This is globally the case though, and far more likely to occur in a country that isn't boosted and whose original vaccines provide little to no protection. The fact is that Omicron is so contagious it is likely to sweep most of the world in short order, and even lockdowns are unlikely to prevent its spread - short of full, weld people into their apartment style lockdowns that will obliterate the global economy. Which is more of a concern to me than a possible mutation.
I think it is a case of alea iacta est now, we only have to hope we roll a double six rather than snake eyes. But for the most part I have tried to stop worrying about things which I have no control over.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Ultimately I shouldn't have to guess how much it will cost. Charge more in peak times to "better utilise the infrastructure", sure, but the price from Newcastle Central to London Kings X at say, 10am on a weekday, should always be the same price.
So 10am on a quiet weekday is subsidising 10am on a busy weekday? Why?
The whole point of variable pricing is that the same time on the same day isn't the same all the time.
Eg if Lord's is hosting a Test match starting at 11am do you think the stations near it are no busier than normal at 10am?
I don't really care, I want the fares predictable. Otherwise it isn't convenient.
So you'd prefer expensive predictable fares over potentially cheaper variable ones?
Fair enough.
Either you can have predictability or cheapness, not both. Some people require stability in prices and that's why they pay a surcharge to financial services companies for futures etc
No, I want cheap predictable fares thanks.
I want safest, fastest, cheapest. What do you mean, I can't have all three? Ask NASA, you say?
cheap is not the same as cheapest, etc.
Fast, cheap and safe are all still relative terms, and it is not possible, using those relative terms coherently, to be fast, cheap and safe when viewing all the options for speed, cost and safety.
It is possible to have any combination of two, but not all three.
I understand the point. I think a lot of this argument really centres around what "cheap" means. E.g., going to the GP is cheap (indeed, it is free). But at the same time it is not necessarily cheap because that money comes from taxation and borrowing. The question is, how cheap should rail travel be at the point of use? The money doesn't have to, and indeed doesn't, come only from fares. But I'm not taking a stance here.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
I don't see why.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
I don't see why.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
Well the fares are seemingly already fixed (the off peak flexible fares anyway) as demonstrated by @eek the problem is that they're just too high.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Of course you'd use them more if you could do that. And if there were an abundance of empty seats I'm sure the price would fall to entice you to do just that.
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
I don't think there should be a higher minimum price, as I keep saying.
That's not possible though unless you're intending to lower the price cap to the minimum and if you are then where is the money coming from?
Variability in prices allows for higher ceilings and lower minimums. If you want security of pricing then you can cut the ceiling but the floor has to rise to cover that.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Of course you'd use them more if you could do that. And if there were an abundance of empty seats I'm sure the price would fall to entice you to do just that.
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
I don't think there should be a higher minimum price, as I keep saying.
That's not possible though unless you're intending to lower the price cap to the minimum and if you are then where is the money coming from?
Variability in prices allows for higher ceilings and lower minimums. If you want security of pricing then you can cut the ceiling but the floor has to rise to cover that.
Cheap or predicable. Those two are trade offs.
The money will come from the government, obviously.
Fair enough. I have no doubt that Covid has been really hard for those who are prone to that kind of thinking (my girlfriend included), so sorry for gently mocking you on here.
It doesn't lend itself to clear eyed appraisal of all the risks/rewards associated with COVID though, so expect us to keep picking these statements apart.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
I don't see why.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
Gallowgate's issue is that he doesn't understand that Intercity rail prices are high because they were set many years ago to ensure demand meets the available supply.
And without HS2E - there are going to have to remain high because there isn't enough seats to cope with many more passengers.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
I don't see why.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
Gallowgate's issue is that he doesn't understand that Intercity rail prices are high because they were set many years ago to ensure demand meets the available supply.
And without HS2E - there are going to have to remain high because there isn't enough seats to cope with many more passengers.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Of course you'd use them more if you could do that. And if there were an abundance of empty seats I'm sure the price would fall to entice you to do just that.
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
I don't think there should be a higher minimum price, as I keep saying.
That's not possible though unless you're intending to lower the price cap to the minimum and if you are then where is the money coming from?
Variability in prices allows for higher ceilings and lower minimums. If you want security of pricing then you can cut the ceiling but the floor has to rise to cover that.
Cheap or predicable. Those two are trade offs.
The money will come from the government, obviously.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
I don't see why.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
Gallowgate's issue is that he doesn't understand that Intercity rail prices are high because they were set many years ago to ensure demand meets the available supply.
And without HS2E - there are going to have to remain high because there isn't enough seats to cope with many more passengers.
I do understand it - I just want it changed.
Without HS2E it ain't going to happen because the prices are currently set so that supply matches demand.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
Why? That would prevent a lot of people who find the full price difficult to afford from travelling by train. I know friends for whom a price of (approx correct prices) £20 prebooked rather than £60 walk up fare for a day trip to London from Sheffield makes the difference between travelling and not.
Why should high demand times be subsidised by low demand times?
I didn't say high demand times should be subsidised by low demand times.
Why is it useful to have empty trains running around off peak, with people who can't afford the fares imprisoned at home?
I'm in favour of cheaper, standard fares, that can be predicted.
If you turn up at the station, at 10am on a given weekday to buy a ticket on the next train from the ticket office, it will always be the same price.
Yeah, and it will be massively more expensive than if I had booked it weeks in advance.
That's no different from flying. Microsoft used to happily pay £1000 to get me to Helsinki or Vienna if they needed me to be there the following day - clients were therefore incentivised to ensure they scheduled things in advance so the flights came in at £300 or so.
Yes, but in my view, the railways are worth subsidising to allow flexibility, whereas flying isn't. Other views may vary.
You do know that back in 1990 a return Journey to and from London was about £70 return (used to do it weekly while at Newcastle University and working in London, much to the annoyance of some in my department).
It's only £152 now and it can be a lot cheaper if you exchange flexibility for a fixed time.
So your point is basically: it used to be more expensive, so stop complaining?
All I'm saying is that I'd personally use the railways much more if I could simply rock up and buy a ticket at a known, cheap, price. Otherwise I just drive inter-city like I do now because the fuel price is known and it doesn't matter if I'm late.
Of course you'd use them more if you could do that. And if there were an abundance of empty seats I'm sure the price would fall to entice you to do just that.
But why should those who need to use the trains on a daily basis be subject to a higher minimum price, so you can have the certainty of a lower maximum one?
I don't think there should be a higher minimum price, as I keep saying.
That's not possible though unless you're intending to lower the price cap to the minimum and if you are then where is the money coming from?
Variability in prices allows for higher ceilings and lower minimums. If you want security of pricing then you can cut the ceiling but the floor has to rise to cover that.
Cheap or predicable. Those two are trade offs.
The money will come from the government, obviously.
You mean from Taxpayers.
Yes exactly.
I'd much prefer the taxpayers subsidise the railway than mates of the Conservative Party.
The point about railways is there is no competition. So let's stop pretending there is and run them ourselves.
Just like water.
If there is a problem of a lack of competition, then the solution is to introduce more competition.
You cannot have competition on the railways, same track. Same infrastructure.
Wrong. Are you saying that we cannot have competition in road freight, as they all use the same infrastructure (roads?).
That's slightly disingenuous of me, as the railways are much more highly regulated than roads. But Open Access is an example of where there is very much competition, and something I would like to see more of. I'd like to see OA expanded within the concessions system.
Open Access has not reduced prices
It has introduced the discipline of the market, and has provided reduced prices.
For example, I can book a ticket from London to Leeds in a few days time for £27 return. Superb value.
That is hideously expensive
Really?
It is about 200 miles, or 400 miles return. At 15 pence per mile by car, that is £60.
The journey also takes 4 hours by car (one way). The train takes 2hr20m to 2ht40m.
TLDR: UK has a wider range of prices - more expensive for walk up tickets, much cheaper for prebooked and off-peak.
A wider range of options and prices, as one would expect from a more market-based philosophy.
A wider range of prices which will better utilise the infrastructure across the whole day and week. Much better.
Aye its bollocks. The tickets should be the same price regardless of if they are booked in advance, otherwise driving will always be more convenient.
Imagine if you had to book the tube in advance?
I note that even the tube offers lower cost options to manage demand across different times of day with different demand for services.
But I'm not saying the price shouldn't vary at different times of day, I'm saying however that the price should be fixed at a particular time of day, regardless of whether its booked in advance or not.
I don't see why.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
Gallowgate's issue is that he doesn't understand that Intercity rail prices are high because they were set many years ago to ensure demand meets the available supply.
And without HS2E - there are going to have to remain high because there isn't enough seats to cope with many more passengers.
I do understand it - I just want it changed.
Without HS2E it ain't going to happen because the prices are currently set so that supply matches demand.
KEY: Country From To (Distance in miles) - Monthly season ticket price 2019 (% of monthly earnings)
UK Chelmsford London (28) - £393.19 (13%)
UK Manchester Liverpool (31) - £256.90 (8%)
Germany Eberswalde Berlin (40) - £120.61 (4%)
France Étampes Paris (35) - £67.50 (2%)
Belgium Ghent Brussels (35) - £150.31 (4%)
Ireland Drogheda Dublin (29) - £116.11 (3%)
For people that actually use the trains, the costs are absurd
Yes, those are certainly more expensive. But different from the earlier claim about London to Leeds being absurdly expensive.
I stand by that, that is hideously expensive
What's the scale of outrage on prices? Does it immediately go to hideously expensive (despite them actually being comparable to continental prices), or is there a continuum?
Just a lot of money to spend on a train, it seems to me.
Comments
Oh wait, it's owned by TfL
My carbon emissions are way higher than they should be as a result. Would be lovely to do the Munros by train.
I think it is a case of alea iacta est now, we only have to hope we roll a double six rather than snake eyes. But for the most part I have tried to stop worrying about things which I have no control over.
I think a lot of this argument really centres around what "cheap" means. E.g., going to the GP is cheap (indeed, it is free). But at the same time it is not necessarily cheap because that money comes from taxation and borrowing.
The question is, how cheap should rail travel be at the point of use? The money doesn't have to, and indeed doesn't, come only from fares. But I'm not taking a stance here.
Prices are released I think 3 months in advance, so it is quite transparent.
And if you try and fix prices regardless of demand, even at a particular time of day, then it will inevitably increase the lower level of fares you can offer, and is regressive. Unless you nab some subsidy from somewhere else in government revenue, which could be spent on something else.
Fixed fares can be offered as well, but there's no rational reason to reduce flexibility.
Variability in prices allows for higher ceilings and lower minimums. If you want security of pricing then you can cut the ceiling but the floor has to rise to cover that.
Cheap or predicable. Those two are trade offs.
NEW THREAD
It doesn't lend itself to clear eyed appraisal of all the risks/rewards associated with COVID though, so expect us to keep picking these statements apart.
And without HS2E - there are going to have to remain high because there isn't enough seats to cope with many more passengers.
I'd much prefer the taxpayers subsidise the railway than mates of the Conservative Party.
Cases in general are rarely the issue.