The LNER Encyclopedia

Two inconsistent BBC stories here which emphasise rail privatisation was a rip off:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23677173

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23678274

The Consumer Price Index falls by 0.1% so some rail fares will be going up by as much as 9.1% in January. Doesn't make sense does it?

BBC coverage tends to be consistent only in its political bias, utterly inappropriate in a public service broadcaster paid for (at least in theory) by all its users. I leave others to work out for themselves the nature/direction of that bias, but I find it easy to be a great deal more concerned about that than about trends in rail fares.

It is, of course, not easy to be happy about rail fares rising at more than the rate of inflation (however that may be measured). But it's about as clear as can be that successive governments (whatever the protagonists may currently choose to claim) have taken the view that the rising running costs of rail transport (and perhaps some of those of necessary capital investment) should increasingly be borne by the users of the railway (who have choices they can make bearing upon the extent of the use they make) rather than by every taxpayer (who has no choice whatever, except perhaps to emigrate).


auldreekie

Mr Bunt wrote:Two inconsistent BBC stories here which emphasise rail privatisation was a rip off:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23677173

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23678274

The Consumer Price Index falls by 0.1% so some rail fares will be going up by as much as 9.1% in January. Doesn't make sense does it?

Protesters must be running wrong line with that banner ,

I wonder how many LNER info members voted Tory when they knew it would lead to privatisation?

PinzaC55 wrote:I wonder how many LNER info members voted Tory when they knew it would lead to privatisation?

I'll bet the one that did wished that he hadn't!

If I remember correctly, the only way that they forced it through was by striking a deal with the Ulster Unionists to support them; this was rather ironic considering that the Northern Ireland Railways remain state owned.
It was inevitable that privatisation would lead to price rises and deteriorating service levels as the economies of scale that BR enjoyed were lost to a fragmented system while profit and shareholder dividends became the order of the day: much the same as has happened with the utility companies.

Mr Bunt wrote:Two inconsistent BBC stories here which emphasise rail privatisation was a rip off:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23677173

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23678274

The Consumer Price Index falls by 0.1% so some rail fares will be going up by as much as 9.1% in January. Doesn't make sense does it?

…but the average price per passenger mile has risen only 4% in real terms over the past 15 years.

Assuming that your statistic is correct (and I'm not questioning it), if only that were true of, say, motor fuel costs.....

Of course, the AVERAGE price is not necessarily the aspect which will cause most grief: pricing structures (for example, disproportionate rises applied to season ticket holders) may well be a matter of specific concern. But that would be a matter to take up with(or for which to ascribe blame to) the train-operating companies rather than this government or any of its predecessors. Incidentally, although this appears often to be forgotten, the present government is a coalition of libdems and conservatives.


auldreekie

60041 wrote:

PinzaC55 wrote:I wonder how many LNER info members voted Tory when they knew it would lead to privatisation?

I'll bet the one that did wished that he hadn't!

If I remember correctly, the only way that they forced it through was by striking a deal with the Ulster Unionists to support them; this was rather ironic considering that the Northern Ireland Railways remain state owned.
It was inevitable that privatisation would lead to price rises and deteriorating service levels as the economies of scale that BR enjoyed were lost to a fragmented system while profit and shareholder dividends became the order of the day: much the same as has happened with the utility companies.

Well here are the figures from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... tion,_1992 Note in particular "The Conservatives in 1992 received the most total votes ever for any political party in any UK general election, beating the previous largest total vote of 13.98 million achieved by Labour in 1951 (although this was from a smaller electorate and represented a higher vote share)."

This suggests that a lot of people who voted for privatisation are staying quiet?

Bill Bedford said

…but the average price per passenger mile has risen only 4% in real terms over the past 15 years.

Source please?

Ah, the "Average" scam.
Suppose an operator has fares from London to Milton Keynes and to Northampton. For the standard anytime fare, that's 3 fares in each direction. 6 altogether. Over the years, these six fares go up by say 100%. But, as well as the anytime fares, they have special offer fares. They could have any number of these for particular, very limited, circumstances. For instance, they could have ones for book 3 months in advance and travel by one specific train. If there are 20 trains per day, there would be 120 "fares", each relating to particular circumstances. Now not many people can predict that sort of journey, so very few people would use them. So the rail company can afford not to put them up at all. So the average increase is the average of 6 x 100 and 120 x 0. That's 600 + 0 all divided by 6 + 120. The average increase is thus 4.76%. So for all the commuters with season tickets (based on the anytime fare) and people who travel at short notice, in reality fares have doubled, but the train company can claim the average is under 5%. Go to NRES and you'll find some amazingly cheap fares; go to the booking office when your mum's taken ill and you won't.
Another example of this scam is average wages. In an organisation, the 19 workers are each paid £20k per annum. The fat cat boss is paid £200k. So the average is 19 x 20 plus 1 x 200 divided by 20. That's 29k. So almost everyone is earning well below the average and feels miffed.
But it works the other way with RPI. One month, a jacket costs £20 and trousers cost £10. The next month, the jackets are slashed (not literally) to a tenner, but the trousers go up to 20 quid. So a suit still costs the same. But RPI says changes in price are jacket + 100%, trousers -50%; average of +100 and -50 is +25. (100 plus -50 equals 50, divide by 2) So inflation has roared up to 25% but the total price is unchanged.
Now obviously things are never that simple, but this illustrates why "averages" can be so misleading, and in the hands of the numerate can be so powerful. From my own experience in BR days, choosing a performance indicator that rewards an improvement in performance with a positive is VERY difficult.

How is using average pricing a 'scam'? especially as it is independent analysis and not the TOCs that have pointed to the near inflation rise in average prices. Surely the real scam is the press cherry-picking a few fares where there is a 10% rise and implying that all fares will rise by the same amount?

Bill Bedford wrote:How is using average pricing a 'scam'? especially as it is independent analysis and not the TOCs that have pointed to the near inflation rise in average prices. Surely the real scam is the press cherry-picking a few fares where there is a 10% rise and implying that all fares will rise by the same amount?

The real scam is the way fares are "regulated" with at least four different formulae in use:

RPI + 1%

RPI + 0%

RPI + up to 8% so long as total regulated fare income doesn't exceed RPI + 1%

RPI + 3% so long as total regulated fare income doesn't exceed RPI + 1%

Since total regulated fare income (what ORR calls "the fares basket") is really an aggregation of thousands of different fares it's very similar to an average itself.

For an Alice in Wonderland journey into the lunatic world of train fares go to:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9549

Deleted

Mr Bunt wrote:

Bill Bedford wrote:How is using average pricing a 'scam'? especially as it is independent analysis and not the TOCs that have pointed to the near inflation rise in average prices. Surely the real scam is the press cherry-picking a few fares where there is a 10% rise and implying that all fares will rise by the same amount?

The real scam is the way fares are "regulated" with at least four different formulae in use:

RPI + 1%

RPI + 0%

RPI + up to 8% so long as total regulated fare income doesn't exceed RPI + 1%

RPI + 3% so long as total regulated fare income doesn't exceed RPI + 1%

Since total regulated fare income (what ORR calls "the fares basket") is really an aggregation of thousands of different fares it's very similar to an average itself.

For an Alice in Wonderland journey into the lunatic world of train fares go to:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9549

Mr Bunt wrote:

Bill Bedford wrote:How is using average pricing a 'scam'? especially as it is independent analysis and not the TOCs that have pointed to the near inflation rise in average prices. Surely the real scam is the press cherry-picking a few fares where there is a 10% rise and implying that all fares will rise by the same amount?

The real scam is the way fares are "regulated" with at least four different formulae in use:

RPI + 1%

RPI + 0%

RPI + up to 8% so long as total regulated fare income doesn't exceed RPI + 1%

RPI + 3% so long as total regulated fare income doesn't exceed RPI + 1%

Since total regulated fare income (what ORR calls "the fares basket") is really an aggregation of thousands of different fares it's very similar to an average itself.

For an Alice in Wonderland journey into the lunatic world of train fares go to:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9549

Well, I like rapidly rising railfares no more than the average citizen (whoever he or she may be). But I'd sure as hell rather live in a country where goods and services (other than a very few connected with necessary social support, such as public-service health and education) are paid for by those who exercise choice to use them, rather than by all of us, including those who do not. And I DO use the railways.


auldreekie

Micky wrote:It doesn't add anything to this thread but i recall the first time i travelled up to Kings Cross from Welwyn Garden City in 1967 the day return fare from Welwyn Garden City to Kings Cross & back was 3/-shillings & 9p which in todays money is around 35p!!.

For that princely sum of money you either got to ride on a x2 car cravens unit all stops from WGC to Kings Cross and back or a x4 car cravens from either Royston or Hitchin stopping at Hatfield, Potters Bar, Finsbury Park & Kings Cross or the 'Cambridge buffet' next stop 'the Cross' and a ride in a Gresley buffet car!!.

Happy days...

Nearer to 18p . . .

And I quote from

http://www.measuringworth.com

"In 2012, £0 3s 9d from 1967 is worth: £2.88 using the retail price index".

More evidence in support of the rip off theory.