When Victorian railways conspired against Christmas

One of the features of the late Victorian British railway industry was competition, with railways in all parts of the nation trying to out-perform each other in order to win the patronage of passengers. From the 1880s the Great Western and London & South Western Railways accelerated their services as well as increased the luxury in which passengers were conveyed, to secure the business to West Country locations such as Exeter and Plymouth.^[1] Competition between companies also existed on the routes between Nottingham and Leeds, Liverpool and Hull, and Edinburgh and Glasgow, as well as between other major cities.^[2]

Some historians have argued that these struggles between railways were a major factor in their declining profitability after 1870, as faster trains and more luxurious carriages cost more to build and operate. Cain, for example, stated his belief that ‘service competition alone would have been sufficient to promote levels of capital spending and methods of operation that continuously eroded profitability.’^[3] Personally, I have always doubted the extent to which competitive trains services actually eroded companies’ profitability. I argued in my thesis, on the management of the London & South Western Railway after 1870, that service competition was on the margins of the railway’s activities. It and the GWR ran hundreds of services each day and only four or five express services to the West Country were truly ‘competitive.’^[4]

One of the fiercest competitions between railway companies were the famed ‘Races to the North’ in 1888 and 1895. Two groups of companies that had control of the east and west coast main lines competed for the fastest trains between London and Scotland. On the east coast route the competitors were the Great Northern (London to York), North Eastern (York to Edinburgh) and North British Railways (Edinburgh to Aberdeen); while on the west coast route the contestants were the London and North Western (London to Carlisle) and Caledonian Railways (Carlisle to Edinburgh and Aberdeen). The race of 1895, which received the same attention in the press as the derby at Cheltenham, captured the public’s imagination, culminating in a west coast train on the night of 22 and 23 August making the journey between London and Aberdeen in 8 hours 42 minutes. This was eight minutes quicker than an east coast train the night before.^[5]

Because of events like this, the press liked to paint these railway races as battles between warring powers. But how serious was the animosity between the companies? Did the east and west coast railways really treat their competitors as enemies? Or were the ‘races’ just an exuberant, but good-natured, expression of a rivalry between them? Perhaps an event that occurred before Christmas 1882 suggests an answer to these questions.

In early December 1882 a very thick letter arrived at King’s Cross headquarters of the Great Northern Railway. Before a list of 214 names was a letter addressed to those in authority within company:

Gentlemen

   We the undersigned draw your attention to the fact that there are in London many Scotchmen who desire to avail themselves of the opportunity of visiting their friends in Scotland during the short vacation at Christmas but are deterred from doing so by the heavy railway fares.

We would therefore petition to you to give this subject your full consideration and endeavour to make some arrangement, whereby the result aimed at by your petitioners may be gained namely: a reasonable reduction in fares between London and Scotland equal to, if not quarter than that granted during the summer months.

   We are certain that should you see your way to meet us in this matter, it would not only confer a great boon, but from the large numbers availing themselves of the opportunity, prove equally to your advantage.

   We are yours respectfully… ^[6]

But this petition was not the only one to be sent, and a duplicate also landed on the desk of George Findlay, the London and North Western Railway’s General Manager. I suspect Findlay’s natural response was to reject the request. But he was an astute railway manager, and possibly because he wished to maintain good relations with his east coast rivals, he contacted to his opposite number within the GNR, Henry Oakley. ‘As I presume a similar application has been addressed to you’, wrote Findlay ‘I shall be glad to know if you will be prepared to join us in declining to accede to the request.’^[7] Oakley’s response is not contained within the file, but the two companies decided to reject the petition. Findlay also communicated with the Midland Railway, who likewise operated a route between London and Scotland, and while they had not received a petition, they too were to going to keep fares at established levels. ^[8]

In 1882 three railway companies, all of which were theoretically competing with each other for traffic between London and Scotland, collectively agreed to deny travellers making this journey reduce-rate fares over the Christmas period. Of course, this case does not indicate the nature of the GNR and LNWR’s relationship five or ten years later when they were racing. Nevertheless, it may suggest that despite superficially appearing to be competing railways, as a matter of fact their relationship was actually quite close and they worked together when it was mutually beneficial for them to do so. ‘Market forces’, in this case at least, did not really work. One thing is for certain, the Great Northern, London & North Western and Midland Railways spoiled Christmas for a lot of London-based Scotsmen and their families in 1882.

--

[1] Jack Simmons, ‘South Western v. Great Western: railway competition in Devon and Cornwall’, The Journal of Transport History, 4 (1959), 27-34

[2] Jack Simmons, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991), p.83; Jack Simmons, The Railway in England and Wales, 1830-1914, (Leicester, 1978), p.84-85

[3] P.J. Cain, ‘Railways 1870-1914: the maturity of the private system’, in, Michael J. Freeman and Derek H. Aldcroft, Transport in Victorian Britain, (Manchester, 1988), pp.115

[4] David Turner, ‘Managing the “Royal Road”: The London & South Western Railway 1870-1911’, (Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of York, 2013)

[5] Oswald S. Nock, The Railway Race to the North, (London, 1958), p.120-121

[6] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 236/721/9, From London `Scotchmen' asking for reduction in fares to Scotland during Christmas vacation, Letter from organisation committee to Great Northern Railway, 4 December 1882

[7] TNA, RAIL 236/721/9, From London `Scotchmen' asking for reduction in fares to Scotland during Christmas vacation, Letter from George Findlay to Henry Oakley, 11 December 1882

[8] TNA, RAIL 236/721/9, From London `Scotchmen' asking for reduction in fares to Scotland during Christmas vacation, Letter from George Findlay to Henry Oakley, 13 December 1882

Gourvish and Wolmar - TurnipRail's 2 Year Anniversary - Guest Posts

This is the last TurnipRail Two-year anniversary post, and I am glad to say I finish off with two prestigious guest posters, Terry Gourvish and Christian Wolmar.

Kevin Tennent, Me and Terry at Battersea Beer Festival, 2011

Terry Gourvish: On the first day of my PhD, my supervisor he handed me a book: 'Mark Huish and the London and North Western Railway.' I consumed it, gaining a fondness for a subject which, at that point, I knew little about. But beyond that, I was in awe of the author: Terry Gourvish. On our first meeting I was star-struck. Oh how things have changed. Indeed, over a pint in the Golden Ball, York, it was partially his idea to start the blog. Terry's had an extensive career. His two-volume history of British Railways is unsurpassed, and he authored the Official History of the privatised railways between 1997 and 2005  and the Channel Tunnel. Furthermore, he has written countless articles on railway history, a comprehensive history of Britain's brewing industry and on business history generally. He now heads the London School of Economics' Business History Unit. Indeed, Terry is someone I look up to immensely. Thus, I was overjoyed when he agreed to write a piece for the blog, and for that I owe him much thanks.

Should Passengers Pay Higher Fares?

This issue comes up every year, and produces the same sterile arguments from the main protagonists: Passenger Focus, ATOC, et al. How much of the cost of running the passenger railway should be charged to the ‘fare box’ is, of course, a matter for public policy. Some countries, e.g. France and Italy, have historically charged more to tax-payers than we do in the UK. If that is justifiable, then passengers should pay less here too. On the other hand, in countries which load the burden onto tax-payers, the operation represents a subsidy to rail users, who are in general not the poorer members of society that subsidies really ought to reach. I would say that increasing the fare box via higher fares is justifiable, but only if: 1] railway costs are as low as they could be; and 2] journeys made on the spur of the moment, i.e. non-APEX fares, are not punitively high.

Can we say that this is so? 

Christian Wolmar: Well, what can be said about Christian Wolmar that hasn't been said already? Christian is Britain's leading transport commentator, popping up on TV and Radio almost every week. But more than that, he has written widely about railway issues and history. The first book of his I read, many moons ago, was the 'Subterranean Railway', his engaging account of the history of the London Tube. Subsequently, I have consumed most of his other books, including 'Fire and Steam', 'On the Wrong Line' and 'Engines of War.' I also am an avid reader of his fortnightly column in RAIL magazine. Therefore, as an author whose writings I have thoroughly enjoyed through the years, I was thrilled when he agreed to write a paragraph for this anniversary. Many, many, thanks to Christian:

Without understanding history,we cannot learn its lessons. In the research for my various books, it is remarkable how the same dilemmas over railway politics have occurred throughout their history. Italian politicians, for example, were debating whether to nationalise their railways in the 1880s, and interestingly it was the Left who opposed state control. Discussions over open access to railways predate that by some decades and nearly all rail companies realised that providing the traction as well as the track was the best option, a lesson of history missed by those who supported the rail privatisation of the mid 1990s. Subsidy, too, has always been a thorny issue and subject to much handwringing from politicians. If only they understood the history and learned from it, they would not make the same mistakes as their predecessors. Maybe that is too much to hope for, but as historians – and I have become one by default – we must strive to educate today’s decision makers about how the past can inform them.

"An EXTRA TRAIN will leave Shoreditch" - Trains on Christmas Day before 1900

Last year around this time, I showed how Christmas was celebrated on the London and South Western Railway before 1900 (HERE). However, one thing stuck in my mind, namely, that the railways still operated on Christmas Day. Therefore, this year I conducted a bit of research to discover more about these services. Unsurprisingly, I found that the increasing importance of Christmas throughout the nineteenth century affected how many trains were run on Christmas Day.

In the 1830s and early 1840s it seems that the railway companies did not make any special arrangements for Christmas Day and ran regular weekday services. An advert printed on 22 December 1837 for the Grand Junction Railway’s forthcoming services between Birmingham and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway contained not one word about the coming festivities.[1] Indeed, adverts printed in the week before Christmas for trains on the London and Greenwich Railway[2] and  the Great Western Railway (GWR) in 1838,[3], as well as on the Birmingham and Derby Railway in 1839[4], also mention no special passenger train arrangements on Christmas Day. Furthermore, an Eastern Counties Railway advert from the 22 December 1843 clearly announced that ‘On Christmas day the trains will run the same as on week days.’[5] Lastly, shown on the left is an example a Great Western Railway advert published on 19 December 1840 which has no mention of Christmas.[6]

The reason that trains continued to run as normal on Christmas Day in this period was, I presume, because it was only significantly observed by the upper and middle classes and for many people it simply a normal day. Nevertheless, 1843 was a year when the increasing popularity of Christmas amongst all the population was becoming evident. In that year the first Christmas card appeared [7] and on the 17 December Dickens’ A Christmas Carol was published, a text which helped to revive interest in forgotten Christmas traditions [8].

Therefore, around this time railway companies began offering special rates to passengers in the festive period. In 1844 the Preston and Wyre Railway offered, in bold capital letters, ‘CHRISTMAS CHEAP TRAINS’. Between Christmas Day and New Year passengers travelling by the 8.30 am train from Preston to any station on the company’s network could return with the same ticket by any train. Furthermore, on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day anyone booking to Preston on either of the two morning trains, could also return the same day on the same ticket.[9] In 1845 the GWR reduced the cost of all return tickets by a third on Christmas Day.[10] Lastly, the Midland Railway allowed passengers who purchased first or second class day tickets between the 24^th and 26^th December to return on any of those days or on the 27^th and 28^th.[11] Consequently, throughout the Victorian period offers of this nature were provided by most companies in the festive season.

However, the GWR’s 1845 advert included words which indicated that further changes in Christmas services were afoot. The reduced fares were allowed, ‘reckoning Christmas Day as a Sunday.’ [12] Indeed, while in the GWR’s case they offered the special Sunday fares on Christmas day, seemingly it wasn’t long until many companies began running Sunday timetables on that day also. Evidence has been found of this being advertised by the London and South Western Railway in 1846,[13] the GWR in 1849,[14] the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway in 1854[15] and the Chester and Birkenhead Railway in 1857. Indeed, by the 1860s the running of Sunday services on Christmas Day seemed to be the norm across the railway industry.

However, unlike at present, Sunday timetables were not simply a slightly reduced version of the weekday one and the number of trains running was small compared with the rest of the week. The Chester and Birkenhead’s December 1857 timetable shows ten up and eleven down trains between Liverpool and Chester on a weekday. However, only four up and three down were provided on a Sunday. The GWR’s timetable for services between London and Chester shows five up and six down on a weekday, but only one each way on a Sunday.[16] Furthermore, as Sunday trains were not greatly profitable, railway managers gradually reduced the number of lines that had them as the nineteenth century progressed. Thus, in 1847 only 2.6% of Britain’s railway network had no Sunday services, yet by 1861 the figure was 5.7%, in 1871 it was 18.9% and by 1887 it was 20.1%.[17] Only in Scotland did religious feeling play a role in stopping Sunday services, and by 1914 over 60% of the network had no trains.[18]

Therefore, because the Sunday timetables operating on Christmas Day would have been unable to convey all who wanted to travel in the festive season, especially given its increasing popularity, from the 1850s the railways ran extra services in the three or four days before the 25 December. Indeed, this seems to have become an industry norm. An issue of The Standard from 22 December 1863 shows the following railways were advertising additional services in this period:

Crystal Palace

Great Eastern

Great Western

London and North Western

London and South Western

London, Brighton and South Coast

London, Chatham and Dover

North London

South Eastern[19]

Special trains on Christmas Day have been hard to find before the 1860s, and thereafter they were few in number in each year. An Eastern Counties’ Railway advert from 1844 stated that on Christmas day ‘an EXTRA TRAIN will leave Shoreditch Station to Brentwood at a Quarter before Ten o’clock A.M. calling at all the intermediate stations.’[20] However, this seems an anomaly for the period.

After 1860, special Christmas Day services provided were seemingly operating on long-distance routes only. In 1860 the South Eastern Railway put on a special train between London and Canterbury at 8.30am, returning in the evening. The Eastern Counties Railway ran a special train to Norwich leaving at 9.50 am. [21] In 1890 the London and South Western Railway put on a special train at 8.50am for Basingstoke, Salisbury and Exeter, as well as another for Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury Bournemouth and Lymington. Both trains called at principal intermediate stations along the way. In the same year the ‘London and North Western Railway’s timetable had ‘several important additions’[22] and in 1895 the company ran a special train from Euston at 6.15 am stopping at all major stations between there and Glasgow.[23] Lastly, In 1899 the South Eastern Railway offered ‘several extra trains.’[24] Ultimately, the total number special Christmas Day trains each year is unknown, however, it is clear they were not numerous.

Overall, during the Victorian period the number of trains railway companies provided on Christmas Day diminished. Immediately after the industry’s birth companies ran full weekday timetables on 25 December. However, in the 1840s sparse Sunday timetables were adopted, which themselves provided a diminishing number of services as the decades passed.  Thus, this adoption of Sunday timetables began the long decline of the Christmas Day passenger train, the last of which was run in 1981.[25]

--------

[1] Liverpool Mercury etc, Friday, December 22, 1837

[2] The Examiner, Sunday, December 23, 1838

[3] The Morning Chronicle, Saturday, December 22, 1838

[4] The Derby Mercury, Wednesday, December 18, 1839

[5] The Essex Standard, and General Advertiser for the Eastern Counties, Friday, December 22, 1843

[6] The Bristol Mercury, Saturday, December 19, 1840

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_card

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol

[9] The Preston Chronicle etc, Saturday, December 21, 1844

[10] The Morning Chronicle, Monday, December 22, 1845

[11] The Derby Mercury, Wednesday, December 23, 1846

[12] The Morning Chronicle, Monday, December 22, 1845

[13] Hampshire Advertiser & Salisbury Guardian, Saturday, December 05, 1846, pg.1

[14] John Bull, Saturday, December 08, 1849, p. 765, Issue 1,513

[15] The Morning Chronicle, Tuesday, December 12, 1854, Issue 27445

[16] Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser, and Cheshire, Shropshire, Flintshire, and North Wales Register, Saturday, December 12, 1857, Issue 202

[17] Simmons, Jack, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991), p.286

[18] Simmons, Jack, ‘Sunday Services’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.486

[19] The Standard, Tuesday, December 22, 1863, pg. 1, Issue 12282

[20] The Essex Standard, and General Advertiser for the Eastern Counties, Friday, December 22, 1843

[21] The Standard, Saturday, December 22, 1860, p.1

[22] The County Gentleman- Sporting Gazette, Agricultural Journal, and The Man about Town, Saturday, December 13, 1890, pg. 1759

[23] Speaker, No.12 (1895, December 21), p.682

[24] Outlook, Vol. 4, No.98 (1899, December 16), p.633

[25] The Times, Thursday, Dec 16, 1982, pg. 26, Issue 61416

Fare Rises and the Abandonment of the British Railway Passenger

On Tuesday I spent 45 minutes of my morning standing at Waterloo Station handing out cards and supporting the Campaign for Better Transport’s ‘Fair Fares’ campaign. Now, as some of my long-time readers are aware I did raise some concerns about this campaign in a previous post (here). However, those concerns, some of which have diminished, are secondary to the fact that I wholeheartedly support it. I don’t just believe the campaign is important because everyone likes to keep more of their money. I believe it is important because economically it is beneficial that fares are kept within the financial reach of everyone.

This fact was demonstrated to me later on Tuesday when one of my customers at the library, who works with unemployed individuals, stated that for some the fare price was a crucial factor in whether they attended a job interview. Indeed, as the cuts hit, unemployment rises, and inflation goes up, the expected 30% increase in rail fares over the next three years will see increasing numbers of people priced off the railways, with those at the bottom of the income scale being affected the greatest. Consequently this will limit people’s job opportunities, businesses’ access to labour and it may ultimately stunt economic growth.

Most of the politicians will argue that the fares need to go up to pay for necessary improvements to the network. In their minds the increases are especially needed because the government is cutting its subsidy to the railway companies. While there is some truth in these claims, it doesn’t address the fundamental issue that has allowed this situation to occur: that over the last 20 years successive governments progressively abandoned the needs of the travelling public in favour of maintaining a privatised system that simply doesn’t work.

Let us be honest for a moment, railways in this country do not make profit any more. However, their social, environmental and economic benefits are so significant that ultimately it is highly beneficial to the nation to have a railway system that touches so much of the country and for the government to maintain it (directly or indirectly). By the early 1990s the nationalised British Rail was working for nation. While always receiving a subsidy, between 1982 and 1993/4 it made impressive efficiency savings to become one of the most efficient railways in the world (as I have pointed out here). All the while, it continued to provide reasonable fares for passengers and boost the economy. However, since privatisation the government has had to subsidise the train operating companies to keep them in profit. Consequently, the cost of the railways to the taxpayer now is far in excess of what it would have been had the industry not been privatised.

Thus, the predicted 30% increase in fares indicate the thinking of the current government. Because of the persistence of free-market ideologies they believe that keeping private enterprise involved in the railways, when it clearly hasn't worked, is more important than the industry's purpose of serving the country's economy and inhabitants. Furthermore, the recent McNulty report on railway efficiency did not talk about significant alternatives to the the private system. Indeed, no one in government seems willing to shout the truth: "this isn't working any more."

Of course the government did not always have the same attitude. The last time the railways were run by private multi-coloured railway companies was in the 19^th century. The 100+ companies mostly made a profit. Yet, as the industry matured the government still stepped in to protect the country's poorest individuals. Before the 1870s most railways acted in ways that were simply in their shareholder’s interests. For most citizens the cost of travel was high and although the railways’ operated a first, second and third class system, third class accommodation was only really within the price range of lower-middle and upper working-class individuals. Those at the very bottom of the social spectrum were priced off the railway. That is until 1844.

After eight people died in the Sonning Cutting accident of Christmas Eve 1841, the Board of Trade began an enquiry into third class train accommodation. The culmination was the 1844 Regulation of Railways Act. This compelled railway companies that derived a third of their revenue from passengers to provide one train daily which called at all stations, had a minimum speed of 12 miles per hour, used enclosed carriages with seats and, most importantly, cost the traveller not more than 1d per mile. These were nicknamed ‘Parliamentary Trains’ (or ‘Parlys). Reflecting the financial burden of these services for the railway companies, any company meeting the requirements did not pay taxes on the fares.[1] While not ideal, this was the first intervention by government that forced the railway companies to put on accommodation for those who were not financial able to use it prior to that point. Fundamentally, it was an act by law-makers of economic stimulation. But things didn’t stop there.

The building of the railways caused many residential areas of cities demolished. This meant that many factory and industry workers were forced to move further away from the metropolis. To protect these individuals’ incomes and the labour supply of the businesses they worked for, the railway companies were compelled by the acts of parliament authorising their lines to provide cheap trains for the workmen. While some companies had provided ‘workmen’s trains’ in the 1840s, the first compelled to do so by parliament was the Great Eastern Railway in 1864 when it extended to Liverpool Street. The act stated that it was to provide workmen’s trains to London from Edmonton and Walthamstow at a return cost of 2d. Thereafter, and much to the chagrin of railway directors, by 1899 there were 104 workmen’s trains run daily. The only negative point was that the trains were run very early in the morning, returning late at night.[2]

While these two developments are important individually, they show that all governments recognised the economic and social value of the railways to the nation soon after their establishment. Indeed, political affiliation did not seem to be an issue, and the 1844 act was passed by a Tory government, while the 1864 one was passed by a Liberal administration. Furthermore, these laws were followed after 1870 by others that fixed the rates the railways charged traders and improved the railways’ safety. Ultimately, by the First World War governments had realised that the profit motive of the railway companies was a secondary concern to structural integrity of economy they served.

Nevertheless, we live in an age where there has been a reverse of this attitude by successive governments. Despite the extremely high cost of the railways for the taxpayer, the potential for high train fares to damage economic recovery, the national discontent with the privatised system and the fact that privatisation wrecked the world’s most efficient railway, governments since the early 90s have continued to prioritise the ideology that private enterprise is good for the railways over the benefits that the industry provides to the nation. Thus, the predicted 30% fare increases over the next three years are the starkest evidence of this. It is the wrong attitude for a loss-making, but nationally beneficial industry.

So I say this: Fare Fares Now…Bring Back British Rail ASAP

---------------

[1] Simmons, Jack, 'Parliamentary Trains,' The Oxford Companion To British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.369

[2] Simmons, 'Workmen's Trains,' The Oxford Companion To British Railway History, p.568

Increased Fares Means Increased Transport Poverty

While tackling the deficit, the coalition government has also wedded itself to the idea of decreasing the divide between rich and poor and increasing social mobility. Yesterday, on the 100 day anniversary of the coalition partnership, Nick Clegg said, "Our determination to fix the deficit is matched by our determination to create a more socially mobile society." Yet, the government still aspires to do this on the backdrop of savage cuts in every area from health to defence. While I am sure that they understand the inherent contradiction in trying to improve the lives of Britain’s poorest, while at the same time cutting their benefits and employment opportunities, I don’t think, with the level of cuts proposed, it can be done.

I am not alone though and the coalition’s proposed policies have been frequently attacked from the left, right and all those in between. There is an increasing body of comment and detailed statistical analysis in the blogosphere and elsewhere, that shows that if anything the proposed cuts will only serve to increase divisions in Britain between rich and poor. Kevin Meagher at Left Foot Forward recently quoted Danny Dorling, professor of Human Geography at Sheffield University, as saying that “Britain is a country pulling itself apart” along a North-South rich-poor divide (To be found HERE)Meagher went on to argue that the removal of Regional Development Agencies and their replacement with Local Economic Partnerships, will only exacerbate this divide as the latter will not have the scope because of their smaller sze to make an impact on the national economic imbalance. Indeed, he again quotes Dorling as saying that “The recession is exacerbating those [existing] differences and I suspect the dividing line will also move southwards as the government’s cuts take effect.”

Additionally, the TUC released yesterday a list that showed that cuts in education, health, housing, welfare and social care have the greatest impact on the poorest in our society. The 100 cuts that they can be found HERE. Furthermore, cuts in government run organisations and local authorities will disproportionately affect people above the north-south divide, as in these regions government is the largest employer. Therefore, the result is that the inevitable redundancies may lower many individual’s and family’s standards of living, and may even force them into poverty. These two examples are simply a small portion of the attacks on the government’s claims of fairness. Overall, my assessment is that the coalition government cannot really talk about ‘fairness’ and ‘social mobility’ when it is demonstrably true that their policies so far will only serve to breed inequality.

So what does this have to do with the railways? I have always been an advocate of the idea that there is a concept of ‘transport poverty,’ a divide between richer and poorer travellers. Many people are simply priced out of rail travel, and choose to make their journeys solely by car, because of their financial positions. This, therefore, has the obvious negative effects on the environment and the congestion on the roads, but it also disproportionately affects the poorest in our society. It was for this reason that I was pleased to see that in the Lib Dem manifesto there was a commitment to lowing fares. This was, however, watered down in the coalition agreement to simply a promise of ‘fair rail pricing.’ While less direct than the original Lib Dem manifesto, I originally thought, in the context of my own beliefs of course, that ‘fair’ meant exactly what it said on the tin; reasonable prices for all, which would subsequently increase accessibility to the rail network.

We have since learnt from the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, that ‘fair’ is a word that can be twisted to mean whatever you want it to do. At the House of Commons select committee on Transport, in response to the question ‘You are committed to fair pricing. Fair to whom?,’ he stated ‘I think there are two aspects on this. First of all, there is the question of overall fairness policy on the railway and ensuring that any increases in fares can be justified in terms of improvements in the service that passengers receive. [....] It is not just about fares; it is about value for money for passengers. [...] It is about making sure that [passengers] are given proper information about the most advantageous fare available to them, that the information that is published is clear so that passengers can get the best deal that is possible within any given framework of any given fare structure.’ So basically, the coalition meant that prices would be ‘fair’ within the existing pricing framework. But then again, prices are not ‘fair’ if large numbers of people won’t use the railways because of the pricing structure, if the prices are some of the highest in Europe (in some places 60% higher) and if rail travel is therefore reserved for the better off half off society.

But rail prices, I suspect, are about to become more unfair. In years past the Train Operating Companies (TOC) have been allowed to raise ticket prices by the retail Price Index (now at 4.8%) plus 1%, a total of 5.8% this year. But it has been reported this week (To be found HERE) that in an attempt to reduce the £5 billion annual subsidy the Department for Transport (DfT) gives to the TOC’s, it may be ready to break this rule and allow the companies to increase the ticket prices by up to a possible 10%.

I think that this is a severe mistake for a number of reasons. If prices did rise by this much, a greater proportion of the population would be priced out of using rail travel. This would put greater pressure on the road and motorway network, increasing congestion on both long-distance and suburban routes. With increased car journeys being made this would, of course, be detrimental to the environment. The other possible implication could be that individuals would be more inclined to search for work in their locale, rather than further afield, because they would be unwilling to pay the higher train fares on long-distance journeys. Thus, this would also affect their economic situation. Lastly, it would increase the hardship on people who cannot, or do not, drive for whatever reason and who have no option to use the railways for work or leisure.

But, I do feel strongly that there are other ways to keep the level of the subsidy to the TOCs constant, while at the same time maintaining (or reducing) current fare levels. It is no secret that Network Rail, one of the biggest draws on the Department for Transport’s finances, is terribly managed. Figures put the cost of maintaining Britain’s railway infrastructure at 30-50% above continental networks. Yet if the management was improved, efficiencies made and the organisation was streamlined, then some of that saved money could be used to keep the cost of fares down and keep the subsidy at the current level. This would increase access to rail transportation and reduce ‘transport poverty.’

Given the Government's track record on fairness so far, I’m afraid all I can foresee is that the fares will go up as reported. However, this will only serve to increase the numbers of people who won’t pay the extortionately high price of railway travel, increasing the ‘transport poverty’ divide.