A SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
IF the Railway Executive decided to co-opt me into their com- pany, which they show no sign at all of doing, I should submit to them that passenger revenue might be increased by lowering, not raising, fares-1st-class fares. From motives of economy I travel more by car than by train, but when I do adopt the latter method I notice that, whereas the 3rd-class compartments may be crowded to capacity (as they were when I came up from the West of England last week) the 1st-class are usually almost empty. They cost too much. Since 1st-class seats are three to a side and 3rd-class four, it is reasonable that a 1st-class ticket should cost one-third more than a 3rd-class. Actually it costs two-thirds more. I admit that a 1st-class com- partment is better upholstered, and that a 1st-class coach con- tains at least one compartment fewer than a 3rd-class. Even so I am convinced it would pay betterto charge a 3rd-class fare and a third and have the compartments full than to charge a fare and two-thirds and have them almost empty. But would they be full? Certainly very much nearer full than they are now. However much I habitually love my neighbour, I except his elbows from that emotion, and in a 1st-class carriage you do escape elbows. Other people mind about that, too. To become specific: five seats filled at four-thirds of the 3rd-class fare arc more profitable than three scats at five-thirds of that fare.
Previous page
