Sunday telegraph - Train fares set to rise as ticket system overhauled

"Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote
>
> What can be done to cut costs? It's been tried before and failed, but
> another try might work. My suggestion: Double-shift London. The first
> shift gets in 6 00 am and gets back home 15 00, time to pick up the
> children from school. The second shift starts 10 00 and finishes 19 00
> - and the trains make 4 full journeys/day instead of the 2 they do
> now, and London, the centre of world finance isn't tied to 9 00 - 17
> 00 GMT, old gentleman's hours. It might just work.
>
To quite an extent it's already happening - on LUL the rush hour now seems
to be 0600 - 2300. On National Rail arrivals between 0800 and 0900 are not
significantly more crowded than they were in previous decades, but many more
passengers are arriving before 0800 than was the case 10 or 20 years ago,
while many people who have a choice of working hours take advantage of CDR
fares to arrive in London mid-morning.

Peter

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:48:20 +0100, Michael Bell
<michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote:


>What can be done to cut costs? It's been tried before and failed, but
>another try might work. My suggestion: Double-shift London. The first
>shift gets in 6 00 am and gets back home 15 00, time to pick up the
>children from school. The second shift starts 10 00 and finishes 19 00
>- and the trains make 4 full journeys/day instead of the 2 they do
>now, and London, the centre of world finance isn't tied to 9 00 - 17
>00 GMT, old gentleman's hours. It might just work.

You clearly have no idea how spread out the peaks are these days and how
full trains, tubes and buses are for hours and hours every day of the
week. (speaking from a London perspective here but I'm sure other major
cities have similar issues).

I also cannot see people wishing to routinely get up at 0400 or so in
order to get in to work for 0600. Not every business can work on a
double shift system - your proposal would give about a 2 - 3 hour window
for business meetings and would bugger up the lunch hour period
completely. This is before we consider how on earth railway staff are
going to get to work in order to offer a peak intensity service from
about 0430 in the morning or how maintenance and inspection activities
are to be done in what would be reduced engineering hours.

If, after well over 100 years of industrialization, we haven't solved
the commuting problem I don't see how we're suddenly going to fix it
now. Computers aren't the answer nor is home working given the nature of
most work (i.e. interaction with people).


--
Paul C

In message <i75ob4dv487erov88242ing7g6hitcfpuv@>, at 17:24:51 on
Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Corfield <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> remarked:
>I was bemused to see NXEC telly adverts at the weekend tempting people
>to pay tiny sums of money to travel to Newcastle and Edinburgh.

That'll be AP fares. The new structure is for walk-up fares.

>Given the huge demands for premiums from the government plus their
>public statements about fare payers making a bigger overall contribution
>to revenue it had to be the case that this change would be part of the
>overall strategy.

Indeed. But we have perhaps been in denial about it.

>Goodness knows what happens if these back door increases couple with a
>real downturn in economic activity.

That's actually quite difficult to predict, because in the last
recession it seemed to me that more people ended up travelling (often
quite long distances) to work as it was impractical to buy and sell
houses when your job changed.

If that travel becomes uneconomic (by road because of oil prices and by
rail because of fare increases) then we could be about to fall off the
edge of an even bigger cliff [he worst for 60 years] than Darling is
predicting.

>How many TOCs will be knocking on the door of the DfT asking whether
>cap and collar has kicked in yet?

Or handing back the keys, GNER-style.
--
Roland Perry

On 1 Sep, 18:22, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <i75ob4dv487erov88242ing7g6hitcf...@>, at 17:24:51 on
> Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Corfield <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> remarked:
>
> >I was bemused to see NXEC telly adverts at the weekend tempting people
> >to pay tiny sums of money to travel to Newcastle and Edinburgh.
>
> That'll be AP fares. The new structure is for walk-up fares.
>

Just a bit more info - all advance purchase fares have been called
'Advance' since May, whilst the walk-on fares are being renamed and
'simplified' as of 7 September.

>
> >Given the huge demands for premiums from the government plus their
> >public statements about fare payers making a bigger overall contribution
> >to revenue it had to be the case that this change would be part of the
> >overall strategy.
>
> Indeed. But we have perhaps been in denial about it.
>
> >Goodness knows what happens if these back door increases couple with a
> >real downturn in economic activity.
>
> That's actually quite difficult to predict, because in the last
> recession it seemed to me that more people ended up travelling (often
> quite long distances) to work as it was impractical to buy and sell
> houses when your job changed.
>
> If that travel becomes uneconomic (by road because of oil prices and by
> rail because of fare increases) then we could be about to fall off the
> edge of an even bigger cliff [he worst for 60 years] than Darling is
> predicting.
>

Good point. Many season ticket fares do however remain regulated, so
the TOCs can't just raise the prices sky high - this is certainly the
case in the south-east, though I'm somewhat fuzzy on exactly where
this applies elsewhere. Of course, if the government gives the OK for
regulated fares to rise then they will!

>
> >How many TOCs will be knocking on the door of the DfT asking whether
> >cap and collar has kicked in yet?
>
> Or handing back the keys, GNER-style.
>

On 1 Sep, 18:06, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> "Michael Bell" <mich...@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote
>
> > What can be done to cut costs? It's been tried before and failed, but
> > another try might work. My suggestion: Double-shift London. The first
> > shift gets in 6 00 am and gets back home 15 00, time to pick up the
> > children from school. The second shift starts 10 00 and finishes 19 00
> > - and the trains make 4 full journeys/day instead of the 2 they do
> > now, and London, the centre of world finance isn't tied to 9 00 - 17
> > 00 GMT, old gentleman's hours. It might just work.
>
> To quite an extent it's already happening - on LUL the rush hour now seems
> to be 0600 - 2300. On National Rail arrivals between 0800 and 0900 are not
> significantly more crowded than they were in previous decades, but many more
> passengers are arriving before 0800 than was the case 10 or 20 years ago,
> while many people who have a choice of working hours take advantage of CDR
> fares to arrive in London mid-morning.
>
> Peter

It isn't just London- the multinational nature of business these days
means that somebody somewhere in the UK arm of a multinational has to
keep hours which overlap with the other places of business. I know of
somebody in the Australian-owned organisation which employs me, who
has to be at work for 7am to "hand over" from somebody in the
Melbourne office who works until 10pm Aussie time. Add in more rights
and protection for those who have to leave work early for child care
reasons and starting work at 7.30-8 becomes quite attractive.

"Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.> wrote in message
news:7dd725d84f%Rail@greywall....
> In message <0001HW.C4E1EFDB00B1A42DF0407648@news.eclipse.co.u k>
> Stimpy <stimpy1997ukm> wrote:
> >
> > Er... gentleman's hours were 10:00 to 4:00.
>
> With two hours for lunch...
>
and such a good lunch that work was not possible in the afternoon.

Peter

On Sep 1, 9:16 pm, Paul Corfield <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:17:01 GMT, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>
> >Not with a commute, though, 0600 is early enough to get up!
>
> Well I work 07.30 to about 16.00 but it does mean a 05.30 getting up
> time. On a very good day the commute can be 45 mins door to door but
> that is literally walking straight on to a bus, off on to a tube and
> then another one so zero waiting time and minimal interchange time. Most
> days it is not like that but overall it's pretty much disruption free.
>
> I'm not subject to the vagaries of National Rail services and I have
> occasionally pondered whether I'd want to move out from London and I
> just couldn't tolerate 30 or 60 minute waits for trains.

I'm not sure any route into London has such infrequent services,
especially in the peaks. Commuters tend to stick to their regular
pattern of travel.

Longer-distance commutes are encouraged due to:
a) better chance of finding a seat further out
b) better chance of finding a comfortable seat with table even further
out - allows time to be used productively (cue the no450.co.uk
campaign)
c) higher frequencies and longer trains on outer-suburban routes
compared to inner - particularly noticeable in south London, where off-
peak SN metro paths are assigned to trains to/from the coast in the
peaks.
d) the failure to make certain parts of London more attractive in
terms of improving the public realm, reducing the fear of crime,
traffic, etc...

Anyway, a year of commuting has been more than enough for me... 2x 1
hr 40 mins per day = 3 hr 20. Suppose half of that time has been
wasted due to fatigue, irritating fellow pax, etc. ~45 weeks x 5 days
x 100 mins = 22500 minutes lost. That's 15 whole days. If all the
time is regarded as wasted, that's one month gone!

It's been an experience, but I'm ready to swap back to a max. 45-min
walk or cycle to work... To do it again would require:
a) an increase in the number of young, available women to talk to :-)
b) a more sociable experience in general - my trains have been silent
save for the i-pods and 'I'm on the train' brigade. Does the 'W club'
still operate out of Waterloo???
c) door-to-door jny < 60 mins
d) guaranteed low-density 377s
e) no interchanges
f) one day home working per week