Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I would guess breach of contract. The aim is no doubt to retender.rick_chasey said:Right, so why are they renationalising Virgin, and are looking to renationalise Great Northern and South Western?
0 -
The graph above only shows the increase in passenger numbers. Imagine what the curve would look like if you added revenue to the equation. As fares have gone up by more than inflation year on year when you add that to the passenger numbers there is more money coming into the system than there used to be.rick_chasey said:Right, so why are they renationalising Virgin, and are looking to renationalise Great Northern and South Western?
Perhaps the Govt think they can run the trains (as opposed to railways) no less poorly than the TOCs and use the extra revenue to put more money back into the overall rail system or divert it elsewhere.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Correlation doesn't, of course, mean causation, but there is a pretty decent correlation between private ownership and passenger numbers. In my view it is an interesting starting point for a discussion about nationalisation.Longshot said:
With zero sarcasm, what is the point you are illustrating with that graph? I can think of a number of possibilities.TheBigBean said:rick_chasey said:Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises
Ultimately, the debate comes down to whether trains provide a service or competition. Privatisation has done pretty well competing with cars, but some question whether the service they provide to commuters is as good as it used to be.0 -
I am sceptical about whether this to do with things like the train service and whether this is to do with various things to make driving car more difficult (congestion charges, restricted parking & driving, etc etc). i.e. car driving is being made less competitive, rather than the trains more.TheBigBean said:
Ultimately, the debate comes down to whether trains provide a service or competition. Privatisation has done pretty well competing with cars, but some question whether the service they provide to commuters is as good as it used to be.
Anyway, I am always a fan of calling parties out when they go against what they set themselves out to be.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Correlation doesn't, of course, mean causation, but there is a pretty decent correlation between private ownership and passenger numbers. In my view it is an interesting starting point for a discussion about nationalisation.Longshot said:
With zero sarcasm, what is the point you are illustrating with that graph? I can think of a number of possibilities.TheBigBean said:rick_chasey said:Curious how the Tories insist privatised railways are the way forward, yet they have already renationalised one franchise and they're looking into renationalising another two franchises
Ultimately, the debate comes down to whether trains provide a service or competition. Privatisation has done pretty well competing with cars, but some question whether the service they provide to commuters is as good as it used to be.
It is a very difficult question to answer. I think increasing road congestion and the Congestion Charge (for London) have had a major impact on the number of people commuting by rail. For example, I haven't driven into London during the week since the inception of the Congestion Charge in 2003. It's not because of the CC, just in coincided with my desire to sit in traffic for hours upon hours every week. I have adapted to public transport and now don't need a car in London other than rare occasions where I will use a taxi.
Is that down to privatisation? No idea. Has the overall service to rail passengers improved? Difficult to answer. There are a lot of newer trains on the networks but even a nationalised rail industry would have replaced trains sooner or later. Are the new trains better? My view is not so much better, just newer.
The only time I have seen a distinct improvement was when SW Trains (as it was then) rewrote their timetable from scratch in the mid 2000s. Whilst it took a while to get used to, it actually resulted (for me) in an huge improvement in the timekeeping of the trains on a daily basis.
It's similar to the NHS in that it's a bit of a bottomless pit money-wise. There are so many things that need improving it must difficult to know where to start.
Finally, the biggest obstacle that they face is how to deal with all of these additional passengers. there simply isn't the capacity to cope with the numbers in rush hour. Increasing that capacity significantly is almost impossible without a complete redesign of the network and rolling stock.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
I don't think it is clear cut, but there have been a number of changes under privatisation which I think have been game changers e.g. cheap advanced tickets which spread out passenger volumes. British Rail could have done this, but didn't.0
-
This is entirely relative to the fairly punchy price increases rail passengers have seen.TheBigBean said:I don't think it is clear cut, but there have been a number of changes under privatisation which I think have been game changers e.g.
cheap advanced tickets
which spread out passenger volumes. British Rail could have done this, but didn't.
When you also compare fares to the rest of Europe, it gets even more galling.
And that is long before you get to my pet bugbear which is the opacity of rail pricing. It is borderline impossible to *know* you are getting the cheapest ticket unless you know you are travelling peak time all year around (in which case, you know there is no discount).
0 -
Why is it relevant? Do you think that you are subsidising the cost of the less desirable tickets?rick_chasey said:
This is entirely relative to the fairly punchy price increases rail passengers have seen.TheBigBean said:I don't think it is clear cut, but there have been a number of changes under privatisation which I think have been game changers e.g.
cheap advanced tickets
which spread out passenger volumes. British Rail could have done this, but didn't.
The discussion is even more interesting if you think that a lot of the fares are subsidised, so commuters who have chosen to live further out* receive a subsidy to support their life style.
*I know that a lot of people will say they didn't choose to live further out.0 -
Ticket prices are entirely part of the train experience. If, FWIW, great northern were charging 40% less on their tickets, I imagine people would be more sanguine about the appalling service.TheBigBean said:
Why is it relevant? Do you think that you are subsidising the cost of the less desirable tickets?rick_chasey said:
This is entirely relative to the fairly punchy price increases rail passengers have seen.TheBigBean said:I don't think it is clear cut, but there have been a number of changes under privatisation which I think have been game changers e.g.
cheap advanced tickets
which spread out passenger volumes. British Rail could have done this, but didn't.
The discussion is even more interesting if you think that a lot of the fares are subsidised, so commuters who have chosen to live further out* receive a subsidy to support their life style.
*I know that a lot of people will say they didn't choose to live further out.
I think it is fairly obvious that the number of people having to commute is a consequence of other poor governance decisions and the subsidies are there to mitigate some of those problems.0 -
I don't think this is obvious at all. Farms are not able to employ local workers, because the farm workers are priced out of the local housing. So every morning, farm workers make their way from the outskirts of towns/cities to work on farms whilst the relatively wealthy people living near the farms make their way to the cities to do the better paid jobs. The latter frequently do so, by car and then subsidised trains. Is it right they should get a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?rick_chasey said:
I think it is fairly obvious that the number of people having to commute is a consequence of other poor governance decisions and the subsidies are there to mitigate some of those problems.
0 -
Sorry, I don't quite understand. If you can't afford to live in the city or town you work in you have to commute - particularly if other jobs are not available. That is the same if you work on a farm or in an office.TheBigBean said:
I don't think this is obvious at all. Farms are not able to employ local workers, because the farm workers are priced out of the local housing. So every morning, farm workers make their way from the outskirts of towns/cities to work on farms whilst the relatively wealthy people living near the farms make their way to the cities to do the better paid jobs. The latter frequently do so, by car and then subsidised trains. Is it right they should get a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?rick_chasey said:
I think it is fairly obvious that the number of people having to commute is a consequence of other poor governance decisions and the subsidies are there to mitigate some of those problems.
Why are you treating farms differently to firms who are based in cities?0 -
The cheapest housing is in towns/cities hence why farm workers don't live near farms.rick_chasey said:
Sorry, I don't quite understand. If you can't afford to live in the city or town you work in you have to commute - particularly if other jobs are not available. That is the same if you work on a farm or in an office.TheBigBean said:
I don't think this is obvious at all. Farms are not able to employ local workers, because the farm workers are priced out of the local housing. So every morning, farm workers make their way from the outskirts of towns/cities to work on farms whilst the relatively wealthy people living near the farms make their way to the cities to do the better paid jobs. The latter frequently do so, by car and then subsidised trains. Is it right they should get a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?rick_chasey said:
I think it is fairly obvious that the number of people having to commute is a consequence of other poor governance decisions and the subsidies are there to mitigate some of those problems.
Why are you treating farms differently to firms who are based in cities?0 -
That's not been my experience - cheapest housing is in villages.TheBigBean said:
The cheapest housing is in towns/cities hence why farm workers don't live near farms.rick_chasey said:
Sorry, I don't quite understand. If you can't afford to live in the city or town you work in you have to commute - particularly if other jobs are not available. That is the same if you work on a farm or in an office.TheBigBean said:
I don't think this is obvious at all. Farms are not able to employ local workers, because the farm workers are priced out of the local housing. So every morning, farm workers make their way from the outskirts of towns/cities to work on farms whilst the relatively wealthy people living near the farms make their way to the cities to do the better paid jobs. The latter frequently do so, by car and then subsidised trains. Is it right they should get a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?rick_chasey said:
I think it is fairly obvious that the number of people having to commute is a consequence of other poor governance decisions and the subsidies are there to mitigate some of those problems.
Why are you treating farms differently to firms who are based in cities?
You certainly pay a premium to live in London or a town like Cambridge. I would live in London if the commute from houses I could afford wasn't even longer in terms of time than where I live now.
0 -
Isn't that the point, you choose a shorter subsidised commute over a longer unsubsidised one. Other people do the same for nicer housing, nicer areas, nicer schools etc. The question is whether it should be subsidised*.rick_chasey said:
That's not been my experience - cheapest housing is in villages.TheBigBean said:
The cheapest housing is in towns/cities hence why farm workers don't live near farms.rick_chasey said:
Sorry, I don't quite understand. If you can't afford to live in the city or town you work in you have to commute - particularly if other jobs are not available. That is the same if you work on a farm or in an office.TheBigBean said:
I don't think this is obvious at all. Farms are not able to employ local workers, because the farm workers are priced out of the local housing. So every morning, farm workers make their way from the outskirts of towns/cities to work on farms whilst the relatively wealthy people living near the farms make their way to the cities to do the better paid jobs. The latter frequently do so, by car and then subsidised trains. Is it right they should get a subsidy for a lifestyle choice?rick_chasey said:
I think it is fairly obvious that the number of people having to commute is a consequence of other poor governance decisions and the subsidies are there to mitigate some of those problems.
Why are you treating farms differently to firms who are based in cities?
You certainly pay a premium to live in London or a town like Cambridge. I would live in London if the commute from houses I could afford wasn't even longer in terms of time than where I live now.
*For the record, I am more than happy to tax cars and subsidise trains, but the point still stands for discussion, and the farm workers thing annoys me for some reason.
0 -
What? It's more expensive in terms of distance and I'm fairly sure internal London travel is less subsidised than trains outside - hence it being a good £3k cheaper per year.
I think the farm worker thing is an odd hill to fight on as they are experiencing the exact same problems the typical London commuter has; they've been priced out of the location where they work.0 -
From what I was listening to the other day, the franchises are just not making enough money anymore and so the TOCs are not able to pay the premiums required.TheBigBean said:
I would guess breach of contract. The aim is no doubt to retender.rick_chasey said:Right, so why are they renationalising Virgin, and are looking to renationalise Great Northern and South Western?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think a lot of them front ended the payments from the government with the proposal that savings would be made later. The government's evaluation system didn't appropriately penalise such bids, so operators were able to win, take the cash and then hand back the franchise. No idea about Great Northern and South Western, but that, I believe, is the reason behind the shambles on the east cost line - it was destined to fail from the moment the bid was won.rjsterry said:
From what I was listening to the other day, the franchises are just not making enough money anymore and so the TOCs are not able to pay the premiums required.TheBigBean said:
I would guess breach of contract. The aim is no doubt to retender.rick_chasey said:Right, so why are they renationalising Virgin, and are looking to renationalise Great Northern and South Western?
0 -
Especially when the big dip coincided with the start of mass car ownership. Basically the graph reflects people opting for the freedom of travelling by car (and possibly bus) then as you say, when car usage starts to get more and more expensive and people start commuting further for work the usage increases again. I use the train whenever possible on the days I go to the office whereas I used to drive as even with free parking the cost is lower.rick_chasey said:
I am sceptical about whether this to do with things like the train service and whether this is to do with various things to make driving car more difficult (congestion charges, restricted parking & driving, etc etc). i.e. car driving is being made less competitive, rather than the trains more.TheBigBean said:
Ultimately, the debate comes down to whether trains provide a service or competition. Privatisation has done pretty well competing with cars, but some question whether the service they provide to commuters is as good as it used to be.
Anyway, I am always a fan of calling parties out when they go against what they set themselves out to be.0 -
On the subject of ticket prices, I was looking at possibly catching the train rather than flying for our summer holiday in Garda. I couldn't book the UK part yet but if I'm lucky I can get to London for about £40pp and the Eurostar was then looking like £150pp whereas the ticket from Paris to Milan was £35pp so the 7.5 hour, 500 mile journey would cost less than the best price I could hope to get for the 1.75 hour, 140 mile journey.0
-
If they want to give me decent discount on my train commutes into town then fair enough, but subsidising a load of middle class commuters probably isn't what was intended."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
That isn't your thing but reducing the tax on 40% & 45% earners is?Stevo_666 said:If they want to give me decent discount on my train commutes into town then fair enough, but subsidising a load of middle class commuters probably isn't what was intended.
Right.
I'd propose that the subsidy would marginally impact those lower down the income spectrum in that the tickets currently price out lower income people anyway.
Example; friend of mine struggled to get work; eventually got the job of his dreams working in the London zoo acquarium. Only, the pay wasn't high enough for him to afford to live anywhere in zone 6; in fact, he could only really afford living at home in Cambridge.
Alas, the commute ate so much of his pay it wasn't worth it so he had to bin it.
Not everyone can afford the price of a small car every year.0 -
Can you talk us through the maths. Was he falling into some sort of benefit black hole, how do all the low paid workers live?rick_chasey said:
That isn't your thing but reducing the tax on 40% & 45% earners is?Stevo_666 said:If they want to give me decent discount on my train commutes into town then fair enough, but subsidising a load of middle class commuters probably isn't what was intended.
Right.
I'd propose that the subsidy would marginally impact those lower down the income spectrum in that the tickets currently price out lower income people anyway.
Example; friend of mine struggled to get work; eventually got the job of his dreams working in the London zoo acquarium. Only, the pay wasn't high enough for him to afford to live anywhere in zone 6; in fact, he could only really afford living at home in Cambridge.
Alas, the commute ate so much of his pay it wasn't worth it so he had to bin it.
Not everyone can afford the price of a small car every year.
0 -
So it was a part time job but involved being in 4 days a week; so I think at the time his train costs were around £4,500 per annum.
I think he was paid at the time something like £8 an hour and he did no more than 20hrs a week. So assuming he did that for 48 weeks a year, he'd be earning £7680. So after schlepping in and our of London 4 days a week he would have roughly £3k left.
Hardly worth it.0 -
No but isn't that the same decision we all have to make? I'm not in the "job of my dreams" but there's a reason for that - it doesn't pay enough to make it viable with my other wants in life.rick_chasey said:So it was a part time job but involved being in 4 days a week; so I think at the time his train costs were around £4,500 per annum.
I think he was paid at the time something like £8 an hour and he did no more than 20hrs a week. So assuming he did that for 48 weeks a year, he'd be earning £7680. So after schlepping in and our of London 4 days a week he would have roughly £3k left.
Hardly worth it.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
-
You've missed the point. You may just as well blame the employer for the lousy wages they pay.rick_chasey said:£3k a year after travel. The guy was in his mid-20s!
You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
That does not make him a good example to highlight high train fares.0
-
I guess not. I just don't know why so many people in the UK almost *want* expensive train fares when the rest of Europe doesn't.
People need to get around, especially when the gov't seems to deliberately stoke up house prices year-on-year.0 -
Just pointing out what will happen - an example of the law of unintended consequences applied to nationalisation and reducing fares is that people like you and me who regularly take the train into London and earn a decent wedge from doing so will benefit. Not exactly the sort of redistribution that the lefties intended is it?rick_chasey said:
That isn't your thing but reducing the tax on 40% & 45% earners is?Stevo_666 said:If they want to give me decent discount on my train commutes into town then fair enough, but subsidising a load of middle class commuters probably isn't what was intended.
Right.
I'd propose that the subsidy would marginally impact those lower down the income spectrum in that the tickets currently price out lower income people anyway.
Example; friend of mine struggled to get work; eventually got the job of his dreams working in the London zoo acquarium. Only, the pay wasn't high enough for him to afford to live anywhere in zone 6; in fact, he could only really afford living at home in Cambridge.
Alas, the commute ate so much of his pay it wasn't worth it so he had to bin it.
Not everyone can afford the price of a small car every year.
If rail nationalisation happens it will be my hard earned tax dollars that are paying for it so I may as well get some value for money from it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Universal benefits automatically applied can also be redistributive.0
