Train passengers face potential 5.8% fares hike
The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap on regulated fare rises in 2026, but this year's 4.6% hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024.
If that formula is used to set next year's fare increase, the cost of train travel will jump by 5.8%.
That would mean an annual season ticket from Woking to London rising by £247 to £4,507.
A flexi ticket for travel two days per week over a year from Liverpool to Manchester would increase by £120.30 to £2,195.10.
Train punctuality in Britain is at its lowest level in more than five years.
Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Today's inflation figure could mean a big fare rise for rail passengers next year, especially if the Government decides to go with an above-inflation increase like we saw this year.
'With the railways now moving under public control, the fundamental question for the Government is how to use its role in setting fares policy to deliver a more affordable rail network and encourage more people to travel on it.
'Next year's annual rise represents the first real opportunity for the Government to show passengers – both current and future – just how it plans to do this.'
About 45% of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments.
They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year.
Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments.
Office of Rail and Road figures show trains in Britain reached 66.7% of scheduled stops within a minute of the timetable in the year to July 19.
That is the worst performance since the year to May 30 2020.
Some operators are currently struggling with dry weather.
A lack of moisture in clay soil embankments has disturbed track levels, preventing trains from safely travelling at full speed in parts of south-west and south-east England.
A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them.
'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways (GBR), delivering the services they deserve and driving growth.
'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
The Government is nationalising train operators as their contracts expire.
GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
If Reeves isn't stopped, every inch of Britain will be the property of the state
The pitch rolling has started. The propagandists have been unleashed. We are being softened-up for the ultimate betrayal, the most obscene of broken promises, the grossest attack on private wealth in living memory. If you are a homeowner, I have grim news: Rachel Reeves has just declared war on you. You could pay even more tax, so much so that in some cases you may be forced to sell your house to pay the bill – and then to hand over yet more cash just to be allowed to say goodbye to your beloved family home. Reeves is considering several options, all abhorrent: an annual proportional wealth tax on the value of homes, large enough to replace stamp duty, council tax and more; the imposition of capital gains tax (CGT) on primary residences for the first time ever, albeit just on more expensive ones at first; an 'exit tax' as an alternative to CGT, payable on sale; and a revaluation of council tax, with even higher bands, including a mansion tax. Britain is in the midst of an epic struggle between tax-eaters and net taxpayers, between those seeking to squeeze ever more out of the private sector to keep our bankrupt welfare state going a little longer, and those desperately seeking to preserve their wealth at a time of weak GDP, stagnant real wages and rocketing costs. We have almost reached the economy's maximal taxable capacity, at least with the tools at HMRC's disposal. The bond vigilantes are circling, and Reeves has taken the UK to the brink of fiscal meltdown. Her party won't allow her to cut spending, so she is turning to the last untapped El Dorado, the final pot of cash ripe for raiding: our homes, worth trillions of pounds in total. If she goes down, she wants it to be in a blaze of Left-wing glory, taking out the forces of conservatism's last bastion and scoring the greatest victory for socialism since the glory days of Hugh Dalton and Sir Stafford Cripps. Primary residences have long been the great tax taboo, the last line of defence against predatory politicians: no government has been able to directly tax their gains in value or to impose an annual levy (a property wealth tax) over and above council tax. Slapping CGT on primary residences or an annual property wealth tax based on the value of one's home isn't some minor technocratic tweak to the tax system to make it slightly more 'efficient' or 'fair': it's an attempt at dynamiting the foundations of our society, to drastically curtail the power of the petite bourgeoisie, and to enshrine the political class's supremacy. Unlike with ISAs or pensions, whose tax-beneficial status are understood to survive at the Chancellor's discretion, primary residences are an Englishman's tax-free castles, for which we assume we have a natural right not to be taxed. This is one of the last in-built libertarian assumptions in British society, and the reason why Reeves's proposed tax 'reforms' are so pernicious. Tim Leunig, who advised Rishi Sunak and whose Left-wing ideas are also proving attractive to Reeves, is advocating for a 0.44 per cent levy on homes worth up to £500,000 to replace council tax. He simultaneously wants stamp duty to be replaced by a 0.54 per cent annual tax on homes above £500,000, with an extra 0.28 per cent supplement on values over £1m. These would be revenue-neutral, which wouldn't be good enough for Reeves: she wants to raise billions more. The rates would need to be even higher. I loathe council tax and stamp duty, but this idiot savant scheme would create Britain's first annual wealth tax, levied on a stock of illiquid assets, and would prove even worse. Property rights would be abrogated, and homeowners downgraded into leaseholders, paying the state-cum-landlord a fee for the right to keep living in our homes. The ancient tradition of the yeoman freeholder would be extinguished. Many homeowners would end up paying £7,000, £15,000 or more a year. At best, there would be no money left for holidays or school fees; at worst, total tax bills would exceed 100 per cent of annual incomes. Pensioners and the cash-poor would be forced to sell. Many would pray their house didn't increase in value, and halt repairs and enhancements. Some would tear down garages or annexes to reduce their annual tax, or allow homes and gardens to fall into disrepair to influence assessors. Entrepreneurs, rich investors and the last non-doms would flee the UK. We should scrap stamp duty, but by cutting spending, not by introducing this repulsive new form of larceny. Imposing CGT on primary residences would be almost as toxic. Like every new tax, invariably pitched to us as limited in scale and scope, it would soon be extended, in this case to ever more homes. The rates would soon be equalised to that on income. Eventually, it would become impossible to make any gains from property at all. Tax used to be only payable on real capital gains, not on inflationary increases. Labour largely ended that key protection; the Tories scrapped the last safeguards. Inflation, now at 3.8 per cent, is once again a silent thief, delivering what Milton Friedman described as 'taxation without legislation' on a grand scale. Under Reeves's plans, homeowners would pay tax on phantom inflationary gains and in many cases lose money in real terms. This would be especially true in London, where real, as opposed to nominal, property prices are often lower than they were a few years ago. It would be barely concealed theft. Buying a house would become a high-risk gamble. Homeowners who haven't kept every receipt would face tax bills for their recently completed new kitchens. More generally, there would be far fewer future home improvements and extensions as the post-tax payback would be lower. Nobody who didn't have to sell their home would do so, especially with the prospect of a Reform government reversing the raid. The housing market would implode. This war on homeowners is a bridge too far, a leap into proto-Marxist hell. Reeves is seeking to pauperise the middle classes. Taxpayers must make their fury known, write to their MPs and take to social media. This is the final battle, the fight to end all political fights: the Chancellor must be persuaded to change her mind, or else there will be no hope left for this country.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Landslide crashes into the Santorini sea engulfing a village
A massive landslide has crashed into the sea in Santorini, engulfing a village with dust as tourists watched on - just six months after the holiday island was rattled by earthquakes . A huge section of land suddenly gave way in the clifftop village of Imerovigli on Sunday afternoon after intense construction activity made the ground unstable. It comes just months after the paradise island was rattled by more than 20,000 earthquakes between January 26 and February 22 earlier this year. The country declared a month-long state of emergency as earthquakes struck the volcanic island every ten minutes, causing around 11,000 - more than half Santorini's population - to flee. The combination of seismic activity and overbuilding have been suggested as potential causes for the recent landslide - with over-development transforming fragile soil into hollow ground. The terrifying footage, filmed by Santorini residents, shows a great plume of thick dust engulf the quiet town - known for its whitewashed buildings with blue domes. 'Santorini is an island with vulnerable geomorphology, and when the pressure of overdevelopment is added, the risk of landslides multiplies,' local experts, who rushed to the scene, told Greek outlet Protothema . The stretch of land that collapsed was under particular pressure due to the construction of a new building, the report said. According to Efthymios Lekkas, Professor of Dynamic Tectonics and Geology at the University of Athens, Santorini is prone to landslides because of its steep slopes, high seismicity, and the island's geological morphology - consisting of inter-layered volcanic, lava, and pyroclastic rocks. Earlier this year, as the island was gripped with earthquakes, Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced £2.5million funding for an emergency evacuation route from the south of Santorini to be built. Hotel owners were even asked to drain their pools due to concerns that overflowing water could destabilize buildings in a quake. Many who stayed on the island slept on the street with their mattresses, too scared to stay in their homes in case they collapse. Other residents built makeshift tsunami defenses using sandbags along Monolithos beach, where buildings sit dangerously close to the water. Seismologists said the quakes were the result of tectonic plate movements, not volcanic activity, despite Santorini sitting on the Hellenic Volcanic Arc - a chain of islands formed by ancient eruptions. The strongest earthquake to shake the island earlier this yea was reported as a 5.3-magnitude on February 10. Greece sits on multiple fault lines and is one of Europe's most earthquake-prone countries, but experts said the level of activity was unprecedented.
Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
Ospreys and Scarlets in legal action against WRU amid Cardiff controversy
Ospreys and Scarlets in legal action against WRU amid Cardiff controversy The WRU's acquisition of Cardiff didn't go down well in some quarters and its emerged a legal challenge has been launched The Ospreys and Scarlets are in the midst of a legal challenge against the Welsh Rugby Union (Image: Huw Evans Picture Agency Ltd) The Welsh Rugby Union are in the midst of a legal challenge from the Ospreys and Scarlets over the governing body's acquisition of Cardiff in April. WRU chair Richard Collier-Keywood has confirmed the WRU have been embroiled in a legal dispute with two of its professional clubs but has emphasised his confidence in the union's position. Cardiff entered administration last April after Helford Capital failed to meet its financial requirements, leading to the WRU assuming ownership of the capital city club. This resulted in the Ospreys and Scarlets refusing to sign the new Professional Rugby Agreement (PRA) over concerns Cardiff would receive favourable treatment from the governing body. The WRU responded by calling in the two-year notice period on the old PRA, which has led Welsh rugby to the brink of a reduction of professional clubs from four to two. Confirmation of the ongoing legal challenge came on the day the WRU publicly announced it's preferred plan to halve the number of pro teams to just two, with a six-week consultation to now begin. The WRU has been accused by the two west Wales clubs of being in breach of UK and EU competition law as well as an abuse of its dominant position. Collier-Keywood says the process is ongoing but wants the arbitration to be postponed until after the consultation process. Article continues below "We are defending that as you might expect us to and we are confident of our position," he said. Sign up to Inside Welsh rugby on Substack to get exclusive news stories and insight from behind the scenes in Welsh rugby. "At the moment we have an arbitration which is scheduled for sometime in October. "Whether that takes place or not I think is a matter for all three parties involved in the arbitration. "Our view from a WRU point of view, which we expressed to the parties, is we think it would be better if that arbitration is stayed to allow us to do this consultation properly. "If people are uncomfortable over the outcome of that at that point of time then of course they can restart a legal challenge if they want to." WalesOnline understands it is likely to be postponed until December by which time the WRU will have decided on the number of professional clubs and which ones will either be merged or killed off completely. But Collier-Keywood is adamant this does no jeopardise the consultation process. "I don't think so," he said when asked. "I think we have to manage both and they are clearly interrelated. We've been really public about this around May, we had some really cogent reasons around why we did need to step in and rescue Cardiff. "We actually talked through that with the clubs the day following our decision to do it and the legal challenge emerged quite a bit later, frankly to that. "So, we believe in the best interests of Welsh rugby we shouldn't hang around and wait for that arbitration to reach its conclusion." WRU chair Richard Collier-Keywood (Image: Kian Abdullah/Huw Evans Agency) The legal challenge is partly based on a potential breach of the PRA in assuming ownership of Cardiff and taking on the role of the club's benefactor. "Yes, and we disagree with that," said Collier-Keywood when asked if a breach of the PRA was the basis of the legal case. "We think the previous PRA was pretty clear and we had the authority to step in and rescue that. "We did it for the best interests of Welsh rugby." Join WalesOnline Rugby's WhatsApp Channel here to get the breaking news sent straight to your phone for free If the WRU do push through their optimal solution of two professional clubs, Collier-Keywood conceded there is potential for further legal challenges. "There are probably two or three areas that there would be a potential legal challenge," he said. "One is we have contracts with the clubs called the PRA and we have made it very clear to the clubs we will stick by our obligations in those agreements. "We have two clubs on one and two clubs on a different version as you all know from the events that happened in early May. "But we are confident about that contractual position. "The second potential challenge is under competition law. "We want to hear people's views anyway but doing a consultation is an important element for us as a regulator of rugby in Wales of actually listening to people's perspectives, hearing that back and actually making the right decision for the future of Wales rugby as a whole as opposed to individual elements of it going forward. "The consultation we are engaging in now is a really important part of getting that right from a competition law perspective. "The final potential challenge is something to do with have we acted in malfeasance and so on and fairness. Get the latest breaking Welsh rugby news stories sent straight to your inbox with our FREE daily newsletter. Sign up here. "We've been very transparent on this as a board and we'll continue to be very transparent on it as a board. "We are doing it without any favour towards any particular one of the four regional clubs and we will continue to operate in that way. Article continues below "We feel confident about our legal position."
