Rail fare prices - the basis of increases (merged ongoing discussion)

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

On top of that the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) would have an interest in maintaining the value of their assets, not to mention trying to procure durable trains in the first place that will retain their value better.

For the *entire* length of their franchise? I don't think so....they'd maintain them up until there were a few years left & then cut costs drastically & probably leave them in areally crap state for whoever took over....

[bemmy]

On top of that the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) would have an interest in maintaining the value of their assets, not to mention trying to procure durable trains in the first place that will retain their value better.

For the *entire* length of their franchise? I don't think so....they'd maintain them up until there were a few years left & then cut costs drastically & probably leave them in areally crap state for whoever took over....

Not if the price paid by the new franchisee was based on the market value of the assets, taking into account their condition and expected remaining useful life. I am assuming that some regulatory system would be in place to ensure this, rather than the outgoing franchise holder being able to charge what they like for clapped out stock.

[inspector_blakey]

Don't you think that the rest of Europe might possibly be correct in thinking that transport infrastructure is vital to the long-term economic situation of a nation?

Yes. I thought that was srtongly implied by what I wrote.

However it was better in British Rail days.... trains were faster, more punctual, more comfortable, didn't break down so often, and fares were much lower in real terms.

Hmm. From what little I remember of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) (I was fairly young when the railways were privatized) it wasn't very good. Can you actually back up those assertions with anything concrete or are they just observations made through the rose-tinted nostalgic spectacles. Oh, and before you point out that a few trains a day were faster than now because they made fewer station calls then yes, that's true. The thing is those extra calls are needed now because there are many more people using the trains. If BR were still running the system and had achieved the same passenger growth as has happened under privatization (which seems entirely possible) I reckon they'd have done the same thing. To paraphrase Mark Hopwood's interview in Rail a few weeks ago, no point running a train non-stop to Cardiff or Bristol half-empty just to please the cranks when it's running past places like Didcot and Swindon leaving passengers behind and putting pressure on other services.

[John R]

I'm sure it's more than "a few cranks" who are unhappy that journey times from South Wales to London are 20 minutes (and 20%)  longer than 30 years ago. Though as time passes, many people can't even remember or imagine what a good service used to exist. Given we often hear the economic benefit of each 1 minute saved in journey times between (say) Leeds and London, it's strange that the same benefits don't seem to apply in the West and Wales.

As first delivered the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s had around 288 second class seats, and now have over 400 standard, so it's not surprising that they need to make additional stops to avoid the accusation of being half empty.

[ChrisB]

Hmm. From what little I remember of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) (I was fairly young when the railways were privatized) it wasn't very good. Can you actually back up those assertions with anything concrete or are they just observations made through the rose-tinted nostalgic spectacles. Oh, and before you point out that a few trains a day were faster than now because they made fewer station calls then yes, that's true.

Agreed totally. THe other thing people forget / don't realise is thar there are many more trains running on the same network. To achieve the same performance now that BR achieved, the infrastructure would have needed serious upgrade - probably 4-tracks from Didcot to Cardiff. Would BR have been able to achieve that, as well as the incease in train miles?

I seriously doubt it.

There has also been a large decrease under privatisation of major train crashes, which I think you'll find were more frequent under BR. Definitely a case of rose-tinted glasses, methinks.

[paul7575]

The headline fast trains people quote often ran only once or twice a day in each direction as well.  On my patch, Waterloo - Southampton non-stop expresses are sometimes quoted, but I supect missing out the peak calls at Airport Parkway and Winchester wouldn't be aceptable to passengers nowadays, and you can no longer assume everyone is going to Waterloo, the way places like Basingstoke have developed. 

Same as Reading I guess, which supposedly has a large inward commute from the west, so trains have to stop.

Someone worked out a few months back that the current Waterloo - Exeter service is actually much better than the days of the so called 'Atlantic Coast Express' which ran once a day, despite the modern service being practically an all stations stopper west of Salisbury...

Paul

[willc]

There also seem to be some reverse rose-tinted glasses on too (if such a thing is possible) - and I say that as someone who doesn't get all dewy-eyed about BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) or nationalisation.

BR's sectorised business structure, developed from the early 1980s, was the model for similar restructuring of railways across Europe - even in 'not invented here' France. So that must have been a very good idea.

Does anyone still seriously think Network Rail is a privatised company - the Transport Secretary doesn't, see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7815.msg78540#msg78540

Remember its privatised predecessor, the property company with the national rail network attached? Not a great success, I seem to recall.

Most of the senior managers who have guided Network Rail and the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) over the past 15 years were trained by BR - there is nothing comparable to the breadth and depth of the old BR graduate training scheme these days.

For all the growth in numbers of passengers since the mid-1990s, BR could point to plenty of achievements of its own - eg on the Cotswold Line, the first six months or so of the Turbo timetable in 1993 produced a 25 per cent rise in passengers and a 32 per cent rise in revenue. Leading eventually, due to the increased number of trains on the line, to redoubling, which has been driven by effectively public sector Network Rail, not dynamic thrusting private FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (but I'm not going to get into franchise lengths, Chiltern, etc, here. That has been well aired elsewhere).

Before the Lawson bubble burst, Network South East was covering its operating costs out of revenue on the back of rising passenger numbers, despite the widely-held belief that you are bound to lose money on commuter services.

And BR managed to reopen a number of passenger lines in England, something that the private sector seems unable to do. It's probably thanks to NSE^▸ (Network South East) that there is still a route between Oxford and Bicester for Chiltern to improve. The quadruple tracking between Wantage Road and Challow (and further west on the way to Avonmouth coal terminal) was also a BR project.

There has also been a large decrease under privatisation of major train crashes.

Hmm. Still seem to have happened at a fair old rate since the mid-1990s, not least on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), where there hadn't been what I would call a "major" accident for a very long time until Southall in 1997, rapidly and sadly followed by Ladbroke Grove. Grayrigg was only three years ago.

As first delivered the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s had around 288 second class seats, and now have over 400 standard, so it's not surprising that they need to make additional stops to avoid the accusation of being half empty.

And when they were delivered, the populations of places like Reading, Swindon, Didcot and North Bristol were far smaller and people's travel habits were different. The world has changed and so have the trains, whoever owns them. Though BR might well have extended NSE's area out to Swindon (reopening Wantage Road on the way) and given it something more akin to a Peterborough-type mix of services than what HST-dependent Swindon has at the moment.

[ChrisB]

to redoubling, which has been driven by effectively public sector Network Rail, not dynamic thrusting private FGW^▸ (First Great Western)

Sorry, Will, I'll call you on that. If it wasn't for FGW's apalling performance for which it got rightly fined, this was NRs^» (Network Rail - home page) 'penance' for their part in the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) guilty verdict. If FGW performance had been over 90%, there is NO way that NR would have even considered the work.

And BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) managed to reopen a number of passenger lines in England, something that the private sector seems unable to do.

But the private sector *has* re-doubled an awful lot of miles that BR failed to do in the 80s / early 90s.

It's probably thanks to NSE^▸ (Network South East) that there is still a route between Oxford and Bicester for Chiltern to improve.

More likely the MOD depot at Bicester kept that open!

And when they were delivered, the populations of places like Reading, Swindon, Didcot and North Bristol were far smaller and people's travel habits were different.

I presume you mean "originally delivered"?.....


Edit note: One quote mark amended, for clarity. CfN.

[willc]

Sorry, Will, I'll call you on that. If it wasn't for FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s apalling performance for which it got rightly fined, this was NRs^» (Network Rail - home page) 'penance' for their part in the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) guilty verdict. If FGW performance had been over 90%, there is NO way that NR would have even considered the work.

Very expensive way to do penance. And by the time the funding was authorised, Cotswold Line and overall FGW performance was a lot more adjacent to 90 per cent than the lows of early 2007 or 2008, so why bother spending ^60-odd million?

Probably because there was bit more to it, in terms of long-standing capacity and performance issues that were well understood, long before FGW's performance plumbed the depths.

A couple of facts to bear in mind here, pre-dating the 2006 and 2007 timetable changes and the ensuing problems.
1. The Network Change Notice proposing some form of Cotswold Line redoubling was issued by Network Rail on October 2, 2006.
2. It was discussed with the councils and CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) representatives at a Cotswolds & Malverns Transport Partnership meeting on November 17, 2006 and at a further meeting on January 8, 2007.

And BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) managed to reopen a number of passenger lines in England, something that the private sector seems unable to do.

But the private sector *has* re-doubled an awful lot of miles that BR failed to do in the 80s / early 90s.

Do you mean Chiltern, using a unique franchise model? Name me one other instance in England that has not been led by Network Rail? And Chiltern is borrowing the money for its latest schemes on what is effectively a mortgage from... Network Rail. I was talking about new passenger services there, not redoubling. Wales and Scotland have seen reopenings - plus redoubling in the case of the GSW line in Scotland. As you noted previously, there were rather fewer trains out there so rather less need for redoubling back in the 80s/90s, while after the 1992 election, privatisation put everything else on the railway on hold anyway.

I presume you mean "originally delivered"?.....

No, I meant delivered, why would I need to say originally? They were only delivered once.

More likely the MOD depot at Bicester kept that open!

Don't doubt that played a part but the presence of the existing passenger service and the potential for growth on that section (as seen in the past year with the enhanced service) will have made the maths look an awful lot better for Chiltern, who, even so, have had to cut back from the intended full redoubling to keep control of the costs of Oxford-Bicester.

[ChrisB]

Very expensive way to do penance. And by the time the funding was authorised, Cotswold Line and overall FGW^▸ (First Great Western) performance was a lot more adjacent to 90 per cent than the lows of early 2007 or 2008, so why bother spending ^60-odd million?

If CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) approval had been 6 months or more later, I have heard comment from NR^» (Network Rail - home page) managers that it may not have met regulatory approval, with the money going elsewhere. It was a close call.

2. It was discussed with the councils and CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) representatives at a Cotswolds & Malverns Transport Partnership meeting on November 17, 2006 and at a further meeting on January 8, 2007.

I was referring to regulatory approval for spending the money, not whether it was FGW that first had the idea. It was however, FGW's apalling performance that triggered the business case improvement for redoubling.

Name me one other instance in England that has not been led by Network Rail? And Chiltern is borrowing the money for its latest schemes on what is effectively a mortgage from... Network Rail.

Fair comment. Chiltern are only borrowing from NR this time because it's cheaper than going to the wholesale money markets which as you know, are suffering badly at the moment. Both EG1 & EG2 was paid for outside of NR money.

More likely the MOD depot at Bicester kept that open!

Don't doubt that played a part but the presence of the existing passenger service and the potential for growth on that section (as seen in the past year with the enhanced service) will have made the maths look an awful lot better for Chiltern, who, even so, have had to cut back from the intended full redoubling to keep control of the costs of Oxford-Bicester.

Bicester Village has been the main reason patronage has pickred up - and is the ONLY reason that Chiltern are doing the work - the profits from the BV journeys are huge. If it were only the Oxford-MYB^▸ (London (Marylebone)) journeys Chiltern had to offer, the business case doesn't stack & they wouldn't be doing the work.
The bus service was coping well with the Bicester-Oxford commute until FGW undercut them to encourage use of the train.
That line would have gone years before FGW came along if it wasn't for the MOD.

[willc]

I was referring to regulatory approval for spending the money, not whether it was FGW^▸ (First Great Western) that first had the idea. It was however, FGW's apalling performance that triggered the business case improvement for redoubling.

Please explain how I, or anyone else, is supposed to extrapolate from the following quote that that you were referring to regulatory approval? Which is a decision made independently of Network Rail anyway and doesn't seem to have a lot to do with penance, which doesn't strike me as the kind of concept the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) devotes a lot of time to thinking about in relation to business cases.

Sorry, Will, I'll call you on that. If it wasn't for FGW's apalling performance for which it got rightly fined, this was NRs^» (Network Rail - home page) 'penance' for their part in the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) guilty verdict. If FGW performance had been over 90%, there is NO way that NR would have even considered the work.

Sorry Chris, but someone, somewhere, in Network Rail clearly thought there was a case for Cotswold Line redoubling to be made before FGW's performance collapsed, otherwise they wouldn't have started the process months back in 2006. I and others have had plenty of heavily delayed journeys before and since the 2006-7 and 2007-8 timetable changes and the fallout from those.

What happened during those periods provided plenty more evidence for that case, but there's no getting away from the fact that the process was under way already, nor that it has not been led by the private sector, in common with almost any other enhancement project going, bar Chiltern's Evergreen schemes.

[JayMac]

Just looking at a few sample fares now that the increases have been loaded into booking engines for travel after 2nd Jan 2011.

Bristol Temple Meads - London Terminals:

• All Standard Class Super & Off Peak fares unchanged
• Standard Class Anytime Return (SOR). Current ^159.00. New ^169.00. +6.3% (same increase for Anytime Single ^79.50 to ^84.50)
• First Class Off Peak Return (FSR^▸ (First Scot Rail)). Current ^154.00. New ^169.00. +9.75%
• Standard Class Advance fares appear unchanged.
• First Class Advance fares currently ^23.00, ^30.00, ^37.00, ^44.00 increase to ^25.00, ^32.50, ^40.50, ^48.00. +8.9% on average.

Bristol Temple Meads - Taunton:

• Standard Class Anytime Day Single/Return (SDS/SDR). Current ^10.00/^18.20. New ^10.60/19.30. +6%
• Standard Class Off Peak Day Return (CDR^▸ (Off Peak Day Return [ticket type] (formerly 'Cheap Day'))). Current ^10.40. New ^11.00. +5.75%
• Standard Class Off Peak Return (SVR). Current ^16.40. New ^17.50. +6.7%

And one of my regular fares:

Shirehampton - London Terminals (route: Warmster/Salsbry):
Off Peak Day Return (CDR). Current ^27.10. New ^29.50 +8.88561%. Ouch 


If anyone wants me to check a fare relevant to them then post the details and current price you pay and I'll endeavour to check it. Takes a bit of cross-referencing between the current Fares Manual(NFM07) and booking engines, as NFM08 is yet to be published.

[TerminalJunkie]

Could be worse - try getting a first class ticket from Leeds to West Kirby:
http://www.pyromancer.net/railways/cce-tip/a-million-pounds-to-liverpool-2010.jpg

[Brucey]

Having a look at my regular routes, there have been a few changes but nothing too unexpected.

Bristol TM^‡(resolve) - Havant still remains cheaper than Bristol TM - Cosham, however the increase is ^1.55 for Havant (or 6.6%, inc. railcard discount) or ^2.15 (8.9%) for Cosham.

Advance fares for Bristol - Portsmouth Stns are now ^4.60-^20 (with railcard) instead of ^4.60-^18.50.  A ^20 fare could probably be bettered with Off Peak Singles by splitting the journey at WMN^» (Warminster - next trains), SAL and SOU then using the ESL trick on the last leg.

SVB line only fares appear unchanged - which is very good news.

[JayMac]

Could be worse - try getting a first class ticket from Leeds to West Kirby:
http://www.pyromancer.net/railways/cce-tip/a-million-pounds-to-liverpool-2010.jpg

That little bug appears to have been fixed now. I noticed a similar 1st Class fare last week for Bristol to Dublin. It was slightly cheaper than Leeds to West Kirby at ^998,999.00!!

SVB line only fares appear unchanged - which is very good news.

First one I checked!