Travellers face train fare hike in rail tickets

Rail commuters face new fare misery

Rail commuters face new fare misery

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by

Rail commuters in Hampshire are facing hikes of more than £220 for their annual ticket to London from today.

The cost of season tickets to London Waterloo goesup by as much as 4.24 per cent across the county.

Commuters in the New Forest will be the worst hit, with passengers travelling from Lymington paying £5,536 for their annual pass next year – a £224 increase.

And those boarding trains in Brockenhurst will see their fares rise to £5,412, after a £220 price hike.

The changes see prices rocket across England, Scotland and Wales, with an average increase of 4.2 per cent, after Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to limit the hikes to one per cent above inflation.

The only major stations in Hampshire to have price rises below the national average are Romsey, Fareham and Southampton Central, where passengers will pay £128 more for their annual ticket – a rise of 3.15 per cent.

The rise follows a miserable few weeks for many commuters who have had to contend with floods, signal failures and, on some routes, staff shortages.

Last week, over-running engineering work led to serious over-crowding on some trains.

Campaign groups have pointed out today's increase is the 10th successive above-inflation rise, with some rail season ticket holders seeing their fares rise by more than 50% in the last 10 years.

Also, the TUC has said that fares have risen far faster than wages since the recession in 2008.

Train companies can put some season tickets up by more than 4.2% as long as the overall average does not exceed 4.2%.

The Association of Train Operating Companies (Atoc) said it recognised nobody liked paying more for their journey.

But it added that railway funding could only come from taxpayers or from passengers ''and the Government's policy remains that a bigger share must come from people who use the train''.

Transport Minister Norman Baker said the Government had reduced fare rises planned for January 2013 and January 2014 from RPI plus 3% to RPI plus 1%.

He added: ''We are engaged in the biggest rail investment programme since the 19th century and it is only right that the passenger, as well as the taxpayer, contributes towards that.

''In the longer term, we are determined to reduce the cost of running the railways so that we can end the era of above-inflation fare rises.''

Labour highlighted the fact that some season tickets are allowed to rise by more than the 4.2% average.

Shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle said: ''David Cameron misled commuters when he promised to cap fare rises at 1% above inflation.

''Many commuters have faced a nasty new year shock as they discover fares have gone up by as much as 9.2%.

''The Government should come clean with commuters that this is a direct result of their decision to cave in to pressure from the private train companies to let them hike ticket prices beyond the so-called cap.''

Campaign group Railfuture said that some fares could be going up by around 11% or 12%, ''with no perceptible improvement in service''.

Campaign for Better Transport chief executive Stephen Joseph said: ''The impact of successive Government's policies on rail fares is appalling.

'It's truly shocking that we have deliberately made getting the train to work an extravagance that many struggle to afford. The time has come not just to stop the rises but to reduce fares.''

TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: ''I understand the frustration felt by many commuters going back to work today.

''At a time when real wages are falling and household budgets are being squeezed, rail travellers are being forced to endure yet another year of inflation-busting fare increases.

Michael Roberts, chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, said: ''We understand commuters don't like to pay more to travel to work but it is the Government, not train companies, that decides how much season tickets should rise on average each year.

''Successive governments have required train companies to increase the average price of season tickets every January since 2004 by more than inflation.

From tomorrow, fares are also going up by an average of 4.2% on the Underground and on London buses.
 

 

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:22am Wed 2 Jan 13

Lockssmart says...

Move closer to your place of work
Move closer to your place of work Lockssmart
  • Score: 0

9:51am Wed 2 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Get a job nearer to your home.
Get a job nearer to your home. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:11am Wed 2 Jan 13

hulla baloo says...

freefinker wrote:
Get a job nearer to your home.
Thats easier said than done. Jobs market is really difficult,uprooting family life and kids schools,and not all big city salaries can afford big city cost of living.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: Get a job nearer to your home.[/p][/quote]Thats easier said than done. Jobs market is really difficult,uprooting family life and kids schools,and not all big city salaries can afford big city cost of living. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

10:17am Wed 2 Jan 13

freefinker says...

hulla baloo wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Get a job nearer to your home.
Thats easier said than done. Jobs market is really difficult,uprooting family life and kids schools,and not all big city salaries can afford big city cost of living.
.. I know. It was intended as a satirical retort to Lockssmart
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: Get a job nearer to your home.[/p][/quote]Thats easier said than done. Jobs market is really difficult,uprooting family life and kids schools,and not all big city salaries can afford big city cost of living.[/p][/quote].. I know. It was intended as a satirical retort to Lockssmart freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:26am Wed 2 Jan 13

bogart259 says...

It always amazes me how much the media complains about the price of season tickets, when season ticket holders are paying half the price of normal ticket holders.

Based on the prices quoted above, a season ticket holder is paying £22.60 for his/her return trip to London (based on 240 trips a year).

But if you walked up to the booking office tomorrow morning at 7am, it would cost you £42.40 for your return trip.

Even a cheap ticket, booked 4 weeks in advance, would cost £24.

So can people please stop complaining, and accept that Season Ticket holders are getting it cheap and easy!!
It always amazes me how much the media complains about the price of season tickets, when season ticket holders are paying half the price of normal ticket holders. Based on the prices quoted above, a season ticket holder is paying £22.60 for his/her return trip to London (based on 240 trips a year). But if you walked up to the booking office tomorrow morning at 7am, it would cost you £42.40 for your return trip. Even a cheap ticket, booked 4 weeks in advance, would cost £24. So can people please stop complaining, and accept that Season Ticket holders are getting it cheap and easy!! bogart259
  • Score: 0

10:57am Wed 2 Jan 13

freefinker says...

bogart259 wrote:
It always amazes me how much the media complains about the price of season tickets, when season ticket holders are paying half the price of normal ticket holders.

Based on the prices quoted above, a season ticket holder is paying £22.60 for his/her return trip to London (based on 240 trips a year).

But if you walked up to the booking office tomorrow morning at 7am, it would cost you £42.40 for your return trip.

Even a cheap ticket, booked 4 weeks in advance, would cost £24.

So can people please stop complaining, and accept that Season Ticket holders are getting it cheap and easy!!
.. to be fair, 48/52nds of an annual season ticket is 'booked' at least 4 weeks in advance. And the rail company has the capital to earn interest on. So, £22.60 seems proportionately fair (ha) to me.

Although I do think ALL rail fares are far, far too expensive.
[quote][p][bold]bogart259[/bold] wrote: It always amazes me how much the media complains about the price of season tickets, when season ticket holders are paying half the price of normal ticket holders. Based on the prices quoted above, a season ticket holder is paying £22.60 for his/her return trip to London (based on 240 trips a year). But if you walked up to the booking office tomorrow morning at 7am, it would cost you £42.40 for your return trip. Even a cheap ticket, booked 4 weeks in advance, would cost £24. So can people please stop complaining, and accept that Season Ticket holders are getting it cheap and easy!![/p][/quote].. to be fair, 48/52nds of an annual season ticket is 'booked' at least 4 weeks in advance. And the rail company has the capital to earn interest on. So, £22.60 seems proportionately fair (ha) to me. Although I do think ALL rail fares are far, far too expensive. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:24am Wed 2 Jan 13

Linesman says...

When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend. Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:25am Wed 2 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Linesman wrote:
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off?

I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.[/p][/quote]ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off? I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built. Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:32am Wed 2 Jan 13

southy says...

bogart259 wrote:
It always amazes me how much the media complains about the price of season tickets, when season ticket holders are paying half the price of normal ticket holders.

Based on the prices quoted above, a season ticket holder is paying £22.60 for his/her return trip to London (based on 240 trips a year).

But if you walked up to the booking office tomorrow morning at 7am, it would cost you £42.40 for your return trip.

Even a cheap ticket, booked 4 weeks in advance, would cost £24.

So can people please stop complaining, and accept that Season Ticket holders are getting it cheap and easy!!
Agreed and if they don't like the rise in rail fares then move with-in walking distance to the job
[quote][p][bold]bogart259[/bold] wrote: It always amazes me how much the media complains about the price of season tickets, when season ticket holders are paying half the price of normal ticket holders. Based on the prices quoted above, a season ticket holder is paying £22.60 for his/her return trip to London (based on 240 trips a year). But if you walked up to the booking office tomorrow morning at 7am, it would cost you £42.40 for your return trip. Even a cheap ticket, booked 4 weeks in advance, would cost £24. So can people please stop complaining, and accept that Season Ticket holders are getting it cheap and easy!![/p][/quote]Agreed and if they don't like the rise in rail fares then move with-in walking distance to the job southy
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 2 Jan 13

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off?

I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.
well put lines
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.[/p][/quote]ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off? I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.[/p][/quote]well put lines southy
  • Score: 0

11:41am Wed 2 Jan 13

hulla baloo says...

freefinker wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Get a job nearer to your home.
Thats easier said than done. Jobs market is really difficult,uprooting family life and kids schools,and not all big city salaries can afford big city cost of living.
.. I know. It was intended as a satirical retort to Lockssmart
Sorry, must still be suffering from new year partying ;)
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: Get a job nearer to your home.[/p][/quote]Thats easier said than done. Jobs market is really difficult,uprooting family life and kids schools,and not all big city salaries can afford big city cost of living.[/p][/quote].. I know. It was intended as a satirical retort to Lockssmart[/p][/quote]Sorry, must still be suffering from new year partying ;) hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

11:42am Wed 2 Jan 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off?

I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.
well put lines
If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.[/p][/quote]ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off? I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.[/p][/quote]well put lines[/p][/quote]If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Wed 2 Jan 13

ohec says...

Definition of a London commuter, somebody who wants the benefits of high wages whilst enjoying the benefits of living in a much cheaper (nicer) area so no tears from me on that point.
On the other hand all of our public transport is expensive, like just about everything in this country we are bled dry by foreign investors.
Definition of a London commuter, somebody who wants the benefits of high wages whilst enjoying the benefits of living in a much cheaper (nicer) area so no tears from me on that point. On the other hand all of our public transport is expensive, like just about everything in this country we are bled dry by foreign investors. ohec
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 2 Jan 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off?

I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.
well put lines
If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.
Tory leader John Major was when it came into force, but the act was pass when Thatcher was leader.
Do that answer your question.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.[/p][/quote]ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off? I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.[/p][/quote]well put lines[/p][/quote]If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.[/p][/quote]Tory leader John Major was when it came into force, but the act was pass when Thatcher was leader. Do that answer your question. southy
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off?

I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.
well put lines
If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.
Tory leader John Major was when it came into force, but the act was pass when Thatcher was leader.
Do that answer your question.
It's an answer, but it's wrong. The legislation was the Railways Act 1993, passed in, err, 1993 when John Major was Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher herself saw the railways as 'a privatisation too far', a fact backed up even by Bob Crow (RMT) and Gerry Doherty (TSSA).
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.[/p][/quote]ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off? I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.[/p][/quote]well put lines[/p][/quote]If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.[/p][/quote]Tory leader John Major was when it came into force, but the act was pass when Thatcher was leader. Do that answer your question.[/p][/quote]It's an answer, but it's wrong. The legislation was the Railways Act 1993, passed in, err, 1993 when John Major was Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher herself saw the railways as 'a privatisation too far', a fact backed up even by Bob Crow (RMT) and Gerry Doherty (TSSA). Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Wed 2 Jan 13

100%HANTSBOY says...

Just a question,Do all commuters pay for their own season tickets or do their companies pay part/all of the cost?

I've not had a pay rise for 7 years now,and I pay all my own fuel,general running costs of my vehicle and parking charges....just wondered who was better off?
Just a question,Do all commuters pay for their own season tickets or do their companies pay part/all of the cost? I've not had a pay rise for 7 years now,and I pay all my own fuel,general running costs of my vehicle and parking charges....just wondered who was better off? 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Torchie1 says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares.

Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money.

I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.
ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off?

I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.
well put lines
If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.
Tory leader John Major was when it came into force, but the act was pass when Thatcher was leader.
Do that answer your question.
It's an answer, but it's wrong. The legislation was the Railways Act 1993, passed in, err, 1993 when John Major was Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher herself saw the railways as 'a privatisation too far', a fact backed up even by Bob Crow (RMT) and Gerry Doherty (TSSA).
Details like the truth seldom feature in any of Southy's replies as they get in the way of his axe grinding. I think he works on the principle that the handful of idiots that voted for him believe his fantasy 'facts' so surely everyone else will. Forrest Gump may even have heard of Southy when he uttered the memorable phrase "stupid is as stupid does".
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: When Maggie Thatcher sold off the railways, we were told that the competition would result in a better service and cheaper fares. Instead we see no great improvement in service, fares that have gone through the roof, and the government still having to subsidise them with taxpayers' money. I wonder whether the shareholders blush when they bank their dividend.[/p][/quote]ps. What happened to the money raised by the government from the sell-off? I don't recall many schools or hospitals being built.[/p][/quote]well put lines[/p][/quote]If you two can take a couple of minutes to stop kissing each others backsides you might care to look up the date of the Railways Act and pop down to the library to see who was the Prime Minister in 1993.[/p][/quote]Tory leader John Major was when it came into force, but the act was pass when Thatcher was leader. Do that answer your question.[/p][/quote]It's an answer, but it's wrong. The legislation was the Railways Act 1993, passed in, err, 1993 when John Major was Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher herself saw the railways as 'a privatisation too far', a fact backed up even by Bob Crow (RMT) and Gerry Doherty (TSSA).[/p][/quote]Details like the truth seldom feature in any of Southy's replies as they get in the way of his axe grinding. I think he works on the principle that the handful of idiots that voted for him believe his fantasy 'facts' so surely everyone else will. Forrest Gump may even have heard of Southy when he uttered the memorable phrase "stupid is as stupid does". Torchie1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree