In the
media there has been a great deal of fuss and comment on the subject of rail
fares and pricing. As this involves
commuter fares along with others, a great deal of it has concentrated on
situations in the South East, but many other urban areas are affected. It is a difficult business and with a long
history.
For the
backdrop to this post the Wikipedia article “Railway Regulation Act 1844” is in
mind. It is concise and says what it has
to say. What it means that is the issue
of what services may be provided and at what price began in the earliest years
of the railways as a key part of mass transit.
One aspect
of the 1844 Act was that the provision for a “Parliamentary Fare” for the Third
Class passengers was intended to enable the lower classes to be able to afford
to travel quickly in order to seek work.
If one penny a mile seems very cheap the fact is it wasn’t.
Taking
typical working men’s pay at the time to travel any distance would involve
quite a few shillings. For example, Liverpool
to Manchester might cost around three shillings
or Birmingham to Manchester around six shillings. The wage would depend on the skills of the
worker, but either would make a large hole in or cost all of a week’s earnings.
The picture
above, taken at Manchester Victoria Station in 1928 offers a real cut price
bargain for the time, five shillings return for a day out. However, given what I know about my parents
incomes around that time, again this is about half my mothers weekly pay and a
quarter of my father’s.
It is
arguable what these figures might mean in today’s money given that the current
historical comparisons depend on spending and other liabilities that can be
very different but you could be looking at a rough equivalent of five shillings
being about £100. This, I stress, is the
cut price special fare so imagine what the “normal” fares were like.
But those
were the days when passenger revenues were only a part of overall revenue. The railways were common carriers and moved
almost all the freight for any distance.
Also they moved nearly all the post and parcels. The amount of the basic fuel, coal, was huge
and nearly all went by rail.
This is no
longer the case. There is some freight
and there are always hopes to increase it.
Now the railways depend on passenger revenues. Also, not only is the pricing complex but so
is the structure and nature of state support.
Then the companies decided what locomotives and carriages they might
have. Now the government does.
During the
1950’s my experience was direct working on the platform and in the parcel’s
office as well as travelling a good deal.
It certainly wasn’t cheap and any journey of distance was a major budget
item. Also, if you needed to order goods
that came by rail, this could add significantly to the cost.
But like in
many other spheres we have come to view the railways as something that “ought”
to be cheap and almost in a way part of the benefits system. The level of subsidy is substantial and we
now have almost a “right” to travel where and when we want to, irrespective of
the weather or need, the demand is to keep fares down and the subsidies up.
A railway
is a high expense piece of social kit.
It requires a great deal of outlay to create, which may or may not yield
a return. Many a company in the 19th
Century went broke. It is high
maintenance. It has to have staff and
systems that are costly in turn. It
requires continual renewal.
All in all,
given that it is almost solely passenger provision the real fare pricings to
cover both revenue and capital costs would mean far higher fare levels than
often apply today. Certainly, some of
the commuter fares are beginning to look serious but that is what it costs.
Given that
the financial and social policies of recent governments have had the effect of
driving a large part of the middling income groups out of the capital to live
in areas with more affordable housing whiles at the same time increasing the
subsidies to the rail services provided, something sometime had to give.
Could the
train carrying the costs and pricing problems be about to hit the buffers?
Rightly said.It would probably be illuminating to show the real cost of private car transport and indeed, goods movements.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we subsidise private companies who earn huge salaries and whom share holders come before passengers .rather nationalise it at least then any income stays in the system rather than the rich getting richer
ReplyDelete