Here’s a fact that might raise an eyebrow. Did you know that it is illegal to resell a train ticket?
I only realised this when I tried to sell a couple of tickets that I now don’t need on Gumtree (awesome website) and Gumtree quickly removed it, emailing me the reason why.
So I now have the hat-trick of money going into railways for seats that I won’t be sitting on in the space of a few short months:Â
1 – Forgetting that I’d already printed out my ticket and then turning up at King’s Cross station without it costing me a £113 walk-on fare
2 – Absentmindedly getting on an East Coast train that left 30 minutes later than my own one costing me £146
3 – And now, this weekend, having to change my travel plans at the last minute and being unable to sell my ticket because the law, the law!, is working against me, costing me £68
It’s enough to drive a person to the reliably cheap Megabus or the guiltily dirty Easyjet.Â
Of course, underpinning all of the three issues above is the fact that booking a train ticket on the day of travel is so maddeningly exorbitantly expensive. In the first two instances, the charge wouldn’t have been so stomach-churningly steep and in the third instance I wouldn’t have needed to gamble on booking a ticket at the reduced price before knowing for sure what my travel plans were going to be.
The really annoying thing is that this pricing structure that these railway companies are so insistent upon is actually subsidising richer people. The more organised amongst us tend to be the middle to upper classes. That might be a crass generalisation but it’s also true. Who is more likely to get those 12-week advance tickets? The web-savvy business-person or the elderly pensioner who only travels on trains on special occasions and has never heard of thetrainline.com let alone appreciates how great the app is?
I don’t even want to think of the people with shallower pockets than I who have been hit even harder than the three examples above for simple human error. They are the ones that are subsidising the super-early-advance tickets and it is high time that it is stopped and fares were flattened out.
One answer, and it is an answer that Scotland is hopefully more amenable to, is to nationalise the railways. To make the rail service a system that works for the people and not a vessel to make profits. The philosophy could, and should, be grossed out across numerous institutions, power companies and banks making giant profits while people struggle to make ends meet sticks in the craw too, but the railways are a decent first step on that journey.
I daresay the SNP would be worried that it would come over as too leftie, too Socialist, if it proposed renationalising the railways and, to be fair, it wasn’t in their manifesto so there is no mandate anyway. However, Ken Macintosh has pleasingly put the policy forward in his campaign to lead Labour and, if he is successful in his charge to take over from Iain Gray, some pressure may be placed on the Scottish Government to look into it as an option.
Â
Anyway, if anyone needs to get from Penrith to London today leaving 12noon and likes the idea of sitting in first class, don’t contact me. That’s right, don’t contact me.
#1 by Richard on November 6, 2011 - 11:37 am
Jeff, you obviously haven’t heard: competition leads to lower prices and benefits the consumer. Isn’t that what we’re always told?
Seriously though, I’d be intrigued how nationalising the railways could be achieved in Scotland pre-Independence. Would that create problems with the southern network? It would sure as hell put a cat amongst the Westminster pigeons!
#2 by Despairing on November 6, 2011 - 11:44 am
Actually, pensioners are quite savvy about getting the best deals for their twice-a-year trip to see the grandkids. And they know when they’re going, and they’re not in a rush. So it’s usually the older generation who snap up all the cheap tickets in advance.
But I take your point.
I’ve pointed out many times before that the government aren’t shy about telling us that they want to price people off the rails. It was actually a stated DfT policy under the last Labour government. It is far far cheaper to reduce the number of travellers than it is to invest in more trains or carriages. Of course, it doesn’t work – if people need to travel, then they need to travel.
The high price of fares then leads to people buying cheaper tickets for times when they don’t want to travel, and then chancing their arm. Honest, law-abiding citizens like (I assume!) Jeff then get penalised as we treat everyone the same in an attempt to stamp that practice out.
The whole thing breeds resentment amongst the passengers AND the staff, who get an earful on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
#3 by Richard Lucas on November 6, 2011 - 12:53 pm
Anyone who has ever used Dutch or German trains – like me – cannot believe just how much of a mess UK railways are. Scotland’s railways are far from the worst in Britain, but the network north of the Central Belt has lost out on decades of investment. The East Coast Main Line in my part of Fife is not only still unelectrified, but still relies on steam era semaphore signals. This is the main line from Edinburgh to Dundee and Aberdeen! Renationalisation must be part of the answer, but only if combined with guarantees of long term investment in upgrading. We need more trains, better trains, faster trains, cheaper trains.
#4 by Sandy Brownlee (oldchap) on November 6, 2011 - 1:03 pm
There does need to be a missive simplification of ticketing. there is some justification for a discount in booking early if it helps to plan network utilisation better, but i’m inclined to say it’s not that flexible at the moment.
renationalise, then it’ll be consistent with the policy on scottish water. just make sure that the network isn’t starved of investment or raided for cash like BR was.
#5 by Barbarian on November 6, 2011 - 1:17 pm
The railways – Scotland included – are a bloody mess. People moaned about BR, but the taxpayer is paying out more in subsidies than they ever did under BR.
We need to get away from subsidising private companies, and start regulating public transport.
But that isn’t going to happen in England, and most certainly will not happen in Scotland, for purely coincidental reasons of course.
Tickets should be simple. You want to go from A to B, why does there need to be multiple options? I’ll accept peak and off-peak, first and standard class, student discount etc. But none of this damn nonsense where you end up penalised over a minor error.
#6 by Indy on November 6, 2011 - 1:54 pm
On that point I would have to highlight the SPT Zone Card which many weegies use, including myself. You renew it every four weeks and can use it to travel on any bus or any train within the zones you have paid for and can also use it on the Glasgow Underground. It makes life very much easier if you are a regular user of public transport. It would be great if there was a similar Scotland-wide scheme.
#7 by Barbarian on November 6, 2011 - 5:27 pm
I use the very same. It allows me to take the bus to the train station in EK, jump on a train and when the home train is cancelled – as is frequent – I can pop onto a bus without having to argue with the driver.
But it’s too simple an idea for government…… :p
#8 by Indy on November 6, 2011 - 1:49 pm
I once had a quite crazy dispute with a ticket inspector when I was going down to York – I had bought a return ticket to London as it was cheaper than getting a ticket to York and he clipped my ticket but then when I got up to get off at York he held the train up trying to make me pay extra for getting off at an earlier destination. The whole thing was bizarre. He ended up saying we’ll be looking out for you when you come back and you’ll have to pay the full fare to Edinburgh. It actually left me quite unsettled because it’s an Alice in Wonderland mentality that makes no sense and the guy was genuinely outraged that I had “cheated” and could not see the absurdity of insisting that I should pay a higher fare for a shorter journey than the one I had already paid for. There is something a bit scarey about such an illogical rule but it’s even scarier to find someone who appeared to believe in applying the letter of the law with evangelical fervour.
Anyway, I think the policy of nationalising the railways would be massively popular so I don’t think popularity is an issue. It’s more likely to be money. If Ken Macintosh can come up with an affordable way of doing it I think that would get support from across the board. But that in itself would not necessarily deal with the craziness of the ticketing system although it would make it easier to rationalise it I suppose.
#9 by John Ruddy on November 6, 2011 - 5:50 pm
Actually, you are entitled to break your journey with most tickets.
#10 by Richard on November 6, 2011 - 2:04 pm
A couple of years ago, I had to get from Carlisle to Manchester and back. I tried to book a plain, off peak, standard class return ticket and was quoted over 80 pounds. I got single ticket from Carlisle to Preston (where I would’ve had to change anyway), Preston to Manchester, and Manchester back to Carlisle – all for less than 25 pounds!
How can it be sustainable to have such a convoluted, byzantine system as that?
#11 by Doug Daniel on November 6, 2011 - 3:06 pm
You’re quite right, Jeff. When I was travelling between Glasgow and Aberdeen every weekend, I ended up dumping the train in favour of my car, because it was getting ridiculous how far in advance I was having to pay in order to get the cheap tickets. You’ve confirmed my suspicion, borne out of noticing the remarkable number of empty seats that had supposedly “sold out” of cheap tickets, that many people must be buying tickets for trains they don’t even know that they’ll need yet, safe in the knowledge that the odd wasted ticket here and there is still far cheaper than paying the extortionate train fares.
Let’s be clear here, “extortionate” is the right word to use because it is legalised extortion that is at play. There is no competition (how could it be when you only have one choice of train for any route?), so anyone who requires to make a train journey is FORCED to pay whatever fares ScotRail dictates. The only competition is from buses and cars, which is a bit like arguing that Glasgow Warriors and Edinburgh Rugby provide competition to Rangers and Celtic.
One thing I think the government could enforce upon ScotRail (and I’ve emailed my local MSP about it – disappointingly I’ve not heard back, and this was weeks ago), would be to state exactly how many cheap tickets they set out for a route, and how many are left at any one time. It’s ridiculous how quickly some journeys sell out of cheap tickets – suspiciously so, in fact.
Even better, they could force ScotRail to change the criteria for cheap tickets from being some random, arbitrary number of tickets that can sell out at any time, to being back to the old system of having a cut-off date, after which the tickets go up in price.
Or even better, yes, renationalise the railways. ScotRail trains are a disgrace – they’re always filthy, and god help you if you need the toilet while travelling on one, because you’ll be lucky if they’re even working, never mind having toilet paper or water to wash your hand with.
A final point: no profit-making company should ever be given a subsidy. If they’ve got enough money to pay out to shareholders, then they’ve got enough money full-stop. Use the law to enforce companies to service loss-making routes, not bribes.
#12 by Alexander Belic on November 6, 2011 - 3:06 pm
First’s contract on Scotrail is up in 2014, a resolution carried at SNP conference in Perth last year that the new franchise should be awarded to a state-owned company.
#13 by Doug Daniel on November 6, 2011 - 3:43 pm
I think I’ll cry with joy if that actually happens.
#14 by Jeff on November 6, 2011 - 3:54 pm
Wow, didn’t realise that was the case and I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of it. There’s no guarantee that the bizarre pricing structure would change but I like the sound of the SNP’s approach nonetheless.
#15 by John Ruddy on November 6, 2011 - 5:52 pm
Maybe more hasn’t been made of it because its in the same category of policies as Bus regulation.
Its an open secret in the Scottish Rail industry that a certain Bus Magnate (I will mention no names), desperately wants the Scot Rail franchise.
#16 by Alexander Belic on November 6, 2011 - 5:56 pm
I would guess there’s some sort of law preventing the government formally announcing who they’ll award the franchise to years in advance.
#17 by Dubbieside on November 6, 2011 - 6:21 pm
Jeff
You do realise that if the SNP bring that resolution to Holyrood that London Labour will instruct their Scottish branch office to oppose it for the very good reason, to them, that the SNP are bringing it forward.
Labour atavists will also complain that as it was not in the manifesto the SNP has no mandate to renationalise anything and it should remain in private hands.
#18 by Tom on November 6, 2011 - 4:33 pm
Type your comment here
You say the line has lost out on decades of lack of investment. Privatisation for the track side was a very short part of that time (Network Rail is hardly privatised these days the way many people think they’re). The rest was decades under nationalisation.
And your solution is to renationalise?
The worst thing to ever happen to the railways was nationalisation.
Incidentally, the Dutch and German railway set ups aren’t all that different to the UK (certainly not nationalised industries). Mostly because EU Directives mandate competition and division of responsibilities.
#19 by Jeff on November 6, 2011 - 4:48 pm
My preferred solution is for existing companies to have a healthily competitive pricing structure but it’s just not happening, hence the second preference of a nationalised flat service that can have flat, understandable prices that don’t shoot up on the day of travel.
#20 by AliMiller on November 6, 2011 - 5:02 pm
This news is beyond welcome! I totally agree with DougDaniel – its just totally wrong for us to subsidise compainies who pay out to shareholders. I am a frequent traveller on Scotrail on the Inverness-Aberdeen line. Scotrail are so stingy that they only have 5 carriages on for the busiest service of the day (518 leaving Aberdeen). Far more people would use the train if you could actually get a seat. Perhaps standing is ok on short services, but people are standing for up to 40 minutes on that service.
Because they are the only show in town Scotrail get away with being lazy, useless and overpriced. Where there is no genuine market to maintain standards for the consumer, services should be run by the government.
#21 by Richard Lucas on November 6, 2011 - 5:31 pm
‘The worst thing to ever happen to the railways was nationalisation.’
Rail nationalization worked well enough for the first decade, getting the system working again after wartime. Successive gov’ts from the sixties on undervalued the system Thatcher’s contempt for the railway was legendary), whilst my Dutch and German examples modernized, electrified, etc, as nationalized setups for most of the time. That’s why I said I wanted renationalisation with guarantees. Surely a Scotland rich in renewable electricity generation should have electrified railways? The current system is an utter shambles
#22 by Brian Nicholson on November 6, 2011 - 7:20 pm
It seems to me that the issue can be handled in two parts.
Firstly, place all the tracks and infrastructure under control of national company, under mandate from the Parliament, and charged with maintaining and expanding the rail system to meet Scotland’s needs. This company then charges a fee to use the rail system to any carrier who wishes to compete on the routes.
Second, allow competing companies to provide train service on the routes. Increased competition on routes will lead to better service and lower prices. Companies would be required to bid for routes in packages that would include both high use and low use routes. Standards of travel service would be established with minimum service levels required for a successful bid.
If this sounds familiar, this is how airports and airlines are managed.
I can see the day when local communities join with companies to bid on train services to meet their needs instead of just accepting what is offered by the transport companies.
#23 by Fairliered on November 6, 2011 - 9:12 pm
I believe that the most popular thing an independant Scottish government could do woud be to nationalise Scotrail and operate it as a true public service, wheh frequent trains with more carriages and low fares to get folk out of their cars.
#24 by Observer on November 6, 2011 - 9:23 pm
A good, reliable, reasonably priced railway service which covers all the routes, not just the popular ones, is not going to make a profit. Them’s the facts. So what, if we need it (& we do) then the government should subsidise it.
The problems with nationalised services like BR were management & cultural ones. They could have been overcome without privatisation. It is a complete & utter myth that privatisation leads to better services.
The railways should be re-nationalised. They were nationalised in the first place for a reason – to make them work properly.
There is an idea that nationalising things is a left wing socialist concept. One of the first people to introduce nationalisation was in fact Otto Von Bismarck, in about 1879. He was not a socialist, but he did recognise that some things are better provided by the state, for purely functional reasons. He was right.
#25 by Observer on November 6, 2011 - 9:30 pm
The government could easily get around EU rules by running a nationalised railway service as an arms length company. People use EU rules to justify not doing things when they don’t want to do them. Where there is a will, there is a way. Competition isn’t driving up standards, it is driving them down. The customer is always right, & customers are sick of the current system & would welcome change.
(I get the train a lot as well)
#26 by Barbarian on November 6, 2011 - 9:36 pm
Now for the cynical comment!
The Scottish Government are going to effectively re-nationalise the trains. Will they now re-introduce regulation to the bus companies?
The reason I ask this, is that I believe Stagecoach only have rail franchises in England, outwith the control of the Scottish Government.
Anyone who has spent some time investigating the way the bus services are run in Scotland will notice that they can simply do what they like. First Group for example ramped up the fares earlier this year, with tiny notices on buses.
Their excuse? “That was a special shoppers discount”. Since when did people go shopping by bus at midnight? Bus routes are changed with no consideration for the traveller whatsoever. I’ve had three changes in less than a year and they never, ever run on time. I live a mile from the starting terminus (if that makes sense!), and its not unknown for two buses to arrive together, when there should be a 15 minute gap – this at 7am.
The news for the trains is very welcome, but the buses also need to be dealt with, a rather more difficult proposition for the SNP.
#27 by Douglas McLellan on November 7, 2011 - 11:00 am
This is the key point. To have trains (or even buses) provide tickets at a cheaper price and run to a timetable even when passenger use would be very low does require public money.
So it just depends – public money to a nationalised service or public money to a private service. Neither has a fantastic track record cause being nationalised it will be subject to the whim of the government of the day and being private will mean criticism of public money going into “shareholder pockets” (i.e. pensions funds).
#28 by Doug Daniel on November 7, 2011 - 12:59 pm
There should be no subsidies. If we must have private operators running the trains, then the routes need to be packaged up in the manner Brian Nicholson suggests – “here, you can operate this money-making route, but only on the condition that you service these unprofitable routes as well”. If no private companies are interested, then fine, we set up a not-for-profit company to do the job and have the profitable routes subsidising the unprofitable ones.
Subsidies should only be used to prop up what would otherwise be unprofitable services. If they have enough money to give to shareholders, then they have enough money to survive without subsidies. It’s a commonly-used mantra, but it’s true nonetheless: public services should be run for the public, not for private profit.
#29 by Doug Daniel on November 7, 2011 - 1:01 pm
By “Subsidies should only be used to prop up what would otherwise be unprofitable services”, I of course mean loss-making services…
#30 by Tom on November 7, 2011 - 3:45 pm
Type your comment here
The railways were nationalised by a Government that refused to compensate the Big 4 railway companies for their war role.
Almost from Day 1, lines were being closed on the grounds of losses and lack of social value. The lack of investment saw losses continue to build up until an operating loss was recorded in 1955. This prompted the 1955 Modernisation Plan, which was an unmigitated disaster for the railways. The Government white paper ignored the changing nature of freight (containerisation wouldn’t need the large marshalling yards) and favoured incompetent British suppliers that built shoddy diesel locomotives.
The direct result of that failure was the Beeching Report. The Beeching Report didn’t even mention the many more closures that happened beforehand. Meanwhile the much forgotten second Beeching Report, identifying lines for development and investment, was ignored.
The biggest problem with nationalisation is and will remain political control and budgeting – when it comes down to funding free prescriptions or long term investment in railways, there is only one winner.
The problem with privatisation was not privatisation itself but the particular form it took. We need longer franchises (like Chiltern Railways) that encourage companies to invest because they will accure the returns later in the franchise period. The initial franchise periods were barely long enough for companies like Virgin to see a return (funnily enough the media reports always focus on recent profits and not the years of no-profits in which they were investing). The franchise periods have only got shorter since.