[mytailorisrich]

> I will always get the slow 2 hour train into London rather than the faster 1.25 hour train because it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. The peak hours slow train is approximately double the price, the peak hours fast train is about triple the price compared to off peak.

So you still take the train?

Fast trains into London (which are indeed very expensive, I won't dare state the price not to shock our European friends) are completely packed at rush hour and busy all the time, in my experience.

My point is that there is quite a bit of elasticity, especially for commute so that as long as people can afford the tickets and do use the service then subsidies to lower the price drastically probably aren't a productive use of resources when taxpayer's money could be put to better use because nothing is actually free ("because cheaper tickets" is not a valid justification for subsidies).

There may be a sweet spot but I really think that beyond a certain point taxes and subsidies to reduce prices are just a waste and don't make any differences, and I think we are in that territory in a number of locations in Europe.

[muyuu]

I think seeing it as a market introduces the kind of biases and distortions that make the British system so incredibly expensive, and now also unreliable.

This is not the market for some fruit or some generic consumer good, with competition at all levels and a very flexible incentive structure that will move resources around to make the product as good and as cheap as possible, creating even different grades where demand justifies it.

This is more a piece-wise single provider structure that only has incentives to extract as much money as possible from the user, and substitute services are also pushed up indiscriminately by the government/regulators hierarchy, that sees them as a politically manageable way to fund massive pressure groups.

The NHS works under similar incentives and is also way out of hand by now.

Internally, the incentive to improve processes and infrastructure is much diminished by the fact that money isn't allocated on value or even perceived value, but established budgets that actually get locally lost if they are not spent, so oftentimes spending more for the same is better. Any improvement or extra budget allocation is a power struggle between localities and political pressure groups.

Trying to introduce competition has also been a massive failure. You have companies outsourcing as much of the maintenance as possible to the infrastructure regulator, squatting lesser profitable lines with skeleton-crew service, and actively impeding the entry of other operators.

It's not a matter of subsidies, sweet-spot for prices and passenger capacity. It's much deeper than that.

The Dutch system is primarily public and primarily operated by NS which is a public operator. The Japanese system is primarily private and operated by private companies, and the regulator has a tight control over it. The British system is hard to even categorise. It's a flailing mish-mash of public/private operation that goes back and forth and that is incompetently regulated.

[mytailorisrich]

My point is not related to seeing it as a market (although in most cases it is broadly one because it "competes" against other means of transportation).

It is a question of how to pay for the cost of things, allocation of resources, subsidies, best use of taxpayers' money, not least when public finances are under high strain and/or huge structural investments are needed in many countries.

[muyuu]

but that is a market you are describing, one for the allocation of resources

it isn't really, the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service, and incidentally the other means of transportation are also made expensive by a connected structure

owning and operating a car in the UK is very expensive, esp. if you need to regularly park it near the most important economic centres, and this is also by design

more than a market, it's engineered scarcity and tax collection running this service and that is what they're maximising for, instead of economy of transportation which is perhaps the implied real metric of what would work as a market

[mytailorisrich]

> "the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service"

So you mean selling tickets, not subsidies?

Building railways and operating rail services cost money, a lot of it, actually. Is it a good allocation of resources, especially taxpayers' money, to make it free/almost free when people can afford to pay for it via tickets and funding/investments are needed elsewhere and (as the case may be) public finances are in a bad shape?

That's the way it is. Resources are always finite and thus there is always an issue with allocating them.

[muyuu]

no, i don't mean that at all

there is not a set number of tickets that either get bought by the consumer or subsidised, that is so far departed from the issues it's pointless to even consider

[ralferoo]

Yeah. Yesterday I had to go in for a meeting with my client. I went "off peak" which meant not getting there before 10am. The alternative is "super off peak" which is only for trains arriving after 1pm. That "off peak" was already double the price of "super off peak" and the train wasn't close to being empty, but there were spare seats. If I'd needed to get there for a 9am meeting, it'd have been about double the price again.

If I compare this to China (just because I travel on the trains there quite a lot whenever I visit), they have a simple price structure - it's all per kilometre (and so weirdly, the quickest trains are often slightly cheaper as they've gone a shorter route), and have 4 set prices - first class (very comfortable, lots of room), VIP (even more space and only the front 8 seats of the train), second class (about the same standard as UK trains) and standing. Occasionally there's also a business class seat too.

An example of the prices, I just checked the app online. For Shenzhen to Guangzhou (136km), the next train is a 90 minute journey. The price of the standing seat and the second class are the same, first class is 25% higher, VIP seat is first class plus 50%, business seat is VIP plus 100%. If you pay for a seat, you get allocated seating and nobody would dream of sitting in your seat and not moving. The base price in this example is second class at about £8 for the journey, the most expensive ticket is about £28.

There is a bullet train half an hour later that takes 30 minutes for the same journey, because it goes a more direct route, it's cheaper and the second class ticket is under £5. This also has sleeping cabins (not useful on this route as it's between 2nd and 3rd stations on a very long journey) which is about £24.

Standing tickets used to be priced at a discount, but they seem to be the same as the second class tickets nowadays. I guess this discourages people from getting them (there are over 10 trains per hour for this route, so you'd just pick a different train) but it means your expectations about sitting or standing are made up front when buying the ticket and if you absolutely have to get on the train and don't mind standing, you can. But most people would wait for the next train.

Obviously, the peak time trains can sell out quickly, so people book earlier or later as required for a train with availability. Normally, tickets go on sale exactly 2 weeks early, but even on the day there's usually seating availability on one of those "local" services (like this one that's just under 100 miles) within the hour, and for the long distance ones there's usually some availability same day, maybe just at an inconvenient time. But the prices are the same whenever travel, so it's about choosing a ticket that works right for you.

Also, because the prices of all the tickets are the same, even though you have pre-booked tickets, there's more flexibility. Every ticket can be changed for free once before you travel, so if you get to the station early and there are seats available on the train you want, you can cancel yours and get those seats without penalty. Even more amazingly, if you miss your train, you can still cancel it and rebook a later train with only a 20% penalty, as long as you do it within 24 hours of your scheduled departure.

Yes, Chinese trains are subsidised, but it's a wonderful service. Delays do happen, but nowhere near as bad as the UK, on a 4-5 hour journey over 1000+ kilometers I've sometimes been a few minutes late.

Mind you, aviation in China is also amazing. I remember deciding one day while travelling to bail on a city because the weather forecast was another week of rain. I got a ticket for a 1500 km flight (2.5 hours) the day before the flight for £100, which is comparable to the cost of a train but about twice as fast (I think it would have been 7 hours). The airlines aren't subsidised, but these do sell out around busy periods like public holidays and the prices can balloon at those times.

But anyway, the elasticity in China is done on seat availability, not pricing. If a train is full, you book another one, so if a specific time is important to you, you book further in advance. But whenever you book, if you have a ticket, at least it's going to be a pleasant journey and reasonably priced. Sometimes if a train is unexpectedly sold out, about an hour or two before departure they'll add an extra carriage or two to increase capacity, and again this tickets are priced at the standard price.

[seanmcdirmid]

Those are intercity trains. Commuter trains and especially subways in China, you probably aren’t getting a seat unless it’s off peak and you plan on going past a transfer station. This is basically why I took a taxi to and from work in Beijing even though I technically lived and worked on the line 10 subway. I just hated life when I had to stand for an hour (line 10 is a huge loop so even if the stations were technically on the line, it still went to them in a round about way). Worked for an emergency though, or if cabs were not available for some reason.

[gpvos]

Chinese trains must be quite heavily subsidized. In general, I don't like having to book a particular train instead of a route, just because of the extra mental planning overhead, but with the free rebooking it may be bearable.

> if you miss your train, you can still cancel it and rebook a later train with only a 20% penalty, as long as you do it within 24 hours of your scheduled departure.

This, this is amazing. How I wish the SNCF did it like that. (Actually, it happens often enough that all SNCF trains on a route on the same day are booked full so maybe it wouldn't help.) When you are early, can you also up- or downgrade at no cost (other than the price difference), e.g. if only seats are available in a different class than on your ticket?