Can any industry be as crass in its dealing with its customers as Britain's railways? Only days after the train companies shut down all their operations for an infuriating 58 hours, some of Britain's least punctual and most overcrowded operators are introducing fare increases that are more than double the rate of inflation. From tomorrow many tickets on First Great Western (FWG), the unloved inheritor of Brunel's once-proud railway, will cost 10 per cent more — with no promise of a better service or any relief for the thousands forced to stand each day on trains that are late twice as often as those of the average operator. Little wonder that some commuters are planning a strike. Little wonder that environmentalists are ridiculing the green claims of a Government that not only encourages such increases but has effectively ordered them.

It is not only FGW that is bringing in steep fare increases. Across the network, companies are imposing increases of at least 5.4 per cent on unregulated fares while adding an average 4.8 per cent to regulated fares — both above inflation rates, and on some selected season tickets adding at least 9 per cent to the cost. The train operators insist lamely that this is what they have been ordered to do by a Government that announced in July that more of the cost of running the railway should be met by passengers and less by taxpayers; translating this warning into the award of new franchises only to those companies that promised hefty increases in fares.

It is, indeed, a huge indictment of an inefficiently privatised railway that subsidies for rail travel are running at three times the rate that they were 15 years ago on British Rail, at a time of unprecedented passenger growth. Government frustration at poor management and a wasteful system is now leading to the risible and long-discredited device of trying to choke off demand by putting up fares as high as the market will bear. But neither Whitehall nor the train operators can escape blame, however much they try to put responsibility for unpopular fare rises on each other.

The Government, in its White Paper, clearly underestimated the rise in passenger numbers, and is determined not to acknowledge the factors — gridlock on the roads, environmental concerns and its own promptings — that might further encourage a switch from cars to trains and in turn increase the pressure on the Treasury to spend more on urgently needed infrastructure upgrades. The train operators, for their part, are now reaping windfall profits from soaring passenger numbers and the rise in ticket prices without coming under any further pressure to improve their services. Thanks to good performances by some well-run companies, not to mention timetable padding, overall punctuality has risen. But that national picture conceals wide differences. What is invidious is the decision by the worst performers to hold out for the biggest fare increases on the cynical assumption that most have a regional monopoly and that passengers have no choice. This is not only unfair; it also undercuts the only feeble redress available to passengers. FGW's performance is so far below the norm that many commuters would qualify for a 5 per cent discount — which, after a 10 per cent fare rise, still represents a 5 per cent increase.

There ought, as passengers demand, to be an independent audit of the increases by all providers, some of whom are adept at using averages and a lack of transparency to sneak through unfair rises. It is no use asking the Department for Transport to adjudicate: it is in cahoots with the operators to force through the rises. If the Government is serious about greener public transport, it should ask an independent body to monitor fares and see whether these help or hinder greener transport in these overcrowded islands.