Sir, Forty-odd years ago, Dr Beeching made the error of believing that, even if rail travel was made less accessible, people would still make the extra effort required to travel by train, which would have achieved economies of scale on a contracted network. History since then, especially in those areas deprived of their lines, has conclusively proved him wrong, and the consequent increased use of the car — especially in the rural areas which suffered from rail closures the most — is now seen as a particular evil in the Government’s regional spatial strategies, which are out for consultation at the present time.

How depressing, therefore, to read that First Trains (and in prospect South West Trains as well) and the same Government hope to solve the problem of overcrowding on some passenger trains by increasing fares (report, June 29).

In the days of locomotive-hauled trains, an excess of demand would be met by the provision of an extra carriage or two when the timetable required it, plus, if necessary, a slightly more powerful engine. That flexible approach must still be the way forward for the railways (if they value their own future) when passenger numbers increase, even if it also means reinstating crossovers and sidings at terminuses to allow the engines to change ends.

New locomotives and carriages on busy routes are surely a better solution to this particular problem, rather than another short-sighted remedy which will make rail travel a preserve of the rich, or drive passengers away, and on to the roads, for good.

SIR PHILIP WILLIAMS
Dorchester

Sir, There are several options available to reduce overcrowding on trains. Higher fares might work. However, the main aim should surely be to increase passenger numbers. This could be achieved by increasing capacity or smoothing occupancy. The latter might be achieved by significant fare reductions for travel during normal off-peak periods.

JOHN BYLES
Bristol

Sir, The railways receive a massive public subsidy, partly to get people out of their cars and into public transport. This has been a popular move with sections of the public who have access to these facilities. Higher fares will reduce train usage, forcing people back into their cars, but meaning that railway companies don’t have to invest in new rolling stock and increasing their profits. As this will achieve the exact opposite of what was sought, is there any reason why the subsidy should still be paid?

DAVID LESLIE
Crieff, Perthshire

Sir, Seating on trains on the popular London-Bedford line (Thameslink) is a scarce commodity during peak time. Regular commuters work hard to support the thriving Central London and UK economy. The train operator First Capital Connect is endeavouring to secure more badly needed trains for the line. Meanwhile, as a season ticket holder for 20 years I have no objection to, and indeed support, rationing by price, which encourages the occasional, mainly recreational, traveller to choose between travelling back either early or late or paying more. Cheap day returns were introduced to fill spare capacity, not squeeze full fare paying passengers.

Innovation in techniques of operating the railway and in pricing are exactly what is needed. The FCC is to be congratulated.

ROGER BUTTERWORTH
Harpenden, Herts

Sir, Our roads are overcrowded, so policy has been to encourage the use of public transport. But increased use (and reduction in the number of trains) leads to overcrowding. The Government therefore intends to discourage the use of trains.

Am I alone in finding this argument incoherent? What, precisely, is government policy on our failing transport system, and how are we supposed to get to work?

DR A. R. STANFORD
Bedford

Explore Letters

• Feedback