As the recession bites ... fares might drop.

[whole diary]

[RailCornwall]

Plan to keep fares rising denied  
 
The government has rejected a request from train companies to make sure fares keep rising, the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) has learned. Half of Britain's range of train fares are regulated and those are allowed to rise by 1% above the rate of inflation. But on that basis, if there is deflation of more than 1%, it would mean that those fares have to be cut.

Transport Minister Lord Adonis is expected to announce that the formula will remain in that case, which could cost the train companies millions.
 
more ...

[Timmer]

Government sources say they accept train companies could suffer, but they say they have to protect the interests of passengers, who are already paying the highest ticket prices in Europe.

Especially in election year!

[devon_metro]

And it's the government that means fares need to rise. Such a corrupt franchise system!!

[G.Uard]

This is interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/feb/25/rail-ticket-prices

[Btline]

It's disgraceful that operators could even be thinking about making cuts.

Gosh, perhaps they'll make a little less profit next year - boo hoo.

[devon_metro]

Isn't this a perfect time to nationalise the railways?

Think of the money the government can rake in to pay for its bank spending spree... No shareholders either...

[thetrout]

I read in The Times this morning that if a Rail Franchise Operator is forced to surrender it's franchise, then a temporary nationalisation of the parts of the railways may be on the cards

See

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5799883.ece

or (3rd Paragraph)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5799500.ece

[Btline]

Isn't this a perfect time to nationalise the railways?

Think of the money the government can rake in to pay for its bank spending spree... No shareholders either...

In some ways I agree - we have now had most of the benefits of privatisation (i.e. service enhancements, new rolling stock). The exception is Chiltern, of course, who will be better than any BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) company.

[vacman]

if you read the times today you will also have seen the cons of this idea, more job losses, less trains and higher un-regulated fares!

[G.Uard]

Isn't this a perfect time to nationalise the railways?

Think of the money the government can rake in to pay for its bank spending spree... No shareholders either...

In some ways I agree - we have now had most of the benefits of privatisation (i.e. service enhancements, new rolling stock). The exception is Chiltern, of course, who will be better than any BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) company.

Chust vot do you expekt?  

[thetrout]

Chust vot do you expekt?  

Nice German Expression there

[Btline]

if you read the times today you will also have seen the cons of this idea, more job losses, less trains and higher un-regulated fares!

I did - another con is shorter off peak trains, meaning that some OFF PEAK travellers will have to STAND.

[Zoe]

Isn't this a perfect time to nationalise the railways?

In theory yes but we are dealing with New Labour.  They had the chance to keep South Eastern as a public company after Connex lost the franchise but elected to reprivatise it.

[G.Uard]

Do you seriously think that the party who foisted privatisation upon the industry would have done any differently?  It's all down to political expediency.  Pointless holding individual parties up for scrutiny.  Increasingly, they seem to be all tarred with the same brush.

[Zoe]

Do you seriously think that the party who foisted privatisation upon the industry would have done any differently?

No but the current party in power could have renationalised if they had been in real socialist party.