Forum menu
So according to the CEO of the Rail Delivery Group, above inflation rail fare rises are justified as they are needed to encourage govt and the rail companies to invest more.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/02/rail-bosses-seek-to-defend-train-fare-rises-amid-protests-at-stations ]“The fares are actually leveraging more investment from private sector and government,”[/url]
Do they think anyone actually believes this rubbish? Even if it was true do they think anyone would still accept it? Seems to me higher rail fares are a product of one thing, the fact that the network is massively over-capacity and they're taking advantage of this to charge more and reduce the numbers of people using it. If you can't match demand with supply, then reduce the demand. It's worked here, I for one will be riding my bike to work much more often from now on.
Used to cost me £750 a month to get to work, tickets plus parking. Bike not an option. One of the reasons I moved into central London as Boris bike commute was £7.50 a month, rest soent on higher living costs but 10 min each way commute vs 75min
UK infrastructure has suffered many decades of underinvestment
I'm sure my extra 15p a day will help out.
Higher Rail Fares are needed to encourage [s]higher investment?[/s] higher subsidies
FIFY...
Lord Adonis is calling for the resignation of transport secretary Chris Grayling for using hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ money to bail out private rail companies – a decision which the former government infrastructure tsar says is symptomatic of a government that has “broken down” under the strain of Brexit.
Same shit, same government position on fleecing commuter workers.
Listening to the Network Rail bonzo this morning was like “yeah, mannn.. but you’ll see four major projects come to fruition in 2018 .. so stop whining cockbags”
The rail network has suffered 100 years of underinvestment. It was never designed to be a user friendly cohesive transport system. More a higgledypigldy random localism best served by keeping locals, local. The expansion then sudden contraction of the network has always been governmental designed, one so they don’t have to spend money on it and two they travel by car so WGAF.
I wonder just how much money Brexshite is costing, when the alternative would have been to plough all that cash and hotels bills and huge government departments overspend and wasted time into a cohesive transport system that allows users to get from one place to another seamlessly.
I wonder just how much money Brexshite is costing,
Ironically [url= http://www.insider.co.uk/news/brexit-costing-british-economy-350m-11716091 ]£350m/week according to the latest analysis[/url]!
Most countries recognize railways as part of their critical national infrastructure and have invested appropriately. One way this country could improve productivity is making sure it's easy and cost effective for people to get to work. For the last 25 years, much public money has been 'invested' in the dividends of shareholders and yet contract holders not held to account for poor performance. I heard someone on R4 this morning say that some in Government now see high fares as a means of managing demand i.e. deliberately pricing people off the railways.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/29/east-coast-rail-franchise-terminated-three-years-early-virgin-trains?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ]Someone has got to pay for Richards islands and spaceships[/url]
The East Coast Mainline is a genuine scandal. They’re sinking billions of taxpayers money to try and cover up the fact that their free market ideology has comprehensively failed
The last time a private contractor had to be bailed out on the same route, it was returned to public ownership where it delivered both a better service and a profit back to exchequer
In other words it committed the cardinal sin. It proved that ‘the market’ cannot deliver, and public ownership works
So obviously it was re-privatised, with exactly the same result
Who’d have thunk it, eh?
those ministers having forgotten that everyone needs to get to work not just the rich lawyers but also the cleaners
fare rises are justified as they are needed to encourage govt and the rail companies to invest more.
Do they think anyone actually believes this rubbish?
In a sense... what other tool is there if you want to offer investors a prospect of a greater return on investment? If trains are jam packed already you're not going to be able to offer a greater return from the prospect of selling more tickets to new customers so you can only sell the same number of tickets to the same customers for more 🙂
what other tool is there if you want to offer investors a prospect of a greater return on investment?
And there in a nutshell is the case for nationalisation.
I heard someone on R4 this morning say that some in Government now see high fares as a means of managing demand i.e. deliberately pricing people off the railways.
Well you've got a problem here (with current ideology at least) - the network is at capacity. So what are you gonna do? The cost of new railways is massive, so what private company is going to want to do invest there? We could go to the train sensing track tech, but oh look, the network is state owned.
So the only solution is lots of government investment. And look what happens at the ballot box?
[img] 
[/img]
deliberately pricing people off the railways.
It depends on how you view 'deliberately pricing people off' - if the problem is too many people travelling (whether its on private or public transport) then part of that problem is its currently (seen to be) cheaper to live somewhere other than where you work and pay to travel.
Obviously we want our transport system to be as good as it can be but if a system is oversubscribed its because its cheaper or easier than the alternative and one of the alternatives is 'living in the right place to begin with'.
Its a question of whether you respond to demand or shape that demand.
I think the question is how much should general taxpayers subsidise rail users? The 2015-2016 figure was £4.8Bn which has in real terms doubled since 1985.
Personally as an infrequent rail user if more funds are needed I would prefer rail users pay rather than taxpayers. Obviously frequent rail users will see it differently.
Personally as an infrequent rail user if more funds are needed I would prefer rail users pay rather than taxpayers. Obviously frequent rail users will see it differently.
As an infrequent rail user I'm happier that all those frequent rail users aren't on the road 🙂
and one of the alternatives is 'living in the right place to begin with'.
Most rail users are commuters who travel into city centres. They can't afford to live where they work.
Personally as an infrequent rail user if more funds are needed I would prefer rail users pay rather than taxpayers.
The public transport system benefits everyone not just those who use it. If everyone who used the train drove a car to work our cities would be polluted and uninhabitable, and the road network permanently gridlocked and/or taking up much more liveable space.
And there in a nutshell is the case for nationalisation
So that non-rail users should subsidies rail users?!?
Price is linked to RPI (not great but there you go) - on average train fares have rise 2.7% in real terms since 94-95 and passenger numbers have risen dramatically. Hardly cause for frothing...
If the majority want to subsidise my daily mode of transport that's their choice and fine by me. Very nice but not necessary really.
So that non-rail users should subsidies rail users?!?
No the fact that the rail (and wider public transport) network should exist to allow people to affordably travel to work and other places, and as such is a strategic national asset which benefits everyone, rather than existing to provide a return to investors.
Investment, satisfaction, usage etc all gone up (a lot) since privatisation, so seems odd that you are proposing a reversal of a trends that has delivered against your objectives.
Still very happy if others want to pay for my commute. Thanks in advance.
Investment, satisfaction, usage etc all gone up (a lot) since privatisation, so seems odd that you are proposing a reversal of a trends that has delivered against your objectives.Still very happy if others want to pay for my commute. Thanks in advance.
not on the east coast line it hasn't, except for those periods where it was effectively under public ownership, but you know that.
Investment, satisfaction, usage etc all gone up (a lot) since privatisation, so seems odd that you are proposing a reversal of a trends that has delivered against your objectives.
Classic Tory misdirection. Run it into the ground whilst you have control over it, then sell it to your buddies, give them loads of money and claim it's improved.
There's no intrinsic reason why state owned railways cannot work well. Just look at the rest of Europe. So-called private sector efficiency is a total myth.
Still very happy if others want to pay for my commute. Thanks in advance.
As you well know the price increases and ridiculous prices as a share of income (see comparison above with other countries) mean that people at the bottom are becoming priced out of using the train. I'm sure you have no problem with that as it means you'll no longer have to share the carriage with the plebs, but there are knock on effects such as higher carbon emissions, pollution, congestion, lost productivity etc. Strange that other 'advanced' european countries recognise that but we don't.
No the fact that the rail (and wider public transport) network should exist to allow people to affordably travel to work and other places, and as such is a strategic national asset which benefits everyone, rather than existing to provide a return to investors.
Which is why it is currently heavily subsidised. Nobody is suggesting stopping all taxpayer rail funding. Rail users paying a higher share of the cost seems reasonable.
The record rail user numbers would suggest that market forces are not yet pricing people off the rails.
Classic Tory misdirection. Run it into the ground whilst you have control over it, then sell it to your buddies, give them loads of money and claim it's improved.
and when they say they can't make a profit, after paying huge dividends to their shareholders, offer then even more money.....
The benefits of the pioneering Victorians is that we are still stuck with their infrastructure e.g. wiggly tracks and narrow bridges designed for steam trains - so no investment in bigger bridges that allow the use of double-decker coaches on busy commuter lines? Short-term contracts to rail companies don't encourage long-term thinking and investment, plus we give them get-out clauses around stuff like union disputes, track works that means they can wriggle out of penalties.
Paul Plummer used to be my director at network rail. The whole thing is a massive gravy train (no pun intended!) and rail users pay the price. I’ve never worked anywhere more inefficient than network rail - they couldn’t even cost a decent business plan at their last review. Absolutely unbelievable.
The talk about investment is true, but man they have an awful lot of overhead they could cut out. Some of it is truly shocking. But there is no incentive to do that (as the money just goes round and by placing on rail users the impact on the treasury is shielded) and the regulator lacks teeth.
deliberately pricing people off the railways.
Seems to be answer to everything here in good old blighty. Run it into the ground then **** it off! It's cheaper, easier and all the boys get their short term butties and early retirement out it.
The rest of us mules can work till we drop, while those that impose it retire early on gold plated pensions, laughing their cocks off.
I'm paying £168 a week plus another £43 parking to ride to work on a cramped POS that first came into service in 1952. How they have the audacity to charge what they do and provide the service that they do is beyond me.
Whilst I'm not especially in favour of tax payers money subsidising my commute, the rail companies really do need a shake up. More so Network Rail as the majority of the issues arise from their terrible infrastructure.
Investment, satisfaction, usage etc all gone up (a lot) since privatisation, so seems odd that you are proposing a reversal of a trends that has delivered against your objectives.Still very happy if others want to pay for my commute. Thanks in advance.
You're a difficult man to like..
usage etc all gone up (a lot) since privatisation
Correlation does not imply causation.
For usage given the increase in NI and no obvious differences when East Coast was under public management it really falls on you to make the case it does here.
For satisfaction. Again when compared with the limited public options the private sector doesnt stand out.
Still very happy if others want to pay for my commute
You seem to have missed the obvious point that the taxpayer is already handing over cash to subsidise your commute. The really irritating piece is the money being skimmed off to subsidise foreign railway companies and bosses bonuses.
people at the bottom are becoming priced out of using the train
And they then can't travel to get jobs....
Still very happy if others want to pay for my commute. Thanks in advance.
We already do. I've also paid for Crossrail, and goodness knows how many roads and hospitals in the North where I hardly ever go. It's called infrastructure spent, and whilst I'm not an economist but I thought it was usually considered a sound investment in a country?
Sorry flange - I was bought up to be grateful for unnecessary gestures of generosity. It’s called manners
The irony of all this very public gouging of commuters is that it's greatly increased public support for renationalisation. If we end up with Corbyn in number 10, this will be one of the key drivers for it.
YouGov's survey from May shows a majority of people now want the Railways, Post Office, Energy and water companies in public hands, I suspect those numbers have not gone down since then.
[img] 
[/img]
Sorry flange - I was bought up to be grateful for unnecessary gestures of generosity. It’s called manners
Yeah, manners can cover for a lot of less appealing personality traits.
'That Dave, he's a condescending knobber isn't he'
'Yeah, but he's SO polite!'
'You're right, Dave's OK...'
“Knobber” exposes others
“Knobber” exposes others
Brilliant! I'll write that one down for future use...
Most rail users are commuters who travel into city centres. They can't afford to live where they work.
In scotland most rail users seem to be people travelling from City Centre Edinburgh to work in City Centre Glasgow passing trains full of people from City Centre Glasgow travelling to City Centre Edinburgh. 🙂
I did chuckle to myself this morning at the regional disparity in rail investment when the CEO of the Rail Delivery Group (Paul Plummer) was standing in London Bridge station gushing about the £1bn investment in that station alone, and in the next breath said that "the north" is set to get £1bn investment over the next 5 years - like "the north" is a comparable size to London Bridge. Butt-hole!
Job mobility. If you change your job should you have to uproot your whole family and spent thousands to move?
and spent thousands to move?
or spend thousands and thousands on travel so you can stay put.
The argument about needing investment from users has worn thin over the years
However.... the new GWR rolling stock is better in many ways and the on train staff must have had some customer care training...... hopefully the network improments + new rolling stock will improve reliability
European networks are probably not the best comparison as their capitals are tiddlers compared to London
or spend thousands and thousands on travel so you can stay put.
People move houses very rarely, perhaps once per decade, but now move jobs much more frequently. Since the 'job for life' era is now over (by design not accident I might add, from the same goverment which ran the transport system into the ground), it would be stupidly inefficient to expect people to move house when they move jobs, so the only other option is to provide the means by which they can commute. And that's not to mention wrecking people's lives by uprooting their kids from school, social support networks they've built etc.
Well you've got a problem here (with current ideology at least) - the network is at capacity.
As a rail commuter I don't see how it can be. Simply replace the two car train with a six car train and treble capacity with the same infrastructure. They fit, because six car trains do run on the same route.
The problem is that no new cars have been ordered in the past 15 years, so there aren't any to add. That's because the train companies get paid even if the ticket holders are left standing on the platform because the trains are full.
The solution - as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee - is to write into the train company charters that they provide sufficient capacity and for passengers to get a refund if they are left without a seat. That should concentrate minds.
Ahh the Train Regulator.
Pathetic impassive Treasury Select Committee nominated halfwits.
Lets not forget Southern Rail in this equation, 48mths of strikes and cancellations and the 'regulator" did nothing, the Tory MP's did nothing other that hide behind the tinted windows of their S-Class Mercs, no doubt searching on the Net for Sex Toys and organising their interns to go to the shops to collect the orders.
Any government appointed regulator is appointed as a visual front to take the flak from users, whilst doing nothing and representing only the governments position to do nothing.
Its a simple smoke screen and the UK falls for it [i]every time[/i]