Five questions answered on the annual rail fare rises

Risen three times faster than average incomes since 2008.

Annual rail fare rises take effect today. We answer five questions on the annual commuter price hike.

How much have rail fares increased by?

On average, fares have increased by 4.2 per cent.

Though it varies for different rail operators, overall ticket prices have increased by 3.9 per cent in England, Wales and Scotland.

How are rail fare price rises calculated?

They are calculated using the Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation plus an additional percentage.

The additional percentage added to the RPI was reduced in October last year from 3 per cent to 1 per cent by the government making a total of about 4.2 per cent.

Any fares that go up more than the average must be balanced by others that rise by less than the average, or that fall.

How does the rise in rail fares compare with the rise of people’s income?

According to the Trades Union Congress (TUC) average train fares have risen nearly three times faster than average incomes since 2008.

Which fares have been affected the most?

London commuters using the busses, tube, trams and DLR can expect to pay 4.2 per cent more today than yesterday.

One steep rise is an unregulated return between Birmingham and London which went up by 10 per cent, although this actually only adds £2.50 to the fare.

An off-peak day return between Bristol and St Austell in Cornwall is now £75.60 - a rise of 40 per cent - from £53.10.

Although, some tickets have only risen by as little as 2.3 per cent with one ticket from Shenfield, Essex, to London now £16 cheaper, after a 0.6 per cent drop.

What have the TUC said?

Frances O'Grady, general secretary of the TUC and chairwoman of Action for Rail, told the BBC: "At a time when real wages are falling and household budgets are being squeezed, rail travellers are being forced to endure yet another year of inflation-busting fare increases.

"As well as having to shell out record amounts of money for their tickets, passengers also face the prospect of travelling on trains with fewer staff and having less access to ticket offices. They are being asked to pay much more for less."

Annual rail fare rises take effect today. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496