Jayne Dawle: Trying to unscramble the complexity of Britain’s expensive railway system

The report commissioned by the Government from Sir Roy McNulty, a former head of the Civil Aviation Authority, has now identified many of the problems of the railways today, and made a number of recommendations.

While many of the recommendations were welcomed by the industry, suggestions of over-staffing led to protests from the unions, while Passenger Focus, which looks after the interests of railway travellers, was concerned at the suggestion that off-peak fares should be more expensive.

Part of the problem is that in the present fraught economic climate, cutting costs for the taxpayer is seen as a priority. It is true that Britain’s railways are among the most expensive in Europe both for the traveller and for the taxpayer.

Emphasis was put on the report in the vast difference between peak fares and those for off-peak travel. One example was that of travelling between London and Manchester on a Friday evening, when the difference in fare between one train and the next was £209, with the off-peak train costing just £70.

As all too many travellers by rail know, capacity is short and it does seem ridiculous that a train at the end of the peak period leaves with many empty seats while the first off-peak train is overcrowded.

Yet, there is nothing new about cheap off-peak fares. The need for them was even recognised in the 19th century with what became known as Gladstone’s Cheap Trains Act, which required every line with significant passenger traffic to provide at least one cheap train a day.

In the closing days of British Rail, instead of peak and off-peak fares, a refinement was to have Saver and Super Saver tickets. I remember standing at the barrier at King’s Cross and noticing a board that showed that for the next train north, only Saver tickets were allowed for Yorkshire-bound passengers, but those travelling as far as Edinburgh were able to board the train with a Super Saver, presumably because their fare was still more than that of a Saver to Newcastle for example.

This is, in fact, what the airlines call yield management or even capacity management, and the low-cost airlines have got it down to a fine art, but the heritage airlines such as British Airways, are catching up.

Clever yield management would not abolish the cheapest fares, but would have an intermediate fare as well, in an attempt to reduce the disparity between peak and off-peak fares. The big problem is achieving this without producing a fares system that is so over-complicated that not only do passengers have difficulty understanding it, but so too do railway workers.

On the other hand, let’s be frank. If the McNulty Report leads to significant increases in off-peak fares, even if peak fares are also reduced, many off-peak travellers could leave the railways in favour of coach travel or even the airlines.

As for staffing, the complaint one hears all too often is that there are not enough staff at stations, and that many of those left unmanned in the evenings are avoided by prospective passengers as being unsafe due to vandalism and muggings.

One problem that McNulty touched on was the need for the vertically-integrated railway to return, with a train operator having control over the infrastructure as well as running the trains. Within two years, this will be attempted either through an infrastructure company also running the trains or a train operating company taking control of the track.

Why it should take two years when this already happens on the Isle of Wight’s Island Line is a question that needs to be answered.

As it happens not only are there now three cost centres on most lines, with train operators, rolling stock leasing companies and Network Rail all seeking a profit, but the complications that ensue when compiling a timetable contribute heavily to increased costs. No longer can a railway prepare a timetable and implement it, it has to be passed backwards and forwards so that all interested parties can comment, and then amended, and then consulted upon yet again, and again.

This is a bigger problem than the number of train operating companies.

One director of the old LMS once conceded that the company was too big to be run effectively, and the LNER, the main operator in Leeds and York, wasn’t that much smaller. British Rail was, of course, bigger than even the two of them combined.

Nevertheless, perhaps the way forward is for a smaller number of railway companies, all vertically integrated, to emerge over the lifetime of the present Parliament. This won’t affect through running as even with more than a hundred companies pre-1923, this existed with the longest distance being between Aberdeen and Penzance.

These companies should have permanent tenure rather short-term franchises, and any plans for mergers should require Parliamentary sanction.

Then we have to decide just what the fares structure should be. At one time in Canada, there was a “red, white and blue” fares structure with each departure coloured for peak, intermediate or off-peak travel.

Perhaps that would be a way forward.