Richard Wilson to present documentary about today's railways.

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

A fairly comprehensive and balanced programme I thought. Nice to see the issue of the "Byzantine, Kafka-esque" fares structure and the problems with TVMs^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) given coverage.

Nearly all critical points had responses from the industry, although at times they do appear to be defending the indefensible. If they TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) truly believed what they were saying then they'd have no problem with documentary makers filming on trains or stations. Having to do so surreptitiously gives the impression they have something to hide.

I note from the credits that Christian Wolmar was a consultant on the programme. It was also nice to see my hero, () Barry Doe, getting some air time!

And Mr Meldrew acquitted himself rather well, I thought.

Finally: "Buying the correct ticket is pretty straightforward", says ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here). "B*ll*cks", says I.

[inspector_blakey]

but I worry when I read things like "Buying the correct ticket is pretty straightforward";  the people who designed and run the system would love to think that it is, but they're so used to their own system that they overlook how daunting it can be to the newcomer.

I wonder if the person who came up with that soundbite actually believed it... I know what I'm doing for the most part, and after several years of practise I do find choosing the right ticket fairly straightforward most of the time. But, crucially, not always, and I must know many times more about the system than the average user.

You mention the people who "designed" the system. Part of the problem, I would submit, is precisely that the system hasn't been designed. It based around BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))'s old fares structure (which, frankly, wasn't all that straightforward in the first place) and has developed organically from there. Once you have many different TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) all adding their own operator-specific advance purchase tickets, setting prices on different inter-available flows and imposing differing levels of price increase every year, you're bound to end up with the chaotic "structure" we have now. But it seems that no-one is willing to grasp the nettle, start from a clean sheet and design a new structure from the beginning. Maybe the complexity of the task is too daunting, but I suppose one method would be simply to charge by difference, with a different rate per mile for peak/off-peak/advance. That doesn't remove the complexity of different flows, often logically,  having different "peak" times (or none at all) but it's a start.

Whenever this is brought up, ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) will no doubt point out the September 2008 fares "simplification", but in reality all they did was give a whole bunch of tickets the same name. As far as I'm aware there was no significant reduction in the number of different fares lurking out there.

[willc]

balanced

Where were all the people who have perfectly satisfactory rail journeys at reasonable fares then? Didn't they have time for them? Or was it because they would have spoiled their thesis and therefore weren't deemed of interest?

[JayMac]

Oh, come on. It was balanced in the sense that ATOCs^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) responses to the criticisms were given air time. You wouldn't expect an investigative documentary to be titled "Train Journeys from Heaven and Hell" would you?

Vaguely amused by a member of the fourth estate espousing the need for balancing views from happy passengers in this sort of documentary. Do your fellow journalists in the mainstream print media ever seek out these views when writing a critical piece about rail travel?

[eightf48544]

Even Victor enjoyed his First Class trip from Leeds pity train was "ontime @ 9 down"

Thought guy at KX asking about filming permits was an interesting snippet.

[ChrisB]

It was certainly about as balanced as it could be - although correctly raising the question about why maintenance is the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is ther dearest in the EU^» (European Union - about), it didn't go looking for any answers.....so not satisfying really.

[anthony215]

certainly enjoyed watching this, had a laugh about the jobsworth at kings cross

[Bob_Blakey]

I was very disappointed with the programme; I do not think it added very much at all to the sum total of our knowledge concerning the state of Britain's railways.

The criticism of the ticketing system was unsurprising and to some degree justified. However I think some previous contributors to this thread are confusing the terms 'correct' & 'cheapest'; getting a ticket that is valid on a particular service is in my view simple but you might end up paying more than is strictly necessary.

The segment about overcrowded trains during the morning rush hour was ridiculous - what on earth do you expect if you choose to travel between RDG^‡(resolve) & PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) at 8 o'clock? I fairly regularly travel up to London on the 0750-ish from Exeter and even at 0930 it is still full and standing from Reading.

And I absolutely refuse to have any sympathy at all for anybody who purchases a ticket on the basis of having a Railcard and then doesn't take it with them.

[ChrisB]

I was very disappointed with the programme; I do not think it added very much at all to the sum total of our knowledge concerning the state of Britain's railways.

It wasn't aimed at the like of you & I....who reside on this board because our railway knowledge is better than Joe Public's....

And it was Joe P that it *was* aimed at.

[northwesterntrains]

Oh, come on. It was balanced in the sense that ATOCs^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) responses to the criticisms were given air time. You wouldn't expect an investigative documentary to be titled "Train Journeys from Heaven and Hell" would you?

Vaguely amused by a member of the fourth estate espousing the need for balancing views from happy passengers in this sort of documentary. Do your fellow journalists in the mainstream print media ever seek out these views when writing a critical piece about rail travel?

I agree about it being balanced.

From a negative point of view they showed overcrowded FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).  From a positive point of view they quoted from FGW's management about it being the government blocking new train orders - not blaming FGW like most tabloids.

From a negative point of view they showed Northern having noisy, old, faulty and overcrowded trains.  From a positive point of view they mentioned Northern winning operator of the year for good puctuality and attracting more passengers.  They also mentioned Pacer replacements being delayed by government again making it look like the operator isn't to blame. 

[vacman]

It wasn't as balanced as you may think, all staff were emailed a copy of the exact press release that was sent to C4 and not suprisingly there was a lot missed out when the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) response was read out, it was about value for money, the FGW statement had costed the daily fare based on an annual season and compared it with road and the rail fare had worked out around 60% cheaper at least, not to mention how mucg quicker! Funny how this bit was never mentioned.........

[Ollie]

The e-mail vacman mentions:

We were given the opportunity to respond earlier this week, to make sure the views expressed in the programme are balanced. As is standard practice, we have not been able to view the programme before it goes on air, but we expect it to contain our responses to the criticism's raised.

An outline of what we said to Hardcash Productions, the TV company behind the programme, is outlined below.

On overcrowding:
Since the beginning of our franchise we've invested in rolling stock and significantly increased capacity on many of our routes. However, with more and more customers choosing to use our services it is difficult for us to keep up with demand.

In the past 18 months, six out of the 10 train operators in the London and South East area have had injections of rolling stock, but this does not include First Great Western, so it is not surprising that they have seen recent improvements. The 200 new carriages the Department for Transport originally planned to deliver to three rail franchises - including First Great Western - would have made a real difference for our customers, but this was put on hold early last year prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review.

We absolutely understand the constraints the current economic climate brings for government, but we also recognise there is a real need to improve capacity in key areas of our network. We have recently put forward a series of innovative proposals to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to help manage the increase in the number of customers we're carrying. We hope the DfT will adopt these as part of its next allocation of additional trains, and our talks with them are continuing.

On fares:
We believe our fares offer good value for money, particularly when compared with alternative forms of travel. Taking your example (Hardcash Productions), an annual season ticket between Reading and London costs ^3584, or the equivalent of ^14 return for a day. The same journey by car would cost more than double in parking (average ^25/day) and the congestion charge (^10/day) alone. We would be happy to provide other examples if you need them. Passenger Focus' latest passenger survey shows that the majority of our customers see our services as offering good value for money - a five per cent increase since the previous year. While there is more we can do, we are making real progress.

[eightf48544]

It's fine highlighting Annual Season ticket fares as they are good value for money and as has been said cheaper than road for 1 person driving.

However,  ^135.50 for one person to go from London Euston to Manchesteron on an anytime ticket is more than the ^50 petrol cost (which most people consider the cost of motoring) for the same journey by road. If there's more than one person travelling together then car wins everytime.

It's one of the things I've puzzled over for years as to how do you balance the cost of rail journies against the car when there is more than one person travelling?

Perhaps we should make more use of Group Rover tickets (like the German Lander and Schones Wokenende) to encourage parties to travel by rail. Of course any such tickets would have to be multi provider but like Germany only valid on RE^▸ (Religious Education) and RB not IC^▸ (Inter City) and ICE. Maybe we should classify our trains when we start identifying them by their train number in timetables and itineries. See another post.

[Bob_Blakey]

However,  ^135.50 for one person to go from London Euston to Manchesteron on an anytime ticket is more than the ^50 petrol cost (which most people consider the cost of motoring) for the same journey by road. If there's more than one person travelling together then car wins everytime.

In that case it is time we educated 'most people' as to the true cost of motoring; http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp gives the numbers as calculated by the AA, and I guess they should know. So for an average one way trip from Euston to Manchester Piccadilly the '^50 petrol money' probably falls in the range ^100-^200 depending on vehicle cost & annual mileage.

And of course this does not take into account travelling time, which obviously has a cost as well; by car the AA reckons 4 hours (that would be a good day on the M6 north of Brum!) while the train is generally a tad over 2 hours. Factor in such items as train food & drink available on the move, overall comfort, and the ability to work while travelling and I wouldn't mind betting that an Anytime Single looks like pretty good value.

[northwesterntrains]

However,  ^135.50 for one person to go from London Euston to Manchesteron on an anytime ticket is more than the ^50 petrol cost (which most people consider the cost of motoring) for the same journey by road. If there's more than one person travelling together then car wins everytime.

It's actually ^139.50 single but it was the ^279 return that was quoted in the program.