Yes, of COURSE rail fares are going up again...

14 August 2012

overcrowded train It’ll come as no surpise to anyone whatsoever, but some rail fares are due to rise by an eye-watering 6.2% in January, with the chance of even higher increases elsewhere.

What with the RPI measure of inflation currently standing at 3.2%, the rail rises are going to really put the squeeze on regular train travellers. Some English fares will rise by 6.2% while in Scotland the equivalent fares will go up by 4.2%. The increases in Wales have yet to be decided and no price hikes are planned in Northern Ireland.

Your fares could rise even higher, as train companies are allowed to increase some fares by as much as another 5%, as long as they reduce others elsewhere. Great! But don’t worry, because your extra money will be spent on investment in the rail network and improvements to what we’re sure you’ll agree is already a tip-top service.

Are you a regular rail user? How do you feel about stumping up even more cash in exchange for ‘improvements’ and new services that might not even be on the route that you use? How much is too much? When are you going to overthrow a train and plough it into a corn field in protest? Eh? EH??

Tell us in the box below…

TOPICS:   Travel


  • Smoke m.
    Who cares what increases they're adding to the fares...? Weren't the Olympics just amazing....
  • rubaducky
    I got a choochoo up to london last month, first time i've been on a train in decades. So much tidier and luxurious than they were 15-20 years ago, and well worth the money. If you plan ahead and search on the rail networks websites, theres some pretty good deals.
  • badger
    So what? Anybody over 40 using public transport is a loser anyway.
  • Ian
    @rubaducky Planning ahead and purchasing advance tickets doesn't really apply to those that get hit hardest by these increases - the commuters. An annual season ticket from Horsham to London is £4,204. That's OVER £350 per month, just on rail travel. With a 10% increase which is being quoted, that's and extra £420 per year commuters are having to stump up. On top of increases the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that..... These commuters make London what it is, which in turn benefits the whole country. Taxpayers should contribute a greater proportion to the railways.
  • Bob C.
    This is awful, the passengers are being ripped off by the rail companies yet again, time for me to pull the boys out until we get another above inflationary pay rise, plus an extra days holiday and a bonus for the extra passengers we'll have to transport.
  • bushbrother
    I could understand the increases if we had actually seen improvements from all the other years of hikes ... but we don't, so why are we having to pay more AGAIN!
  • Sicknote
    @badger As first class Southwest Train London commuter and owner of my own sports trading company I'm chuffed to know I'm a loser. Perhaps you should narrow your statement to include only 40 year old people in the North of England who wear leisure clothes, baseball hats and trainers when not at the gym; generally they're men who have girlfriends under the age of 20. You normally see them on the buz gayin dan the tan to cash a giro or sell sum bling
  • Chewbacca
    What people always seem to conveniently forget is that commuter trains will ALWAYS be the most expensive, as there is moe or less ZERO available additional capacity. Platforms and trains really can't get much longer, so the only alternative is to price out those who don't need to travel at peak times.
  • Ian
    @Chewbacca That's ridiculous. Do you think those that don't need to travel at peak times do just for the hell of it?! Everyone that travels at peak times does it because they need to get to work. Putting the prices up isn't going to change that.
  • bushbrother
    @Chewbacca - double decker trains as they do in Europe?
  • Ian
    @bushbrother Small matter of all the railway bridges, tunnels, and stations you'd have to make higher. Would cost a fortune.
  • Idi A.
    @Ian Lower the tracks instead. Duh.
  • TimB
    But since there's never a conductor on the commuter trains anyway, it's not like you actually need to buy a ticket.
  • klingelton
    priced out of your car? better use the train. priced out the train? better use your pushbike. only a matter of time before peddle power is taxed.
  • Not I.
    @ Ian Boo fucking hoo. If you insist on working in the "city" and live elsewhere, then that's your choice. But why the fuck should i compensate you for it? Why not work closer to home...? Ah- you wont get the big city wages then would you. You made your bed, now fuck off and sleep in it.
  • Raggedy
    @Not Ian Sorry to burst your bubble but the increases include all stations to the "city". You don't have to work in the "city" to be affected by this appallingly blatant rip off. A 5 mile train ride and you end up paying more even if the "city" on the same line is 50 miles away. And how are you contributing? If you do actually pay taxes, you don't have a choice where they go or how they are spent. That's down to the government you elected. For what it's worth, I don't want new and improved stations. I don't want to spend that much time in one. Just get me to my destination on time for once!
  • Not I.
    @ Raggedy You are quite right. Rail travel has always been a cunty mess. But i'm sure motorists will happily argue that all the fuel tax and road fund does not get spent on roads, and as a consequence our road network is crippled. However i was merely replying to Ian who was highlighting the poor blight of the commuter; as if they are some magical workforce who, alone, run this country. If you live miles away from your place of work, then you will have to incur travel costs. Why Ian thinks Joe Public should subsidise him is beyond me. Life is a bitch, but suck it up. If you don't like it, fuck off.
  • Raggedy
    @Not Ian Only the Joe Public who smokes subsidises this country. If you smoke, you may have a point, if you don't STFU. :-)
  • Nikey H.
    So, you want to live in your country mansion out in the middle of nowhere rather than living with the African hippies and European weirdoes and the Asian taxi drivers in a council flat and then you complain you dont wanna pay big to travel to the City. Nuf said
  • Chewbacca
    Good to see some of you muppets have missed my point. "cheap" fares are only usually available on non-peak trains to encourage "leisure" travel. Fares on peak trains will always be high, as: 1) They are designed to dissuade non-commuting staff to travel 2) They're a cash cow. There will always be a segment who will pay. Milk them!
  • Skymarshall
    You are all bell ends. The dole queue is where it's at. Easy life.
  • Dick
    There are many choices these days. Live closer to work. Flexi-time. Work from home. Or pay to commute. If you don't like it, get another job. And probably take a pay cut, more than the cost of your train ticket. Do the maths. If you can get another job and make more money by paying less for travel, then do it. If you'd have to take a larger pay cut than the cost of the commute, then stop whinging. Yes, you pay a lot to travel, but that is because you are using resources that other people also making more money than average want to use.
  • dvdj10
    @Dick, exaclty. I used to live in the centre of Manchester with a 5min walk to work. Now I've moved out of the city I pay £200 a month in petrol to get to work (or £190 on the trains for me and my wife combined plus hasstle). But guess what? My mortgage is £300 less than what my rent was in the city. So tothe guy paying £350 a month on the train, move closer if you don't like it. It'll cost you more in rent but you'll pay less on the train and save time. Otherwise shut it, why should our taxes go on subsidising your travel as you choose to work a distance from your home?
  • dvdj10
    Horsham to London (assuming Westminister) is 40miles each wayby road. How you can expect to do this journey on the cheap is beyond me. £350 a month is cheaper or around par with petrol costs, and I bet it takes less time on the train. Not to mention parking costs in the city. So all in all you get a decent deal if you ask me. For reference a 40mile commute would be akin to Manchester - Chester. No-one in their right mind would bother with this and those that would, would accept that it's going to cost a bit. Also the journey would more than likely have to be done by car as we don't have the public transport of London so the choice wouldn't be there. You makes your choices and you live with them and all that.
  • snigface
    when I started my BSc three years ago, my daily train fare was £3.80. I'm starting an MSc in Sept and just budgeted accordingly. Train fare today is £7.90 but will be going up to £8.65 soon. (I have budgeted £9.50 daily to be on the safe side - which is nearly as much as I spend on food a week!). So my question is, how can exactly the same trains on exactly the same lines cost nearly three times as much now as they did three years ago? I have no choice but to pay it and put up with it as Ian suggests (I have young family and a business so I can't move closer; besides, it's only 17 minutes away by train so I'm not sure moving closer is even possible!) If it weren't for other factors (like that I'd have to leave an hour early, hence pay an extra £6 for childcare) it would be cheaper for me to drive than take the train. I'm not expecting to be subsidised to travel to get educated but I do expect value for money and I don't think train users feel that they get any such thing (although my personal opinion is that public transport should be subsidised from an environmental POV but we all know that is never going to happen).
  • Chewbacca
    ^ you spend nearly £9.50 on food a week? Listen, Ahmed, you're not in Bangalore anymore. If you don't like it, fuck off.

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment