Commuters from Newbury this morning will find that some rail fares on the First Great Western services have risen by up to 20%. There are also new restrictions on cheap off peak return tickets, which will mean that passengers will either have to pay more or travel later in the day.

First Great Western explained that the changes were needed to achieve a more even spread of passengers throughout the day.

First Great Western have also increased their car parking charges by 25%.

Does this mean my monthly ticket to Reading is going to cost even more than the current £129.10?

Quoted from Administrator

First Great Western explained that the changes were needed to achieve a more even spread of passengers throughout the day.

What they will achieve is an increase in those car journeys that seem ever cheaper as rail fares rise.

Come on Fencer - what about a campaign for free rail travel in order to save the planet.

Quoted from Administrator

First Great Western explained that the changes were needed to achieve a more even spread of passengers throughout the day.

How silly is that, when most people use the train to get to work or college for a certain time. normally 9o'clock. Therefore peak time.

Quoted from Elaine

How silly is that, when most people use the train to get to work or college for a certain time. normally 9o'clock. Therefore peak time.

I thought the whole idea is to get people to use public transport, not drive them away because it was too expensive.

Quoted from GMR

I thought the whole idea is to get people to use public transport, not drive them away because it was too expensive.

Don't worry - petrol will be hiked up even further to compensate...

Quoted from misc

Don't worry - petrol will be hiked up even further to compensate...

And cycle tyres

Quoted from GMR

I thought the whole idea is to get people to use public transport, not drive them away because it was too expensive.

This is a question of profits. As far as I can see the company can't (or its too expensive) provide enough capacity so they are attempting to move the peak load in the full knowledge that the majority of travellers won't change their travelling times. This is one of the few instances where I think that private ownership is not the right solution or at the very least public transport should be a non-profit business.

Quoted from Bartholomew

This is a question of profits. As far as I can see the company can't (or its too expensive) provide enough capacity so they are attempting to move the peak load in the full knowledge that the majority of travellers won't change their travelling times. This is one of the few instances where I think that private ownership is not the right solution or at the very least public transport should be a non-profit business.

Ah I wondered how long before the 'greedy rail company' line would get an airing.

Firstly, the railway companies were all privately run for over a century, and did rather well at building lines, stations, bridges, and tunnels at no expense to the taxpayer.

Then the socialists nationalise it, and within 20 years they close a third of the network. Oh and they merged all the companies together so British Rail was not only big and inefficient, but allowed trade unions to hold us to ransom (3 day week anyone?)..not to mention 40 years of further underinvestment.

I agree John Major made a mess of privatisation, but on this, it's Labour meddling in the price structure that leads to this. They cap fares on some lines, leaving the trainco with little option but to increase fares above inflation on the non-capped lines. No profit = no shareholders = no capital = no improvements.

Quoted from Meddler

Firstly, the railway companies were all privately run for over a century, and did rather well at building lines, stations, bridges, and tunnels at no expense to the taxpayer.

I don't know, but this is according to Wikipedia.

The Railways Act of 1921, also known as the Grouping Act, was an enactment by the British government of David Lloyd George intended to stem the losses being made by many of the country's 120 railway companies, move the railways away from internal competition, and to retain some of the benefits which the country had derived from a government-controlled railway during and after the Great War of 1914-1918.

And...

After the war the Big Four railway companies of the grouping era were effectively bankrupt, and the Act was intended to bring about some stability in transport policy. As part of that policy British Railways was set up to run the railways.

Shares in the railway companies were exchanged for British Transport Stock, with a guaranteed 3% return chargeable to the BTC [1]. The government had based the levels of compensation for former railway shareholders, on the peppercorn valuation of the railway companies in 1946, a time when the railways were in a dilapidated state because of war damage and minimal maintenance.

Quoted from Meddler

Ah I wondered how long before the 'greedy rail company' line would get an airing.

Firstly, the railway companies were all privately run for over a century, and did rather well at building lines, stations, bridges, and tunnels at no expense to the taxpayer.

Then the socialists nationalise it, and within 20 years they close a third of the network. Oh and they merged all the companies together so British Rail was not only big and inefficient, but allowed trade unions to hold us to ransom (3 day week anyone?)..not to mention 40 years of further underinvestment.

I agree John Major made a mess of privatisation, but on this, it's Labour meddling in the price structure that leads to this. They cap fares on some lines, leaving the trainco with little option but to increase fares above inflation on the non-capped lines. No profit = no shareholders = no capital = no improvements.

I didn't say that the railways were greedy. What I said is that the investment in providing adequate numbers of seats hasn't happened. Is it likely that the price increases will go into providing more trains? I don't know the answer but what I do know is that there are profits being made that are not going back into the system.

I understand your point about investment but looking for example at the Japanese rail system, the seven companies are non profit making companies. See section 4 at http://wapedia.mobi/en/Japan_Railways_Group This has some significant parallels with Britain but has proved extremely efficient and effective unlike the results in Britain where the companies do make a profit.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I don't know, but this is according to Wikipedia.

The Railways Act of 1921, also known as the Grouping Act, was an enactment by the British government of David Lloyd George intended to stem the losses being made by many of the country's 120 railway companies, move the railways away from internal competition, and to retain some of the benefits which the country had derived from a government-controlled railway during and after the Great War of 1914-1918.

And...

After the war the Big Four railway companies of the grouping era were effectively bankrupt, and the Act was intended to bring about some stability in transport policy. As part of that policy British Railways was set up to run the railways.

Shares in the railway companies were exchanged for British Transport Stock, with a guaranteed 3% return chargeable to the BTC [1]. The government had based the levels of compensation for former railway shareholders, on the peppercorn valuation of the railway companies in 1946, a time when the railways were in a dilapidated state because of war damage and minimal maintenance.

The economic truth is that in both cases the Government failed to pay for its use of the railways during both world wars.  It also failed to maintain them properly whilst the Government's railway executive were running them during the war.  The Wicipedia facs are right - but they are being economic with the reason!

......and of course, the railways post nationalisation were stuffed by the transport minister, Mr Ernest Marples, who had a vested interest in road transport (he was a director of Marples Ridgway, the road building company that built the Chiswick flyover) and effectively made it impossible for British rail to compete with the nationalised road transport.(BRS) He did this by setting a rate for rail transport of goods, publishing the figures and then allowing the road transport BRS operators to undercut. The playing field was now less than level and goods migrated from rail to road. We have him to thank for the preponderance of huge lorries on our roads.

While we are about it, recently the Royal Mail, after a fortune was spent on the rail infrastructure, including a new rail hub in West London was all dumped in favour of transporting the mail in huge lorries up and down the highways.

What a waste....Thanks Labour government.

Brian!  We weren’t supposed to notice that.  Wonder what happened to that upright public servant Ernest Marples – do the trains still stop at Ignomy?

Quoted from misc

Does this mean my monthly ticket to Reading is going to cost even more than the current £129.10?

Just renewed my monthly ticket and the price was the same.

Quoted from misc

Just renewed my monthly ticket and the price was the same.

I think all Season Tickets are capped by the rail regulator.