might drop is to price by the mile across the country. The North will then complain that they subsidise the South's better infrastructure, which frankly they would be.

Rail fares to the West & North of London are higher than to the South & East of London - again, it's historical. But with 4 HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) an hour every hour, don't expect Swindon fares to come down much - most other fares would rise to meet it, and produce more money to invest in railways - see the Twyford signal thread where members want even more money spent to protect against lightning strikes & extra staff just in case disruption happens

This problem won't go away until the Government realigns this country to spread businesses around the country more evenly & thus removes the pressure on people wanting to live & work in the South East. Building more houses might briefly bring prices lower, but that will just increase the pressure for more until half the country lives in a concrete southeast & the southeast resembles Hong Kong.

[Btline]

This problem won't go away until the Government realigns this country to spread businesses around the country more evenly & thus removes the pressure on people wanting to live & work in the South East. Building more houses might briefly bring prices lower, but that will just increase the pressure for more until half the country lives in a concrete southeast & the southeast resembles Hong Kong.

I agree - although we could have a whole forum on that!
Perhaps the government should stop our population going up by over 1000 people per week! Hardly sustainable when we are already the most overcrowded major country in Europe...

Regarding the Oxford fares, surely they'll have to be cheaper than the Pad fares as the journey time of 66 minutes will be slower than FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s journey time. Perhaps Chiltern will have one fares valid from Bicester or Oxford (similar to other lines like Uckfield in Sussex).

As for any hopes of getting the journey time down from Oxford, I suspect after electrification, Slough and Maidenhead stops will be added onto the Oxford fasts, keeping the journey time at 1 hour. It could be 45 minutes easily!

[JayMac]

Perhaps the government should stop our population going up by over 1000 people per week! Hardly sustainable when we are already the most overcrowded major country in Europe...

Biggest driver of that increase is births outstripping deaths. What do you suggest the government does?

A Chinese 'one child' policy?
Sterilisation?

Tongue in cheek of course.

[grahame]

Tongue in cheek of course.

Which partner is it that should have tongue in cheek?   How does that reduce the conception rate 

Oops - not in lighter side 

[Btline]

*Making alterations to Child benefit to encourage smaller families (already proposed by DWP)
*Reducing net migration to pre-2001 levels to reduce the numbers of new families (again - an aim of the gov)

Both would make a massive difference, but I agree - it's not easy thing to do.

To show how critical the situation is: the new "Ebbesfleet Garden City" announced by Osborne is almost full.
The Budget was about 18 weeks ago = ~20,000 extra people at least. It will only have 15,000 homes. So depending on the size of each households, it will be be full sometime before the end of the year. (and before a single house is started, let alone completed!)

I think this discussion is swaying - although it does have implications for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and the railway in general. How do we cope with the rapidly increasing population with limited funds available? 2 car Turbos will not be enough!

[didcotdean]

On the first train again from Oxford on a Sunday, which is now timed a little earlier, leaving Didcot at 9:02. Three carriages. Standing room only on departure. I was only going to Reading, where it was then totally rammed leaving about 100 on the platform with no room to get on. People still heading for it off the transfer deck as it stays there a few minutes. I doubt (m)any could be able to get on at Slough.

Quite a few people heading off to Wembley judging by the various NFL shirts.

[TaplowGreen]

Somebody raised this on Twitter when they got stuck on a similarly rammed 2 coach Turbo from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) yesterday.......the somewhat bizarre response was that running more frequent 2 coach trains meant that more people had a chance of getting on!

[grahame]

Somebody raised this on Twitter when they got stuck on a similarly rammed 2 coach Turbo from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-OXF^» (Oxford - next trains) yesterday.......the somewhat bizarre response was that running more frequent 2 coach trains meant that more people had a chance of getting on!

I'm not sure it's bizarre but it may come across as provocative.   Portsmouth - Cardiff was a handful of longer trains when loco hauled by class 33 diesels.   Upon arrival of 158s, the train length dropped, the frequency increased, and passenger numbers rocketed.  Give me a Sunday choice on the TransWilts of 5 trains of 1 car v 1 train of 5 cars, guess which I'll go for.

[Rhydgaled]

Perhaps the government should stop our population going up by over 1000 people per week! Hardly sustainable when we are already the most overcrowded major country in Europe...

Biggest driver of that increase is births outstripping deaths. What do you suggest the government does?

A Chinese 'one child' policy?
Sterilisation?

Tongue in cheek of course.

Which partner is it that should have tongue in cheek?   How does that reduce the conception rate 

Oops - not in lighter side 

Indeed, not in the lighter side, and off-topic too. I think the subject requires serious discussion though, just maybe not here. I will agree it's not easy thing to do, but personally I believe a predict and provide approach to human populations cannot go on forever and the sooner a resolution can be found the better.

I think this discussion is swaying - although it does have implications for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and the railway in general. How do we cope with the rapidly increasing population with limited funds available? 2 car Turbos will not be enough!

Also, how are we supposed to attact modal shift to public transport when simply maintaining the same percentage mode share is going to fill up our rail system?