Posted by Jake on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 with 5 comments | Labels: budget cuts, inequality, Liebrary, transport
Railways traditionally involve a lot of smoke and steam. Long after the network converted to electricity and diesel, hot air and cinders continue to provide useful cover for one of the great British rip-offs - train fares. To penetrate all this obscurity, we refer you to the McNulty Report of May 2011, done for the Department of Transport and the Office of Rail Regulation, "Realising the potential of GB Rail" and its associated consultants reports.
Comparing costs for rail projects reinforces this assertion, whatever the reason, it costs much more to do the same thing in Britain than in other similar countries:
One thing the rail network is doing well is attracting travellers. A consistent increase in passenger journeys was only briefly interrupted by the banking crash that started in 2008. You would have thought that this increased utilisation would allow costs to be spread over more journeys, bringing the individual ticket price down. But you'd be wrong.
Comparison between Great Britain, France (A), the Netherlands (B), Sweden (C) and Switzerland (D). Page 40 of "Realising the Potential of GB Rail", Department of Transport.
If you were worried before, the next graph should worry you more. This projection, done in 2007, accurately predicted the 6.5% increase in fares this year. It predicts increases in excess of 7% in the next two years. This is happening during two years of austerity and pay freezes.
Energy companies overcharge, blaming wholesale oil prices. Bankers overcharge, blaming their need to pay themselves bonuses to avoid being poached by other banks. Train companies overcharge, blaming the government for withdrawing its subsidy. Whatever the reason, they all overcharge.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde:
"It's not whether you are greedy or incompetent, it's how you place the blame"
A list of salaries paid to directors would be usefull
ReplyDeleteNo other business could survive running at low capacity - 1st Class - while standard class is crammed full. If a hotel chain sat with empty rooms it would go out of business. Yet we allow empty seats to remain so during peak times and then say we need more capacity. In a word, Bonkers.
ReplyDeleteThis nonsense about "Why should people who don't use the railways pay for the railways" gets on my udders. They may not use the railway but that doesn't mean they don't benefit from the railway. If you run a business, actually having fast efficient affordable transport for your customers is a good thing. Things like shops, cinemas, restaurants etc.
ReplyDeleteIf you use your car for business, it benefits you as well. Spreading the net number of journeys being made across road and rail means roads are less busy as well. Parking in town and city centres is also crap in most places. Fewer train journeys translates, usually, into more cars on the road. But don't let simple facts get in the way. Snarkingfarkinggrumblegrumblehalfbaked....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"@RippedOffBriton 16 Feb
ReplyDeleteThe real reason why British rail fares are sky high is the grotesque waste unparalleled in the western world: http://bit.ly/vUB6nG
@ThrivingPlanet 16 Feb
@RippedOffBriton I've heard also that rail subsidy is 5 times higher since privatisation, any truth in that? #sustrans #UKpol
@RippedOffBriton 16 Feb
@ThrivingPlanet Perhaps you can do a websearch for the info? Then post a comment on our article
>>>>
Ok, here's what I found. Yes, rail subsidy is 4 times higher now than at the time of privatisation.
On the other hand, in my view this article is right to question that subsidy relative to an increase in passenger numbers. However, the article then goes on to compare figures for subsidy as a proportion of increased revenue - which is not the same thing, especially if fares have been rising.
I do think it would be interesting to compare figures as subsidy per passenger over a long time period, as well as a ratio of revenue.
The article also makes two fascinating points:
*In some years since privatisation, government subsidy outstripped passenger revenue.
*The cost of picking up the pieces post privatisation, especially related to the collapse of RailTrack, has been huge.
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391
I am not qualified to comment further, but some insight from people who have been working in the industry would be welcome.
As a punter, I know that my experience is that the train system was creaking and problematic before privatisation, underfunded and in need of a culture shift. It feels to me that privatisation was the wrong remedy, and an expensive one. I now think carefully about train travel, as it is often prohibitively expensive. I resent that both my fares and the tax burden are now much higher, while executives and shareholders extract wealth, and there is a confusing and poorly organised system for travelling, especially over long distances using various companies.
I would find it easier to deal with one train company, paying fares based on distance travelled, not on when and how I booked, or some other obscure formulas based on EasyJet style marketing. I would love to see the rail system reimagined as a new modern version of a publicly owned, not for profit enterprise, run for the benfit of passengers, and with significant policy input by passenger groups.