Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 12:55 28 Mar 2024
* Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Formal end to carrying coffins by BR (link)

Train RunningCancelled
10:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
11:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
11:23 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
11:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
11:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Additional 12:07 Bristol Temple Meads to Gloucester
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
13:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:26 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:41 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
11:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
12:32 Exeter Central to Okehampton
12:46 Avonmouth to Weston-Super-Mare
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:07 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:26 Okehampton to Exeter Central
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
Delayed
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:29 Weymouth to Gloucester
11:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
12:27 Okehampton to Exeter Central
12:28 Plymouth to Gunnislake
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 12:57:25 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[151] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[85] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[58] Return of the BRUTE?
[49] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[46] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[36] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Big rise in rail fares in the New Year  (Read 3011 times)
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7743



View Profile
« on: November 14, 2020, 17:48:13 »

.....perhaps not the best way to attract people back onto the trains when the World returns to something like normal?

https://www.cityam.com/commuters-face-hike-in-rail-fares-in-new-year/
Logged
Surrey 455
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1229


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2020, 00:19:14 »

Quote
For the first time in eight years, fares could rise by more than the rate of inflation when the new prices kick in next year.

I thought that the annual increase had been above the rate of inflation or RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) for many years now.
Logged
froome
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 901


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2020, 07:01:17 »

Quote
For the first time in eight years, fares could rise by more than the rate of inflation when the new prices kick in next year.

I thought that the annual increase had been above the rate of inflation or RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) for many years now.

So did I.

As the quote is from CityAM, perhaps this is specifically referring to fares into London?
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7743



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2020, 07:07:27 »

Quote
For the first time in eight years, fares could rise by more than the rate of inflation when the new prices kick in next year.

I thought that the annual increase had been above the rate of inflation or RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) for many years now.

So did I.

As the quote is from CityAM, perhaps this is specifically referring to fares into London?

CPI is the official measure of inflation.

RPI is preferred for these purposes because as it's generally higher, it allows fares to be increased at a higher rate.

As a rule of thumb, the Government use CPI/RPI interchangeably to its advantage depending on whether it's paying out or collecting.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2020, 07:43:04 »

CPI is the official measure of inflation.
RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) is preferred for these purposes because as it's generally higher, it allows fares to be increased at a higher rate.

As a rule of thumb, the Government use CPI/RPI interchangeably to its advantage depending on whether it's paying out or collecting.

From Full Fact

Quote
"Rail companies have, for the third year in a row, held average fare increases below inflation at 2.7%."
Rail Delivery Group, 2 January 2020

"Call for rethink on rail fares after latest above-inflation increase"
Guardian, 2 January 2020

The new year saw certain rail fares rise by an average of 2.7%, which has been simultaneously hailed as "below inflation" and criticised as "above inflation".

Inflation is the average amount by which things we buy increase in price each year.

The confusing reality is there isn?t just one measure of inflation. The 2.7% increase in some rail fares is above the main measure of inflation (CPIH), but below another (RPI) which is generally considered less accurate and reliable. The same, unreliable measure is used to set the maximum level certain types of rail fare can increase by on average each year.

So a 2.7% increase in your fare is likely to be higher than inflation, or in other words, rail fares are increasing by more than other goods and services, on average.

Early in the last decade, government policy was to increase rail fares each year by a small percentage (I recall 1% or 2%) above [their] inflations rate in order to step up over time the percentage of railway income from fares to that the passengers were more paying for themselves and less being subsidised by the taxpayer, but this policy caused significant complaint and (as I recall) the extra bit often got pulled back to show that the government looked after commuters while perhaps using the faster rising indicator of costs to still have prices rise in reality. 

The matter has been further complicated by the fact that only around half the fares come under these regulations (regulated fares) with TOCs (Train Operating Company) free to set others.  Because regulated and deregulated fares are available for the same journey (e.g. off peak and season ticket regulated, any time, super off peak and advance unregulated, Chippenham to London example) the flexibility on unregulated tends to be fenced in by the regulated fares - for example, no point  in offering a "super off peak" more expensive than an off peak, and a limit to how expensive you can make an "any time" return as it approaches the cost of a season ticket even for just a single peak round trip.  So in practise unregulated fares rise by a similar amount - also a good opportunity for TOCs to raise there fares and have the government take the rap, rather than raising them in the May or September windows.

This coming round it rather appears that the "inflation + 1%" may actually happen ... the rail minister Chris Heaton Harris told us 10 days ago (SWR» (South Western Railway - about) Stakeholder conference) and previously about a month ago (GWR (Great Western Railway) Stakeholder conference) that fare income for the future and ideas that need signing off ((different to the normal annual cycle)) are currently held by the Treasury's annual spending review, a process which stops decisions on a lot of work done with regard to changes to the future fare regime, and those decisions will be stopped until late November.   The theory is that the rail industry needs 8 weeks to implement changes in fare systems, so that there is little chance of anything except "inflation"+1% in January.  In practise the rail industry has shown (e.g. timetables) that it can change at much shorter notice if it needs/wants to badly enough.

The rail minister indicated an element of frustration that so much hard work done (carnet tickets, 3 day seasons, etc) in preparation for a changing metric was parked up just at the moment.  Conspiracy theorists might suggest that this is a very convenient thing for the government, who's long term political objectives have been to increase the proportion of rail income from the passenger, and this year with so much else going on and so many fewer people travelling can step fares in what they consider the right direction without the usual screams from people actually commuting each day - just a muted cry of pain this time as people are furloughed or working from home.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2020, 08:02:03 »

Adding a wider comment too.  The current fare system was overcomplex and in may ways outdated prior to the pandemic, and a great deal of work by the RDG(resolve) and others was done in recent years to look for ways to make it fitter for future purpose (and that needs a definition of "purpose") with a requirement that a new system was to (overall) generate the same level of income.   Pressing the people doing the work, they were actually looking for th same average income per journey and not the same total income - in other words, a new system which brought a 25% growth in rail passenger numbers each of whom paid 25% less was NOT an acceptable outcome within their mandate.

Current talk in the micro is of bringing in fares which plug gaps (carnet, part time season) and complicate the system further, but in the macro is about simplifying the system.  No-one has yet explained to me how these two elements are compatible.   There is also a fear that "simplifying" the system is a sound-bite under which all manner of policies could be taken forward and miss the headlines.   For example,  if you have "Any time", "Off peak" and "Super off Peak" tickets and scrap one or two levels, which do you scrap?  Do you simply leave "Any Time" tickets as the only option, with the justification that changing metrics mean the peak has largely been flattened, or do you say that everything is now "Off Peak". 

Some footnotes:
1. TOCs (Train Operating Company) cannot under EMA/ERMA set even unregulated fares at present - Govt approval of changes needed
2. Other measures such as the number of Advance tickets available can influence the average fare but I have seen no data on changes to availability bands and levels.  Some very odd effects from this method of selling advanced seats - e.g. where a service is seriously degraded due to engineering and partial bus replacement, the capacity and number of advance fares is likely be lower and so the average fare for a poorer service will rise.
3. "Annual fare rise of x%" refers to a basket of fares averaged out - individual fares may go up to a greater or lesser extent, both to even out the new fares to the nearest 10p and also to allow fare setters within a region / basket to make adjustments to even out anomalies or to load increases where they feel the market can best stand them.
4. Other terms change around tickets, quietly, too which can have a dramatic effect on the prices individual pay - the movement of the time at which "peak" ends for example, the removal of an old concession (Pewsey a couple of years back) or the moving of a train from 19:03 back to 18:56 off Paddington ... 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 08:08:21 by grahame » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7743



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2020, 08:54:30 »

I think the point is that the Government/railways now have to confront a phenomenon that they have never anticipated or modelled - a significant, rapid and sustained reduction in demand.

They have largely always taken their market, and their customers for granted.

I'm not entirely convinced that an above inflation rise in prices is the most effective way to address that and get people back on board, although to be fair, with the changes in working patterns and practices which are emerging and becoming embedded, that ship may already have sailed.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2020, 08:59:46 by TaplowGreen » Logged
rogerw
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1336



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2020, 10:04:57 »

The article could be referring to TfL» (Transport for London - about) fares which the Government has insisted are increased above the rate of inflation as part of the bail out package
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2020, 11:46:33 »

TG's posts (and the reason I keep "liking" them!) deal with an important issue. Simply increasing fares by the "usual" amount this time around just because it is what always happens may not be good for future railway passenger numbers and revenue.

As we have seen from news reports, when lockdowns ease and/ot other countries start to allow UK (United Kingdom) residents back in, there tends to be a surge in airline bookings. This is what happens when reduced customer figures are caused by suppressed demand. I suspect the railway has very little suppressed demand by comparison, and a lot more reduced demand.

When demand is suppressed, all a transport operator has to do is say "Were open for business again" and their customers will come flocking back. Where demand is reduced that is not good enough, and steps need to ne taken to woo passengers back to the service. Charging them higher fares is unlikely to help with that quest.

I can understand the Treasurys rationale that they are seeking to recoup some of the subsidy they have been shovelling out to keep the railways running at all in the pandemic, but in the longer term they could find that  any action that results in a failure to increase passenger numbers may result in additional subsidy requirements in future years.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2020, 11:48:24 »

Quote
For the first time in eight years, fares could rise by more than the rate of inflation when the new prices kick in next year.

I thought that the annual increase had been above the rate of inflation or RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) for many years now.

So did I.

As the quote is from CityAM, perhaps this is specifically referring to fares into London?

CPI is the official measure of inflation.

RPI is preferred for these purposes because as it's generally higher, it allows fares to be increased at a higher rate.

As a rule of thumb, the Government use CPI/RPI interchangeably to its advantage depending on whether it's paying out or collecting.

That's mostly not true. CPI is ideed the preferred official measure, but ONS» (Office for National Statistics - website) have been working on alternatives (CPIH) to include owners' housing costs. As NSO put it, "the RPI is a legacy measure of UK (United Kingdom) inflation that continues to be published because of its use in long-term contracts and index-linked gilts." Among those contracts are a lot of company pensions (it's written into the trust deed for mine)  and rail franchises.

Until about ten years ago, RPI was simply cited in franchise agreements. Newer ones include a provision to replace by by something else, not specified, but only by mutual agreement. One big problem here is that rail pricing in national, so changing franchises one at a time isn't feasible. And in any case whatever happens will be put off until it all gets Williamsed.

As to the various claims about average fares, how do you average fares - and are we (or they) talking about the increase in average fares or the average of increases? There are a lot of possibilities, as you can look at fares paid or prices quoted, weighting by numbers bought or something else, dividing by distance or some other factor, and if no-one's looking (and you've been told what the headline has to be) you can sneak in a more imaginative method. Of course, no statistic given without its basis of calculation being known is worth much anyway.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2020, 14:42:26 »

TG's posts (and the reason I keep "liking" them!) deal with an important issue. Simply increasing fares by the "usual" amount this time around just because it is what always happens may not be good for future railway passenger numbers and revenue.

Totally agree ... but no-ones going to loose their job for doing the usual thing, no-ones going to dies because of doing the usual thing, so why would anyone want to stick their neck out and authorise something different? "No one ever got fired for specifying IBM" after all.  Mind you, IBM station (yes, there was one!) has been mothballed.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2020, 15:19:33 »

TG's posts (and the reason I keep "liking" them!) deal with an important issue. Simply increasing fares by the "usual" amount this time around just because it is what always happens may not be good for future railway passenger numbers and revenue.

Totally agree ... but no-ones going to loose their job for doing the usual thing, no-ones going to dies because of doing the usual thing, so why would anyone want to stick their neck out and authorise something different? "No one ever got fired for specifying IBM" after all.  Mind you, IBM station (yes, there was one!) has been mothballed.

No-one going to loose their own job for doing the usual thing. 
Logged
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2020, 10:57:52 »

TG's posts (and the reason I keep "liking" them!) deal with an important issue. Simply increasing fares by the "usual" amount this time around just because it is what always happens may not be good for future railway passenger numbers and revenue.

Totally agree ... but no-ones going to loose their job for doing the usual thing, no-ones going to dies because of doing the usual thing, so why would anyone want to stick their neck out and authorise something different? "No one ever got fired for specifying IBM" after all.  Mind you, IBM station (yes, there was one!) has been mothballed.

No-one going to loose their own job for doing the usual thing. 

That might depend on how ypu define it.

I can think of a situation where an industry full of people were happily doing their own jobs, with both management and unions resistant to change, taking the attitude " we run things this way because we've always run things this way"

And then Ernie Marples and Richard Beeching came along...
Logged
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7743



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2020, 11:43:15 »

TG's posts (and the reason I keep "liking" them!) deal with an important issue. Simply increasing fares by the "usual" amount this time around just because it is what always happens may not be good for future railway passenger numbers and revenue.

Totally agree ... but no-ones going to loose their job for doing the usual thing, no-ones going to dies because of doing the usual thing, so why would anyone want to stick their neck out and authorise something different? "No one ever got fired for specifying IBM" after all.  Mind you, IBM station (yes, there was one!) has been mothballed.

No-one going to loose their own job for doing the usual thing. 

That might depend on how ypu define it.

I can think of a situation where an industry full of people were happily doing their own jobs, with both management and unions resistant to change, taking the attitude " we run things this way because we've always run things this way"

And then Ernie Marples and Richard Beeching came along...

.......indeed, I can think of a (not too dissimilar) situation where an industry full of people were happily doing their own jobs, with both management and unions resistant to change, taking the attitude " we run things this way because we've always run things this way"

..........and then COVID came along and an awful lot of people realised they didn't need to commute/travel for work or business any more.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2020, 12:49:02 »

Things are very different now though.

In the middle of the 20th century, most people agreed that private motoring was the future. But since the 1990's cities have been slowly squeezing cars out, and this process is likely to accelerate as the infrastructure that accommodated them crumbles and is not replaced. Urban motorways are a thing of the past.

New roads are still being built between cities though (astonishingly these schemes are almost universally and uncritically referred to as 'improvements'). But where do these roads lead? More and more, motorists will end up parking on the edge of town in a park-and-ride, completing their journey by public transport. More and more people will start to wonder if it is a good idea to invest a huge sum of money in 12 square metres of rapidly-depreciating bent tinwork that can't even take them where they want to go.

COVID-19 and the climate emergency will change lots of things. But people will still move around for business and pleasure, and in the medium to long term rail can play an increasingly important role in allowing them to do this. It will need to evolve, and it will need to re-learn what 'flexibility' is.

Just as energy is becoming more complex and localised, so is transport. Cars are not going to go away, but just as oil has lost its crown among energy sources so the motor car is losing its primacy as a form of transport as personal e-mobility, cycling and walking gain priority. COVID-19 is a setback for public transport, but one that it can largely recover from.
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page