First £1,000 rail fare (Britain)

[Darth Tanner]

bbc

The UK's first £1,000 rail ticket has been described as "scandalous" and "appalling value" by opposition MPs.

The first-class return walk-up fare is from Newquay, in Cornwall to Kyle of Lochalsh, in the Scottish Highlands.

The Conservatives blamed "Labour's micromanagement of the railways", while the Lib Dems called the record fare "a very unwelcome landmark".

Cross Country Trains, which sells the ticket, said an advance fare was available for £561.

Price doubled

The fare was unearthed in a survey by rail expert Barry Doe, who said that the price of long-distance journeys had risen by up the three times the level of inflation since privatisation in the mid-1990s.

Mr Doe told the Evening Standard newspaper that even the £1,002 ticket had been available for £486 as recently as September 2008.

Three train companies share the 1,700 mile (2,736km) return trip - First Great Western, Cross Country and Scotrail.

The £1,000 journey is from Cornwall to the Scottish Highlands

Mr Doe pointed out that on the first leg of the journey (Newquay to Par) and the last (Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh) there were not even any first-class carriages for the ticketholder to sit in.

A spokesman for Cross Country said: "No-one has actually bought this £1,000 fare but it does exist.

"Someone wanting a first-class return would be likely to book a saver return in advance and pay £561."

'Takes the biscuit'

Cat Hobbs, from the Campaign for Better Transport, claimed the £1,000 journey showed "just how pricey and complicated the fare structure is".

And while regulated fares will actually fall slightly from January because of retail price deflation, she said she feared train companies would raise their unregulated fares to make up for the drop in their income.

"We think the government should step in and review how they regulate fares," she said.

"The government should not let the train companies take all the flak for this. It's up to the government to change the system."

Farepayers have become all too used to appalling value for money
Stephen Hammond, shadow rail minister

Lib Dem transport spokesman Norman Baker said high fares were encouraging people to abandon the trains in favour of their cars.

And he added: "When you can fly halfway across Europe for £30, the idea that you can end up paying £1,000 for a train journey in Britain is absolutely scandalous."

Shadow rail minister Stephen Hammond said: "Due to Labour's micromanagement of the railway, farepayers have become all too used to appalling value for money.

"Today's revelation of a £1,000 fare really takes the biscuit."

Did I hear someone say how much privatization of a vital public service was a success? Lets do the same to the post office quick High Lord Mandelson!

Just out of interest doing the same journey by car would use about £140 petrol.

[Serafina]

Is ANYONE using the railway in Britain anymore?
I heard similar stories from a cousin who studied there, and i found it hard to believe her.

Oh, and yes, privatisation of such areas is know to raise the prizes (since it needs to run profitable). We have the same in Germany (on less ridiolous levels, but still). However, our post system is privatized and is still quite cheap (possibly cheaper if you accomodate for inflation). However, they are cutting down their numbers of stores - which is particulary bad for those outside cities.

[Dahak]

I've been driving from Germany to Cornwall in my car for LESS money. Seriously, this is either tragic or funny, depends on how you want to look at it...

[TC Pilot]

When I studied in Britain, I was pretty shocked to find how much long-distance travel by train cost. Shot down my tourist plans, that's for sure. Short-distance wasn't nearly as bad, but it's ridiculous that I could fly to Barcelona, Rome, and back to London and spend less money than for a cross-country train trip.

[[R_H]]

I can travel from here (NW Switzerland) to Berlin (for example) for the equivalent of either 115£ or 175£ (I think that's for a round trip). Maybe double that for first class.

[Sarevok]

Why do they cost so much ? For that kind of money they better have service that justifies it !

[Starglider]

Did I hear someone say how much privatization of a vital public service was a success? Lets do the same to the post office quick High Lord Mandelson!

Yet airlines manage to offer extremely low fares while being completely privatised, how is that?

Long distance passenger rail is not a 'vital public service'. The UK has perfectly good long-distance coach network, and taking a National Express coach trip along the same journey would cost about 100 pounds (less with special offers). Commuter rail is pretty vital, because the road and bus networks are not sufficient to carry the traffic should it be discontinued, but intercity passenger rail is not.

[PeZook]

Man, and I thought we had shitty railways over here...a cross-country return trip costs about 400 zlotys on an express train, double that for first class, but 50% less if you don't travel express.

Average wage in Poland is 2,7 thousand zlotys per month, so travelling across the country and back costs around 15% of the average wage.

[Vendetta]

Because UK rail operators are a shower of cunts.

It's really hard to see how they're doing anything other than deliberately trying to kill off the rail network, at one point several years ago, and I'm trying to find the quote, they stated that they were increasing fares because too many people were using trains. They've been increasing prices steadily far in excess of inflation for years on end now, until we're left with a rail network that simply is not worth using. The service is indifferent, the trains themselves are of variable quality, and it's all horribly overpriced.

Yet airlines manage to offer extremely low fares while being completely privatised, how is that?

Competition. There is virtually no competition in rail services, either in the actual delivery of service to the user, because whilst there are multiple operators, they don't go to the same places. If I want to go to London on the train, I have precisely one option for operator. Same thing in the production of trains and carriages themselves, there aren't many suppliers, and importing trains doesn't work because the track gauge is different. There has also been little regulatory impetus to improve, because apart from occasional high profile disasters caused by the actual track network there hasn't been much oversight of the whole deal. So trains are heavy and massively fuel inefficient.

[phongn]

Because UK rail operators are a shower of cunts.

Could be worse, you could be using Amtrak

It's really hard to see how they're doing anything other than deliberately trying to kill off the rail network, at one point several years ago, and I'm trying to find the quote, they stated that they were increasing fares because too many people were using trains.

Isn't that basic supply-demand economics, though? If the system has too many passengers shouldn't rates be increased? (At least short-term, and then additional capacity brought on to handle the crowds)

[Starglider]

importing trains doesn't work because the track gauge is different.

Say what? The UK invented the standard gauge, which is used across Europe and the US. Gauge would only be an issue if we were trying to import trains from Russia.

[Darth Tanner]

importing trains doesn't work because the track gauge is different.

I thought all our trains were made in Germany! Also Deutsche Bahn owns the largest of our freight train operators IIRC.

Say what? The UK invented the standard gauge, which is used across Europe and the US.

Quite a lot of Europe has a larger gauge doesn't it, allowing double decker trains. Spain and Germany definitely does.

If the system has too many passengers shouldn't rates be increased?

Capacity has actually decreased as track has been abandoned, passenger seats replaced with shop carriages and trains shortened to decrease operating costs.

The UK has perfectly good long-distance coach network

Does it? Bus fares have risen at similar rates to train fares, ie. triple inflation. The usual excuse is the price of diesel but rises have been declared despite most major coach companies (Stagecoach being the one named in the article I read) have fixed cost contracts for their fuel bills over a three year period.

Just a random fact but Stagecoach own 50% of Virgin Trains.

[Starglider]

Quite a lot of Europe has a larger gauge doesn't it, allowing double decker trains. Spain and Germany definitely does.

That's a loading gauge (i.e bridge height) issue, not a track gauge difference. It's true that if we wanted to run double-decker trains we'd have to raise quite a lot of bridges, but AFAIK no one has even proposed that as the demand just isn't there to justify them even if the government paid for the track improvements. Bridge improvements have been ongoing regardless due to the growing requirements for rail freight. Anyway, it isn't an issue for normal rolling stock.

The UK has perfectly good long-distance coach network

Does it?

Yes.

Bus fares have risen at similar rates to train fares, ie. triple inflation.

Buses are not the same thing as intercity coaches. Bus prices have risen far faster for much the same reason; there is usually no competition on local routes, whereas there are several companies running intercity coach networks (e.g. the recent Megabus (Stagecoach) / National Express price war).

[Enigma]

I'm just amazed at the price. I can go from Ottawa, Ontario to Abbotsford, BC, a (roughly) 3,000 mile trip for 368.598GBP. In other words, 1,000GBP is an equivalent of going to Moscow from Lisbon Portugal then back again and again to Moscow.

There's no way they can justify 1,000GBP train ticket.

[The Dark]

Because UK rail operators are a shower of cunts.

Could be worse, you could be using Amtrak

Amtrak got hosed from the beginning. The rail lines used an accounting oddity to make their passenger lines look unprofitable, then failed to live up to the terms of their agreements that they signed up to in order to get the government to take over passenger rail. Back in the early 20th century, when passenger service was the big money-maker for railroads, and mail and freight were things that were less vital, rail accounting required that all overhead and station expenses be accounted to passenger service. As passenger service declined, they suddenly had "unprofitable" passenger service because all the overhead costs were being amortized over fewer passengers. In reality, it was still (slightly) profitable, but to a far smaller scale than freight. Thus, the government agreed to form Amtrak, but the rail lines were required to clear the rails for regularly scheduled Amtrak trains. This has consistently been ignored, to the point where many of the train schedules have been adjusted to account for freight trains that will not be delayed in order for the private companies to honor their agreement with the government.

By the by, a round trip ticket from Orlando, FL to Seattle, WA (which is 3,115 miles) is $610, or a bit under £375 at the current exchange rate.

[CmdrWilkens]

Because UK rail operators are a shower of cunts.

Could be worse, you could be using Amtrak

Honestly Amtrak sounds better from my experience. I mean a 1st class round trip from DC to NY is available pretty consistently in the 500USD or 300GBP range. If you are looking long distance I could take the Crescent from DC down to Atlanta overnight for 400USD and get both dinner and breakfast included.

[Surlethe]

There's no way they can justify 1,000GBP train ticket.

Sure there is. If there are tons of people trying to ride, they can quite justifiably raise prices - it's not like they're pricing out poor people from some vital service, as I understand the train system - because as long as people are willing to pay 1000GBP, the people willing to pay benefit and the train companies benefit. Edit - of course, there are plenty of possible mitigating circumstances, but I haven't seen anybody bring them up.