Secret Squirrel Opposes McNulty Increasing Rail Fares

Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to a certain,Sir Roy McNulty,who,in a leaked document is to encourage a rise in train fares, unfairly, favoring the rail owning companies and will be highly detrimental to the railroad traveling Englishman.There are other recommendations of course,always best to attempt to hide the bitter pill. But Squirrel was for many years a member of the Canadian Railway Historical Association, (CRHA),and we,especially those of the sadly now defunct, St. Lawrence Valley Division of the same,of which I was a Director and yet also thereafter the Director and Vice-President for many years,cry foul,most foul, as it was our area of endeavor to study,improve and yet encourage passenger rail travel as well.Let's first ponder the actual bone of contention, the stated gist of the
leaked report here found in a news article from the Daily telegraph, and here viewable on the internet at.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8471811/Rail-companies-should-be-able-to-increase-fares.html

Now,to continue, the headline reads.......sadly,and unnecessarily.....and here the quote of the article commences..

And I quote.......

"Rail companies 'should be able to increase fares'

Rail companies should be allowed to introduce “airline-style fares” that could see them charging hundreds of pounds for tickets during peak times and banning passengers without pre-booked seats from traveling, a Government review is set to recommend.

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

Leaked documents disclose that the review will say that train companies must either be allowed to charge significantly more for some travel or that the Government will have to dramatically increase the capacity on trains.

The recommendations, from Sir Roy McNulty, the former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, are due to be delivered next month to ministers.

The study is expected to warn that fare structures are too complex, over-subsidised and do not manage peak demand.

It will say the railways are subject to too much state involvement and a growth in services has not been matched by efficiency savings.

The documents say costs are a major problem and need to be cut by 35 per cent to match European counterparts.

They will set out plans to cut staff and propose decentralising or breaking-up Network Rail. They recommend loosening franchise terms to allow operators to respond better to demand.

The report will urge ministers to review fares policies and allow train operators to “take a more commercial approach” to ticket prices by lifting caps on fares and removing saver tickets from long-distance services."

And here ends the quote of the article.

So, now let us consider the factors involved in train versus aircraft, with a smattering of comparison versus bus as well......

Firstly for the greens, let's examine the carbon imprint,the environmental impact.By train a trip of any kind works out at 80-90% less carbon emissions.When a student at the Saarland University Of Applied Sciences stated that the plane was the best way to go to London, her geography lecturer Werner Ried, unconvinced, proposed to compare both journeys - by train and by plane - for real... The actual race took place on June 15: two teams, one going by train, the other via a low-cost airline. The journey started at St. Ingbert (Saarland, Germany), and the destination: London Piccadilly Circus.The results clearly favour train travel. Once the teams tallied their results, rail bested air clearly on travel time (6h 25min vs. 6h 45min by plane), price (€101,58 per person vs. €105,96 by plane), and environmental impact (only 22kg/person of CO2 rejection by train against 144kg/person by plane).

Rail comfort is enormously greater, detraining/baggage and getting on way home or where ever, is vastly superiour with respect to,and obviously in favor rail,but comparable with bus.

Now, let get down to fuel costs, and consumption.Fuel costs per passenger mile, aircraft versus train, are utterly miniscule with respect to the train, enormous profitability,efficiency,use of fuel, a vastly smaller quantity of fuel is consumed for the same number of passengers.Aircraft simply cannot compete in any way shape nor form, and it is utterly ridiculous to attempt to compare the two.Passenger Rail returned the equivalent of 94 (1995 figure) passenger miles per gallon.Aircraft figures, all things considered, are about 50 passenger miles per gallon............train 50% saving in fuel,and,consider,Jet fuel kerosene, runs now at $3.25/US gallon.Diesel is now more expensive, at $4.25 per gallon,but taking in to account the passenger miles/gallon, at 50% less, therefor it works t0 $2.12 per gallon equivalent,so,of course, fuel consumed costs less than a comparable aircraft journey /mile/passenger/passenger mile/passenger gallon.Train is more efficient and far less expensive to operate, and thence returns a far greater profit per passenger/mile already.In short with train we're looking at $$$$$$$ PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS.In terms of people cost, crew numbers, train once again has a vastly reduced crew number as compared with aircraft for the same number of passengers, or any number for that matter, again vastly reduced costs to operator.

Now in terms of bus travel for the same distance, train emits,in terms of gaseous waste emissions a lot less than the buses(20 mile trip into the next county on a train would emit about 7 lbs of CO2, while in a bus it would emit about 13 lbs of CO2.), singly,remember, a bus, now in terms of moveable passengers per mile,in quantity, however, the same train is pulling hundreds of passengers, now the bus can accommodate, what,say 80? Well, to get the 400 passengers at a
time(or yet more), we thence have say 5 buses, and so the train comes out at a tremendously better figure...in terms of Green emissions.Aircraft by comparison to either is utterly ridiculous,No matter how you cut it, flying is the most carbon-intense option.

Let's look now at America,for example,as we know, and so too shall you.......

For a round-trip airplane ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are .242 Tons of CO2. The plane ticket would cost about $220 and would take about 3 hours each way.For a round-trip train ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are 0.085 Tons of CO2. The train ticket would cost about $200 and would take about 8 hours each way.Train for the passenger comes out a touch cheaper, $20 is $20, vastly reduced carbon emissions(less taxing on atmos etc),but fuel consumption passenger miles is a tremendous saving to the train operator, as well as reduced crew costs, ,and also maintenance factors,so profits are far greater for the same trip for the TRAIN OPERATOR, hence a far higher profit margin is achieved for the TRAIN OPERATOR.

Now to suggest an increase in fares,comparable to that of airlines, is quite pointedly ridiculous, and Squirrel smells a rat, a political rat, a rat forging increased profits and price gouging by train operators for an already obviously
profit intensive rail operation as compared with airline.Recall now train fares are also not set as airline fares.The setting of fares to be,as they wish,"increased airline style fares", is, in point of fact, an increase in set fares.

You see, "airline style fares", encompass at times what? SURPRISE! Seat sales, yes, from time to time, there are MASSIVE seat fares, cheap rate,extremely cheap rate.Will the plan of McNulty introduce that?So very very not!No let us also consider the structure of airline fares.........they incorporate hidden fees, such as landing fees,baggage handling fee, airport tax, and other such items and taxes, and THESE go to the airports used.Trains don't require such fees but yet fares are almost comparable, exactly, not by far cheaper yet, and yet,as expounded above, a train is very much yet cheaper to operate.The actual working cost per seat passenger mile is ridiculously lower than that for
aircraft, and so to the actual profit the airlines make, versus the massive,by comparison, profit,that the train makes. So there it is, the long and the short of it..........an increase in fares is NOT necessary,it's only really price gouging of the public. They may, as they choose, choose to reduce staff and other operating costs etc,through various cuts, as is their right to do, but in no way shape nor for is any such fare increase as suggested by Sir Roy McNulty,necessary, beyond a feeding of the simple fare gouging greed of the Train Operators.