|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 15, 2012 14:59:13 GMT
Back to fares, one could argue that peak fares on commuter routes are not high enough as demand clearly outstrips supply hence the significant overcrowding (I'm not agreeing with this btw). However, it can also be argued that off-peak fares are too great since the majority of off peak trains on commuter routes are near empty indicating that supply outstrips demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 15, 2012 15:38:49 GMT
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Aug 15, 2012 15:46:23 GMT
However, it can also be argued that off-peak fares are too great since the majority of off peak trains on commuter routes are near empty indicating that supply outstrips demand. This is so true. There would be better utilisation of off-peak trains if the turn-up-and-go off peak fare structure were made a) Cheaper and b) simpler. Am I alone in finding it absurd that it ius often cheaper to buy multiple tickets to complete a journey? To visit a friend in Worthing (departing from St.Pancras International) if I go to the ticket office there and ask for an off-peak return,it costs about £19. If I buy a return to Brighton,then a return thence to Worthing,it shaves about £3 off the price. If I buy the ticket to start from "Croydon Stations" and wave my Travelcard at the ticket clerk,that's a few £ cheaper again. If my friend comes to visit London,it's £13 Super off-peak (not available for journeys originating in London). Occasionally,there are "Special Offers" which have to be booked in advance,and shave a few more £s off the fare,but woe betide you if you are not on the train specified on the ticket,even if the train you are on is off-peak and empty.... I'm sure you can each come up with even more ludicrous examples. This is madness,and I'm certain that it deters custom (people will opt for a flat-fare bus with a clear headline fare applicable to every journey,rather than enter this minefield) The trains are running anyway.Rather than transporting fresh air to the Sussex Coast,they should be selling turn-up-and-go tickets cheaply,and with a comprehensible fare structure. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 15, 2012 16:43:28 GMT
trt - So far as fares are concerned, regulatory theory suggests that if there is a genuine monopoly, as with commuter fares, then prices are set on a cost +"reasonable" profit basis. Subsidy is there in such cases so as to avoid investment in even more expensive ways of achieving the same end or to buy environmental or social benefits. Where there are genuine alternatives, prices are supposed to reflect market conditions unless there are good social and economic reasons for subsidising fares. in fact, most London routes cover most of their running costs and make a big contribution to their capital costs. If NSE had persisted, it would have been making a profit by now - its last business plan showed it out of subsidy by 1997... metrailway - don't know which commuter routes you travel on off-peak; here on SWT, many trains are full to standing throughout the day, and by about 16.30, inbound trains north of Guildford have no spare capacity at all. Last night was a case in point, as I travelled to Town on the 15.47, which had people packed in the vestibules. Country branchlines are different, of course, tho' even that old dog, Liskeard-Looe is usually overcrowded these days. slugabed - couldn't agree more - and you noticed, of course, that where there are real commercial railways like Hull Trains, their fares structure is simple. It's only DfT's obsession with yield management and this curious belief that the airlines have got pricing right that makes TOCs do it.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Aug 15, 2012 17:28:43 GMT
slugabed and grahamhewett speak the truth. There was a mad time not so long ago where a man went to a desk to buy a ticket to somewhere, and the man behind the counter told him not to - an off peak return was cheaper, so he bought a return and saved £1. Only a mad system, that is out of control in spite of so called regulators, that allows this lunacy.
@ slugabed. From some London stations, the fares to Brighton and to Hove are the same. But from Hove, the fare to Worthing is cheaper than from Brighton
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 15, 2012 18:50:35 GMT
metrailway - don't know which commuter routes you travel on off-peak; here on SWT, many trains are full to standing throughout the day, and by about 16.30, inbound trains north of Guildford have no spare capacity at all. Last night was a case in point, as I travelled to Town on the 15.47, which had people packed in the vestibules. Country branchlines are different, of course, tho' even that old dog, Liskeard-Looe is usually overcrowded these days. I tend to use the Chiltern lines and the vast majority of off peaks are very quiet. The only ones which are busy are the Marylebone - Birmingham trains and only 1tph of these can really be called a "London & SE" off peak service since the other is non-stop to Banbury. I've experienced similar loadings on London Midland "London & SE" services as well. Outside London, I've experienced lightly loaded trains in the commuter routes around the West Midlands such as Coventry - Birmingham. The NLL used to be a bit quiet although usage has increased since London Overground took over it and its prominence on the tube map. I can't comment about loadings on the ex Southern Region lines as I rarely travel on them. According to McNulty we have a low loading per train km when compared to our European neighbours. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Aug 15, 2012 20:22:56 GMT
Thank you Castlebar and Grahamhewett. And,(slightly off-topic) this curious belief that the airlines have got pricing right that makes TOCs do it. The railways made a BIG mistake when they decided to adopt Airline practice at all.Airline service was always rather poor in comparison to the railway. "Airline-style" seating meant a considerable reduction of comfort and damaged the comfort advantage railways have by their very nature. Compare the comfort of a 2nd Class 2-HAP compartment with ANYTHING on offer since this nonsense was adopted as policy..... |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 15, 2012 21:40:59 GMT
I saw a report of an analysis which says First will have to grow the business 10% each and every year for the next 14 years to meet their franchise obligations. This made me wonder... if these price rises are to fund infra-structure investment on an ongoing basis, how is this collected? Do the TOCs pay access fees to Network Rail? How does Network Rail get its hands on the cash from the ticket sales?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Aug 15, 2012 22:37:54 GMT
I saw a report of an analysis which says First will have to grow the business 10% each and every year for the next 14 years to meet their franchise obligations. Which, if you work it out, means that in 14 years time they will be carrying 280% more victims/captives/customers/passengers than they do now. (10% compound over 14 years) Nearly four times as many! Where will they find them? How will they squeeze them all in? Even if the increase is simple rather than compound, that's a 140% increase if these price rises are to fund infra-structure investment on an ongoing basis, how is this collected? Do the TOCs pay access fees to Network Rail? How does Network Rail get its hands on the cash from the ticket sales? That's about it - the TOCs pay leasing costs to the "ROSCOs" for the trains, access fees to NR, tribute/tax/sweeteners/premiums to the government, and dividends to their shareholders. This all comes from the ticket revenue collected by the TOC. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 15, 2012 23:14:11 GMT
I saw a report of an analysis which says First will have to grow the business 10% each and every year for the next 14 years to meet their franchise obligations. This made me wonder... if these price rises are to fund infra-structure investment on an ongoing basis, how is this collected? Do the TOCs pay access fees to Network Rail? How does Network Rail get its hands on the cash from the ticket sales? Its all very complicated... Network Rail is funded mainly by direct Government Grants (about 2/3rds of NRs funding) and by various charges made to TOCs such as Track access charges and station charges and this makes up much of the remaining 1/3rd of NRs revenue. As I understand it NR have very little control over how much they charge TOCs for Track Access. I believe the prices are set by the Rail Regulator as NR is a monopoly (although I may be wrong). During the early New Labour years, the taxpayer significantly paid for the railways. It has been Govt policy (since mid 2000s) to slowly reduce the burden of the railways from the taxpayer and onto the fare payer, hence large fare rises in recent years. So Fare revenue collected by the TOCs goes to pay for Track Access charges etc to NR, leasing costs for trains from ROSCOs, operating costs of the franchise, premiums to the Govt, and if there is anything left over, profit for the shareholders. |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 16, 2012 9:43:16 GMT
Should this thread be reprivatisation of a nationalised industry that only happened in 1947 due to the second world war devestating the railways of the big four. London Transport since the advent of control by local government has been a political football with politicians promising the pensioner voter the earth. The first bus pass (930 4pm) has developed into the Freedom pass (24hrs) that is the envy of every pensioner outside London. Just ask those in areas just outside London where there is very little chance of change of local government wether Labour or Conservative. The only thing left to offer pensioners in London at the next Mayoral election is a one way flight to Switzerland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2012 12:05:47 GMT
Should this thread be reprivatisation of a nationalised industry that only happened in 1947 due to the second world war devestating the railways of the big four. While the railways (and much else) were in a poor state in 1947, they were nationalised then for the same reason they were privatised almost half a century later: to confirm with the ideological policies of the party in power. Any good (or bad) practical reasons for doing so (or not) were purely secondary, advanced to support the ideology of government (or opposition) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2012 22:49:05 GMT
While the railways (and much else) were in a poor state in 1947, they were nationalised then for the same reason they were privatised almost half a century later: to confirm with the ideological policies of the party in power. Any good (or bad) practical reasons for doing so (or not) were purely secondary, advanced to support the ideology of government (or opposition) Utter nonsense. The big four were failing (LNER struggled to make any profit at all between the wars) when the government forced them to combine into what was effectively one big company during WW2 because they couldn’t deal with the requirements of troop transportation and nationalisation was welcomed as it paid them a handsome dividend. During the war the network didn't suffer from serious damage but a lack of investment in infrastructure and rolling stock meant that maintenance was beyond the private secto'rs ability to deal with. Without nationalisation we wouldn’t have a railway. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Aug 16, 2012 23:00:11 GMT
Would a run down railway not have been cheaper to buy than a well-kept one aswell?
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 17, 2012 11:30:05 GMT
Maybe both aslefshrugged and etr220 are both right - the railways would have been nationalised whatever their condition, as being one of the "commanding heights" of the economy along with steel, shipbuilding, electricity, and so on. But it is certainly the case that the asset base had run down terribly (unlike LT, the mainline companies had hardly begun to renew their fleets ever since 1923 - typically, only about 1/3 of the LNE and LMS traction was less than 35 years old by 1947, and the rolling stock was even worse), not that there was any money, public or private, in 1948 for any significant new investment. LT seem to have found most of the available cash - at very few periods was any significant portion of their fleet over about 35-40 years old - the Met seems always to have been some sort of exception.
gh
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 18, 2012 0:35:42 GMT
Although railway companies were allowed a lot more freedom in Britain than those on the continent, nationalisation was considered early in the Victorian era. In 1844, an act was passed which allowed the state to take over any railway company and in 1871 an act was passed which allowed the government to sequester the railways in times of war.
This right was taken up by the Govt when WW1 started and by the end of it nationalisation was seriously considered by Lloyd George. Churchill even stated that the railways should be run by the state at a loss for the overall good of the economy.
In the end nationalisation was rejected and the state forced the mergers of the companies into the big 4 to try and prevent line closures. The Big 4 generally struggled (the LNER never made a profit) due to liabilities of some of its predecessors and competition with road traffic. By the end of the 30s, all 4 were in bad shape.
===
The problem with the modern system is that it is micromanaged by DfT. The whole point of involving the private sector is to bring innovation and efficiency to the railways. If the DfT micromanage how on earth can there be any of these benefits. BR had more freedom than any modern TOC. Plus it doesn't help that the franchise map doesn't allow a lot of competition between franchises.
We don't need full scale nationalisation to sort out the mess of today. We just need a different type of privatisation. We need to get rid of the ROSCOs which suck money out of the railways, we need to have the same company owning and operating the trains as well as maintaining the route, we need to have longer franchise terms (~30yrs with conditions) to allow proper long term private investment into the railways and less DfT meddling.
We also need competition! I think there are 5 out of the top 10 towns/cities in England which have a choice of operator to London but 2 of these are on the same route (WCML/Brum loop - Virgin + London Midland)! Since I believe that one company should maintain and operate a route we would only have 3 towns/cities with competition using the current map. But fear not - if you rejig the operator map you can get 6 out of the top 10. If you have a bit of money and convert the Midland Metro back into heavy rail operation so its a through route from Brum Moor St to Wolves then you can have 8 out of the top 10 towns/cities to have some choice!
|
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Aug 18, 2012 7:17:34 GMT
I think keeping the track seperate was to allow different operators to use the same tracks such as Hull trains. Going to Paignton I have always thought that first great western should run a couple of sprinters down to Kingswear by renting a path from the steam railway. only in the rush hour throughout the year running to Exeter.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Aug 18, 2012 15:37:14 GMT
I think keeping the track seperate was to allow different operators to use the same tracks such as Hull trains. Going to Paignton I have always thought that first great western should run a couple of sprinters down to Kingswear by renting a path from the steam railway. only in the rush hour throughout the year running to Exeter. It is EU directive 91/440 which forced the railways to allow open access freight operators by separating the infrastructure and train operations into different companies. Major partly blamed this directive for privatisation but he was lying as the directive doesn't force privatisation e.g SNCF is still state owned. The EU directives allow domestic and international freight open access operators and international passenger open access operators on member state rail networks. It does not force member states to allow domestic passenger open access operators due to heavy resistance by France, Belgium and Austria. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Aug 18, 2012 16:26:32 GMT
metrailway - alas, the next round of EU initiatives in the rail field will open up the passenger domestic markets, too. It's a moot point as to whether it is actually necessary to separate track and operations into separate companies; most member states interpret 91/440 as requiring simply separate accounts and independent regulation. Ireland believe that they can get away with neither (just an open access arbitration committee). The Germans and French have operated with their infrastructure companies sharing a common group parent with their operating subsidiaries ever since 91/440 became law, but last year the EU decided to initiate a legal challenge to all 25 member states with railways on the grounds of non-compliance. We shall see how that works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by madandy on Aug 20, 2012 0:23:30 GMT
grahamhewett is 100% correct. Thatcher was against privatising the railways, she said "The public would never forgive us for it" So the inept John Major, (the man who failed his interview for a bus conductor's job) went into politics instead. L.T. should have put the country first and put him on the 159s. Major not Thatcher is ENTIRELY responsible for this because he was too weak to prevent himself from being manipulated, by people who are far more streetwise than he could ever be. POINT OF INFORMATION:- John Major was turned away from becoming a bus conductor because he exceeded the maximum height permitted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 0:02:22 GMT
John Major was turned away from becoming a bus conductor because he exceeded the maximum height permitted. The disappointment continued to dog him even when he went into politics. But, to console himself, he popped out for a Currie  |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Dec 7, 2012 1:14:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 10:49:36 GMT
In the many US cities fares are much lower and the fare rises are not annually usually every 5 or so years apart. The UK fares are a joke and for a regular traveler are more like a mortgage now.
Private Eye has a a good "Signal Failures" section in the latest edition, detailing how rail companies now deliberately cancel trains in order to make a lose so that they get a Government hand out under the "Cap and Collar" system!
An example as soon as there is a flake of snow SWT cuts lots of services - it happened again this week!
XF
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Dec 7, 2012 11:18:46 GMT
@xercesfobe -in fact, the SWT "snowflake" cuts were caused by something even more serious/stupid - NR have decided that their MPVs will be converted from leafbusters to de-icers only when the timetable changes (ie this weekend) regardless of the actual weather. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will be served ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 11:48:24 GMT
@xercesfobe -in fact, the SWT "snowflake" cuts were caused by something even more serious/stupid - NR have decided that their MPVs will be converted from leafbusters to de-icers only when the timetable changes (ie this weekend) regardless of the actual weather. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will be served ... Great for Souter and his chums as they gain from the follies of NR You could not make it up could you? XF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 13:11:57 GMT
John Major was turned away from becoming a bus conductor because he exceeded the maximum height permitted. I'd like to think that is the only thing I have in common with him; I went for bus driver instead  |
|
