Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• moomo, Liverpool

  Merseyrail is almost unique in being a dedicated commuter network for a major UK metropolis. As such it rightly receives the sort of subsidies that other cities (Glasgow / Edinburgh / Newcastle / Manchester / Sheffield / Nottingham / Brum / London etc.) give to their various trams, metros and underground railways. Its deservedly good performance needs to be seen in this light. In fact, rather than seeking to be connected to HS2, Liverpool would do better pushing for a major extension and electrification of the Merseyrail service to those areas which are currently poorly served. The reopening of the former loop-lines should top any wish-list.

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  "there is a substantial subsidy on every ticket which I think rail users would not want to have to pay directly out of their own pockets."
  
  Certainly not every ticket, not every non-first class ticket. East Coast is roughly self-financing, even when you factor in the indirect subsidy going via network rail. So chances are the standard class Anytime and Off-peak tickets (maybe even Super Off-Peak too) are subsidising the taxpayer, not the other way round.
  
  But more to the point, yes, Merseyrail does have the highest subsidy per passenger-km, just ahead of Arriva Trains Wales. So what? Of course it's going to need a big subsidy. Commuter routes need a lot of rolling stock and infrastructure to carry the peak-time flows, which then have to run three-quarters empty the rest of the time. But a lot more people benefit from the subsidy than Merseyrail passengers. Can you imagine what you happen to the roads if everyone had to drive?
  
  Shut down Merseyrail's subsidy and you shut down Merseyrail. Shut down Merseyrail and you shut down Merseyside. The status quo seems like a fair bargain to me.

• Bob, London

  Dirty Trains : If people used the bins and didn't litter they wouldn't be so dirty, the number of times half drunk coffee cups have gone over spilling their contents over the floor, free newspapers taken not read and discarded etc.
  
  Overcrowding : You could get the next one, rather than pile on.
  
  Prices : It is expensive, but so is owning a car and commuting into the congestion charge zone and then you have to pay a Kings' ransom to park.
  
  Toilets : A Desiro toilet recently had a pair of jeans put down it causing the tank to explode. That and all sorts of foreign objects being flushed away causes faults. If the CET hasn't been done then that is wrong, but too many own goals by selfish people spoils it for the majority.

• Lorentz, London

  It's not worth commenting about the far above average subsidy made for a 25 year period by the pervious administration to Merseyrail, nor to question the methodology of the survey.
  
  The one point I would make is that it is only the first class passengers that are paying the full fare; there is a substantial subsidy on every ticket which I think rail users would not want to have to pay directly out of their own pockets.
  

• Tony Pearce, Reading

  Ah yes. I remember the good old days of British Rail. I was able to travel around in a carriage on my own as the train slowly wended its way across the UK. Inter-City Cross Country I think it was called. A 47 loco and Mark 2 coaches that I could hang my head out of. Apart from the rather disinterested staff, - rarely had my ticket checked - and the week-old sandwiches, there wasn't very much to complain about. But then the Government decided that the Taxpayer had had enough of subsidising my hobby, and start to encourage more people to use the trains. The result is that I so often have to stand going into London and I'm not very happy. The best I can do is prop-up the bar in the Buffet Car and drink expensive cans of beer until my destination is reached. Its just not good enough.

• steve, Stevenage

  Is 7400 people a true reflection on railway companies some of which carry over 150 000 per day. So I do not think this is in anyway a true reflection of what people actually think of these companies. Just a way of boosting magazine sales

• Dave Cook, Broadstone, Dorset

  I find it interesting to read that 48% more people would pay extra or a guaranteed seat. On many trains I travel on, people sometimes reserve seats and then either travel on a different train, or just never find their seat. Which often causes people to miss a seating opportunity. I had wondered whether people paying the full fare should have a reserved seat in the price, and those of us like me who often travel with cheap day returns stand, as it must be frustrating for those who pay the full whack to then stand to allow people to sit cheaply. Likewise, I do have an issue with dirty trains. I have never seen a train operator make their trains dirty, but I have seen many passenger who seem to be unable to use a toilet correctly, or leave rubbish strewn about a carriage, unable to sit without putting dirty feet on seats, or dressing in such grubby clothing that the grubbiness is bound to transfer to the seat. Being a regular passenger on FGW and Cross Country, I find the staff excellent, and the trains generally run as close to time as can reasonably be expected. But I am also a realist, and accept that reliability is bound to be an issue with such an ageing overloaded railway system that is creaking at the seams. It only needs someone to trespass near Bristol to cause havoc over a wide area with the knock on effects, and don't even get me started on people who steal signalling wiring etc. that cause late running....... Maybe people are too demanding, but it would be interesting to compare reliability and punctuality with cars as a means of transport. I wonder how many people who drive to work can time the arrival within a minute of schedule on a daily basis..........

• Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

  The Which survey might be interesting, but quoting a "passenger score" doesn't really mean anything at all. In passenger satisfaction services you can get any result you want depending on how you word the questions.
  
  It would be a lot more useful if they presented year-on-year figures, with the same questions being asked each year, so we can see if things are getting better or worse. Comparing train company vs train company is better, but even this is only limited use in assessing a train company's performance. Getting passenger satisfaction on a crowded commuter service is a different matter from passenger satisfaction on a long-distance journey.
  
  Which as a perfectly worthy goal of consumer rights, but it seems they're only interested in releasing minimal data to grab a few headlines. I much prefer Passenger Focus's practice of showing all the raw data and allowing people to look through the details and make up their own mind.