Another price hike for rail users
- Thread starter Semple
- Start date
It normally works out cheaper for long distances. I used to travel from Kent to West Yorkshire for £66 return with a railcard. I couldn't do it by car for that price.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,059
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
[TW]Fox;26776073 said:
Fair enough. I thought that petrol always went up, not down.
Unfortunately it's massively dependant on the operator and route in question. When I travel to the Midlands from the South West there are no Advance tickets available for the journey I make, only walk-on fares, which are more expensive than driving, at circa £70.
Yet on my desk is an Advance Single to London for next month... £21 without a railcard. The distance is greater...
Sometimes the train is so well priced and so convenient I'd have to be absolutely mad to drive. Other times it's frustratingly expensive and I end up taking the car when I'd really rather not. A nuisance.
Exactly this. I can't be bothered to research the profits made by the top franchise holders, but i can bet they are well into the millions. Rather than expecting to run on Britain's rail network for probably zero cost compared to profits made, they should be made to invest in the infrastructure to make faster and more reliable routes. That's not even taking into account the rolling stock of trains that these companies purchase or rent, that need to be improved or at least additional carriages bought into service.
northern rail "claim" theres no more they can get their hands on at the mo, when iv asked why not buy they claim they cant as its the franchise rules. although the dept for transport and the railways body says nothing in the franchise rules say they cant buy new rolling stock.
end of the day northern rail is there to make as much profit it can. and is doing so by running 30 year old trains that have a habbit of breaking down or bursting in to flames and are dangerous. but seems nothing can be done about it :S
end of the day northern rail is there to make as much profit it can. and is doing so by running 30 year old trains that have a habbit of breaking down or bursting in to flames and are dangerous. but seems nothing can be done about it :S
[TW]Fox;26776132 said:
Unfortunately exactly this. It's impossible for me to purchase advanced fares up to Manchester from Bristol that actually save money - at least for travelling on a Friday. For example i've just paid £54.45 for an off peak return (with railcard) for this weekend, typically Friday evening to Sunday. For that to be an advanced journey they want £51.50 and that's only a single leg, which i can guarantee you now it'll cost more than the £3 to return.
However going from bristol to paddington, a single off-peak walk on fare (with railcard) will cost you £20.80. Yet if you book well in advanced the same ticket, £9.90.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/329/32912.htm#a19
Volatile profits. Shareholders aren't raking it in. Overall operating margin stands at around 3% in the long term.
2012/2013:
Detailed numbers.
Last edited:
Welcome to Cross Country - the services are so busy they attempt to manage demand through price. Obviously they are busy because they are popular, right? Wrong - they are busy because the trains are so small - 4 and 5 coaches mostly.
We're still paying for a total lack of investment in the 70s and 80s. Modernisation is expensive.
Or it could be rail travel is expensive without subsidies.
In 2012/2013 it cost £12.3bn and the government funded £4.0bn (although Network Rail did have a £0.7bn surplus at the end, so more like £3.3bn).
Where is additional money to improve the rail network going to come from?
I get the train from Leighton Buzzard to Euston and then Euston to seven sisters mainly to watch Tottenham about 15 times a year minimum.
I never have many problems and the price while expensive is ok compared to parking. That said I always plan my trip around rush hour and etc. i.e be in and out before or after rush hour.
Sometimes the Underground is very cramped. I would hate to think of it in rush hour kind freaky how many people crammed into a train.
My best friends father was lost in the moorgate crash which does not help lol.
anyhow 3% not that great but still adding up to my travels for leisure.
I never have many problems and the price while expensive is ok compared to parking. That said I always plan my trip around rush hour and etc. i.e be in and out before or after rush hour.
Sometimes the Underground is very cramped. I would hate to think of it in rush hour kind freaky how many people crammed into a train.
My best friends father was lost in the moorgate crash which does not help lol.
anyhow 3% not that great but still adding up to my travels for leisure.
Indeed, however when the rail network was nationalized it only needed 1 Billion subsidies which is a quarter of what it needs now from the TAX payer
The privatization of the rail network has been an utter disaster and the sooner we re-nationalize it the better!!
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2012/03/rail-renationalise
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/nationalised-rail-may-sa_n_984191.html
The savings of dividends isn't very much relative to total costs.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/16/rail-operators-200m-dividends-subsidy
The problem is that a nationalised industry is likely to turn into an inefficient behemoth.
Where's the incentive to spend money wisely?
£1bn is in old money and was in an era of low investment.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/16/rail-operators-200m-dividends-subsidy
The problem is that a nationalised industry is likely to turn into an inefficient behemoth.
Where's the incentive to spend money wisely?
£1bn is in old money and was in an era of low investment.
I cannot see a Government of any colour or position wanting to renationalise the railways in practice. Renationalisation means total responsibility for cost, maintenance, safety and upkeep, all of which are very difficult to deliver significant improvements to during an electoral cycle. I.e. little political return on investment.
