Have train fares gone up or down since British Rail?

Ticket machine

It is 20 years since rail privatisation was set in motion. Are fares higher or lower today than they were under British Rail?

January is the traditional time of year for teeth gnashing from rail passengers as fares rise again.

Twenty years ago, the wheels of rail privatisation were set in motion. In January 1993, John Major's government enacted the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act 1993.

At the time, the message was that fares would rise no faster under the new privatised railway than under BR. It was suggested that they might even fall.

"I see no reason why fares should increase faster under the new system than they do under the present nationalised industry structure," Transport Secretary John MacGregor told the House of Commons in February 1993. "In many cases, they will be more flexible and will be reduced."

So two decades on, what has happened?

Since the last set of British Rail fares were published in June 1995, inflation measured by the Retail Prices Index (RPI) has been 66%, according to research by fares expert Barry Doe for Rail Magazine.

Doe's figures show a huge variation in fares since privatisation.

A single from London to Manchester has gone up by 208%, up from £50 in 1995 to £154 today. That is more than three times the rate of inflation.

But a season ticket for the same journey has risen by only 65% - just less than inflation.

Comparison of increase in fares since 1995

Doe's research considers walk-on fares, which include season tickets, but not tickets that are bought in advance. Advance tickets are cheaper but there is no solid data on the cost or number sold.

Peak-time single tickets have risen sharply. For example, a single from London to Glasgow, which was £65 in 1995, is now £169 - a rise of 160%. A single to Exeter was £37.50 but is now £114.50 - a rise of 205%. London to Swindon has gone from £20 to £58.50, a rise of 193%.

Percentage increase in fares since 1995

Yet at the same time, season ticket price rises hover just below or slightly above the rate of inflation, with an increase of between 55% and 80%. A season ticket from Nottingham or Norwich to London has risen by 55% and 63% respectively.

Like season tickets, the price of off-peak returns has been capped by government since privatisation. A return - coming back within a month from London to Birmingham costs £49 today compared with £31 in 1995 - a rise of only 58%, well below the rate of inflation. This is with Virgin, the same company that operates expensive singles to Glasgow and Manchester.

There are anomalies. Train operator C2C, for example, operates the line from London to Shoeburyness, in Essex. The cost of the journey is far cheaper in real terms across all ticket types than it used to be. A single has risen by just 17%, while a season ticket has gone up by 57%.

At privatisation, it was felt that certain customers needed protection, says Mark Smith, founder of website The Man in Seat Sixty-One, who used to set fares at the Department for Transport.

The theory was that at certain times of day, such as during rush hour, the market would not operate a level playing field.

Ever since, the government has protected season tickets and off-peak returns. Before 2004, rail operators could only raise regulated fares by inflation -1%. From that year, this became inflation +1%.

Meanwhile, other fares were unregulated, meaning the train companies were allowed to set them as they wished.

The feeling was that those travelling long distance in peak time would be mainly business travellers who could afford it. But the system has led to massive variation, says Doe.

"Because operators were forced to introduce capping, they were forced to put unregulated fares up a lot." Commuters have been "featherbedded" but other passengers have been hit hard, Doe argues.

There is a double reason why unregulated fares rise faster than regulated fares, says Christian Wolmar, author of Broken Rails.

Previously in the Magazine

Searching for the most expensive train journey

Rail fares rose by 6% in January 2012. The Campaign for Better Transport suggested that season tickets for commuters around London cost more than three times those of their Spanish and German equivalents, and 10 times more than those in Italy.

First because they can, he says - there is no government control. But second, the rail companies keep all the money they make on price increases on unregulated journeys. On regulated fares, the government receives the above inflation increase.

"The system has an incentive to put unregulated fares up by more than the amount of regulated fares because the train companies retain all the money," Wolmar says.

But the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) says that Doe's figures miss out the million advanced tickets it sells a week.

"Mr Doe's table quotes London to Edinburgh as costing £152 for a single," an ATOC spokesman says. "But one check of the East Coast website and you'll find that you can make that journey for less than £29. That's significantly cheaper than in 1995."

It points out that only between 2% and 4% of tickets sold are the flexible Anytime tickets, such as the single ticket measured by Doe.

ATOC admits it doesn't have figures on the proportion of tickets sold that are "advance". According to Lennon rail ticket sales database, about 4% of tickets sold between November 2010 and November 2011 were "advance".

So while few people travel on the most expensive single or on advance tickets, most rail users use season tickets or off-peak returns.

There are no figures showing the average cost per passenger mile.

ATOC says that in 1994-95 the average cost of a single journey was £4.82 compared with £4.95 in 2011-12. This is a rise of 2.7% when adjusted for inflation, the spokesman says. But combining all journeys both long and short, it doesn't give a breakdown of which journeys are rising in cost and which are falling.

Train platform

The organisation adds that four out of five journeys today are made on a rail card or advanced ticket.

Advance tickets are all very well, but don't suit everyone, says Christian Wolmar, author of Broken Rails.

"They (the train companies) have people over a barrel," Wolmar says. "If you have to travel at 8.30 in the morning you have to. You don't have the choice of waiting for the 9.30."

But Smith believes privatisation has delivered a more intelligent fare structure.

People might assume that fares would have gone up slower under British Rail, says Smith. But for commuters, the reverse might have been true as there was no capping of fares under BR, he points out.

On longer distance routes, he says, price variation has allowed the rail companies to compete with both coach companies on the bargain advance tickets and airlines for the expensive peak time seats.

"In practice it's been a success. It's been one of the factors at getting more people travelling longer distance by rail while at the same time raising more revenue. So in some ways privatisation has been a good thing."

There is more to a railway's success than just low fares. Other measures are safety, punctuality, comfort, frequency of service, convenience and simplicity. On many of these, the privatised railways have a good record.

On simplicity, the network seems to get a big fail from commentators. Triangular journeys (returning via a different route) are harder now than under British Rail, says Smith.

South West Trains

And some fare rises are exceptionally complicated, according to Doe's research. In a few cases, off-peak returns have risen hugely even though these fares, in theory, are regulated. A London to Leeds return is now £154, up from £55 in 1995.

Start Quote

There were far fewer trains under British Rail and more of them ran late”

End Quote Rail Minister Simon Burns

Doe says these big rises occur when a train operator gets around the government cap by removing the super saver and replacing it with a more expensive super off-peak ticket, before then bringing in a more expensive saver, known as off-peak return.

Confused? Most people are, says Matthew Engel, author of Eleven Minutes Late. Visitors to Britain are regularly forced to pay more than they should simply because they don't understand the multiplicity of ticket types and conditions, he says. "I'm convinced the train operating companies have not allowed any rationalisation because they make money from this. They know that there's only Barry Doe who understands (the correct fare)."

Critics argue that privatisation has led to big fare rises despite increased public subsidy. Money has had to be found for salaries and dividends, they claim. And no-one knows why rail infrastructure costs so much more in Britain than the rest of Europe.

According to ATOC, train companies make only "modest" profits, averaging 3% of revenue.

Total government subsidy for the railways increased from £2.17bn in 1992-93 to £2.59bn in 2002-03, according to figures from the Office of Rail Regulation. It peaked in 2006/07 at £6.3bn, before falling back to £3.9bn in 2011-12.

Electric Locomotive, British Railways Class 84

Rail Minister Simon Burns says privatisation was "the right decision 20 years ago and is the right decision for today's railways."

Under British Rail there was a lack of investment that today's privatised railway has had to make up for, he argues.

"There were far fewer trains, more of them ran late, when they arrived at all, and since privatisation passenger satisfaction has improved significantly."

Re-nationalisation is not a possibility in a cash-strapped country. But Doe's research raises the question of fairness. Are commuters being overprotected?

Most of them don't work out how many miles a year they do, he says. "Brighton to London is 500 miles a week." But there's no appetite to tinker with the status quo, Doe says. Commuters are a "big lobby group" who neither the Conservatives or Labour want to antagonise.

You can follow the Magazine on Twitter and on Facebook


More on This Story

In today's Magazine


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 441.

    For some time now rail is a political hot potato tossed between parties. It's never going to generate the popular headlines they crave no matter what they do.

    One only has to look to the continent where there are long term transport policies that deliver what the traveller needs.

    Railway is a part of our national infrastructure and needs to be managed with that perspective.

  • rate this

    Comment number 440.

    I pay £92 a month for a train from the suburbs to the Centre of Manchester. I think this is fair, it is less than a fifth of my part time monthly wage and it would cost far more to drive and park. FTP also have some nice trains, they're relaxing to be on and my station has recently been improved with better facilities.

  • Comment number 439.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 438.

    429.Rotherham Lad

    Problem is with competition on railways is that there is only one track and only one train can be on one section at a time. You can't overtake with a train

    Actual competition like most people think of wouldn't be possible as one carrier would always be disadvantaged with scheduling to prevent crashes. This is why rail competition is a joke and not possible. Prices are fixed

  • rate this

    Comment number 437.

    1. Remember "goods trains"? No wonder the roads are full to bursting.

    2. Car share. It costs a fraction of the cost of a rail ticket, drivers subsidise their journey, and you often have a shorter journey at either end.

  • rate this

    Comment number 436.


    ...Since the trip is in May, I'm well in advance. Yet I wasn't able to dig up any round trip fares under £140; I ended up booking a flight instead for £80.
    Are you sure about this? Rail tickets for May aren't yet available for booking. The earliest you can book is 12 weeks in advance. I've checked with National Rail and several discount sites. Which site did you use?

  • rate this

    Comment number 435.

    The current high rates of the single fares shown are misleading. You can get heavily discounted rates for advance return fares by going online these days. How many people get a single anyway?...it is almost as cheap to get a return now. That was not always the case. Back in the 1990s there were few offers to choose from.

  • rate this

    Comment number 434.

    Economy of scale means rail travel should be one of the cheapest methods of transport. It can cost more than a taxi. I can no longer afford to "hop on a train".

  • rate this

    Comment number 433.

    Every service the public depend on, be it transport, water, gas, electric etc should be a profit run nationalised company. That way the services could be fairly run and the profit could be put back into improving the services.

  • Comment number 432.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • rate this

    Comment number 431.

    "You could simply step on a train if you were going somewhere in the 1980s. You were simply "a passenger""

    What rubbish, passengers were an annoyance, the system was dominated by "jobs for the boys unions", the rolling stock was clapped-out and the time keeping atrocious. Rose tinted spectacles. It might not be perfect now, and yes I grant it's not always the cheap option, but its far far better.

  • rate this

    Comment number 430.

    If all the privatized companies were nationalized, hopefully the lack of need to 'PAY' shareholders and senior managers shed loads of money etc would mean lower bills and so a MUCH better standard of living for the working majority............ but that will never happen

  • rate this

    Comment number 429.

    410. Cynical Dave

    "... If any rail company were allowed to run any route at any time then we would see prices fall to a more reasonable level."

    Sounds like a whole load of national rail carriers to me.... Slim it down to two universal supplier in REAL competition, and you might be on to something.

    Given the Tory track record on ripping UK residents off, I wouldn't try holding your breath!

  • rate this

    Comment number 428.

    Rail travel is a crucial part of our national infrastructure.

    We should be investing in a bigger rail network with more frequent trains.

    This is much more important than company profits. And now would be the time to do it, with the cost of borrowing for the government low and the need to invest in big projects that employ thousands.

    But the huge delays due to planning need to be dealt with.

  • rate this

    Comment number 427.

    When Daniel Gooch took over the chair of the Great Western Railway in 1865, he took over a company that in his words, 'had fallen into the hands of the Philistines.' Gooch found a company almost destroyed by the bad management of the 'directors', having debts and expenditures it would be very difficult to meet. Sadly, there is no modern day Gooch capable of saving our current network!

  • Comment number 426.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • rate this

    Comment number 425.

    Just gone on one of the rail enquiry web sites, and to get to my place of work (less than 45 miles away) in time to start work at 08:00 in the morning, my ONLY option was a rail journey of 6 hours 9 minutes, at a cost of £12.50 one way.

    Wonder why I will be joining the millions of others on the M1 tomorrow...?

  • rate this

    Comment number 424.

    another example of how the british public are being farmed by the privatisation of monopolies . Old Mcdonald does have a farm and its the british people either through prices or subsidy and Mc is probably now based on a tax avoidance island.

    a copy of private eye will show you how the privatise the profit socialise the loss ideology works. The uk is being fed more 'horsemeat' or is it horsesht?

  • rate this

    Comment number 423.

    Could it possibly be,that the people who ploughed their spare cash,into a Railway System,became aware of the fact,that it was a very expensive system?That it would always need a subsidy?They could not make enough money out of it?They needed a buyer.
    Enter the mug....Joe Public..
    Which begs the real question...
    Needed a subsidy then.....Still needs one...
    Joe Public..mugged twice....

  • rate this

    Comment number 422.

    Those of you whinging about the Conservatives should remember that rail fares went up dramatically under Labour!

    If Labour claim they want to support rail travel, why didn't they do something about it when in power?

    The real shame is that none of the major political parties wants to fund a decent, cheap, rail system.

    In the current climate I certainly don't want to fund London commuters!


Page 1 of 23



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.