Why does this current U.K. Government hate rail so much.

[eldomtom2]

View attachment 135968
Overall, punctuality was improving but not actually peaking until 2011/12, after Labour had left office. 2018/19 is the interesting dip.

Well yes, because a change of government doesn't mean an instant change of laws and policies...

 

[yorksrob]

@yorksrob - how about you try answering the question (in bold) rather than just distracting or using whataboutery ? The question was concise and straightforward - you've dodged it (again).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==



Out of interest, what does "management" "look like" ?

Intrigued as to how you know who is or isn't management by how they look. Particularly given upthread the accusation you levelled against me: "The idea that poor people use buses and rich people use trains is a very skewed Westminster/Tory/Motorist centric point of view." only for evidence that rail subsidies support the better off more than the poorest was provided a couple of posts later.......

As I've already mentioned, if you don't price fares extortionately, people on lower incomes will use the trains more.

It always amuses me how the Establishment start wringing their hands about how the railways aren't inclusive enough, yet at the same time ensure that we have some of the highest fares in Europe.

Here's an idea. How about a railcard that working age people can buy ! (I've only been suggesting it for the last ten years).

@yorksrob - how about you try answering the question (in bold) rather than just distracting or using whataboutery ? The question was concise and straightforward - you've dodged it (again).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==



Out of interest, what does "management" "look like" ?

Intrigued as to how you know who is or isn't management by how they look. Particularly given upthread the accusation you levelled against me: "The idea that poor people use buses and rich people use trains is a very skewed Westminster/Tory/Motorist centric point of view." only for evidence that rail subsidies support the better off more than the poorest was provided a couple of posts later.......

As I've said before, other countries clearly see the value of running a decent, reasonably priced rail service. We're the wierd outlier.

 

[zwk500]

As I've already mentioned, if you don't price fares extortionately, people on lower incomes will use the trains more.

This doesn't help if the train goes nowhere near your job (and locations nearer station attract higher rents and so tend to be higher salaries to offer higher-value (more profitable) services

It always amuses me how the Establishment start wringing their hands about how the railways aren't inclusive enough, yet at the same time ensure that we have some of the highest fares in Europe.

How often do the Establishment wring their hands about how inclusive the railways are? 'The Establishment' is a pretty meaningless term anyway, since at this point it just means 'posh people I assume have control of government'.

Here's an idea. How about a railcard that working age people can buy ! (I've only been suggesting it for the last ten years).

Like the 25-30 railcard?

As I've said before, other countries clearly see the value of running a decent, reasonably priced rail service. We're the wierd outlier.

There's undeniable economic value in doing so, but does it demonstrably reduce inequality?

 

[A0]

As I've already mentioned, if you don't price fares extortionately, people on lower incomes will use the trains more.

It always amuses me how the Establishment start wringing their hands about how the railways aren't inclusive enough, yet at the same time ensure that we have some of the highest fares in Europe.

Here's an idea. How about a railcard that working age people can buy ! (I've only been suggesting it for the last ten years).


As I've said before, other countries clearly see the value of running a decent, reasonably priced rail service. We're the wierd outlier.

Right, so you haven't answered either question and have, once again, parrotted some whataboutery instead.

Are you incapable of answering a question ?

 

[tomuk]

As I've already mentioned, if you don't price fares extortionately, people on lower incomes will use the trains more.

They won't because they don't need to. They need to get a few miles up the road to their minimum wage job not commuting 10+ miles by train to the high paid job they aren't qualified for. This isn't a criticism of people on low incomes it is unfortunately just their reality. Read the report I posted a link to you might learn something.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

BTW I am not Union or management bashing but the unions have not helped over many years. Plenty of blame to go around of course.

 

[yorksrob]

This doesn't help if the train goes nowhere near your job (and locations nearer station attract higher rents and so tend to be higher salaries to offer higher-value (more profitable) services

How often do the Establishment wring their hands about how inclusive the railways are? 'The Establishment' is a pretty meaningless term anyway, since at this point it just means 'posh people I assume have control of government'.

Like the 25-30 railcard?

There's undeniable economic value in doing so, but does it demonstrably reduce inequality?

Your first point assumes that lower income people only need/want to travel for work. If the aim is for lower income households to fully participate in society then we should enable them to visit friends and relatives and go on day trips etc, and that means affordable fares.

In terms of those who run the country, we all remember Philip Hammond calling the railway "the rich mans toy" bat as you correctly point out, they do little to rectify the situation.

The 25-30 railcard will undoubtedly help some on lower incomes, but that won't help much over 30.

We subsidise the railway as a public service. If we use that to enable more lower income households to use it, it will inevitably reduce inequality.

Right, so you haven't answered either question and have, once again, parrotted some whataboutery instead.

Are you incapable of answering a question ?

So there are two questions now ?

The question I remember you posing was how do you target subsidy at lower income households.

As I've already answered, you encourage more travel amongst lower income households so that more of the subsidy supports lower income households. This is done by affordable pricing.

I should point out that you're not Jeremy Paxman and I'm under no obligation to answer your questions anyway.

They won't because they don't need to. They need to get a few miles up the road to their minimum wage job not commuting 10+ miles by train to the high paid job they aren't qualified for. This isn't a criticism of people on low incomes it is unfortunately just their reality. Read the report I posted a link to you might learn something.

Again, this assumes that lower income households should have no life outside of work. Lower income households also need to use the train to visit relatives, have a day away etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2023 ==

Thinking about the quoted study, I think I'd need to drill down into it's calculations about subsidy to decide what I think about it.

On the face of it, "the railway" in 2015 required a fair amount of subsidy. It's also true that it carried a lot of wealthier people to work or business in London. It would therefore be easy to conclude that a lot of that subsidy was going towards wealthier commuters to London.

Did the study account for the fact that more railway subsidy goes towards the regional railway, where there will be fewer of the higher income passengers.

Also, on the subject of inflation/inflation mitigation, it's worth bearing in mind that it doesn't just affect the lowest income households. It also affects the "squeezed middle", therefore to use public transport to mitigate the effects of inflation meaningfully, you would ideally need something that encompasses bus and rail. It's worth bearing in mind that the energy price cap and energy bill support, both of which are inflation mitigation measures, are provided across the board, regardless of income.

 

[43066]

BTW I am not Union or management bashing but the unions have not helped over many years. Plenty of blame to go around of course.

“Not union or management bashing”, but you thought you’d drop by anyway to point out that “unions haven’t helped over many years.”

Helped what, exactly?!

 

[A0]

Right, so you haven't answered either question and have, once again, parrotted some whataboutery instead.

Are you incapable of answering a question ?

So there are two questions now ?

The question I remember you posing was how do you target subsidy at lower income households.

As I've already answered, you encourage more travel amongst lower income households so that more of the subsidy supports lower income households. This is done by affordable pricing.

I should point out that you're not Jeremy Paxman and I'm under no obligation to answer your questions anyway.

Yes, there were two questions. Admittedly only one been put in bold, but nonetheless there was another.

How do you target the rail subsidy at lower income households who mainly use the bus?
- you haven't answered this because you've just said "lower fares" - lowering fares will *increase* the level of subsidy and do so for *all* passengers, so it won't target lower income households who mainly use the bus.

This time in bold to make it *very* clear: Out of interest, what does "management" "look like" ?

 

[yorksrob]

yes, there were two questions. ...

I assumed that the second question was rhetorical as it seemed quite asinine.

The people who I see on my train are often young and in shop floor uniform.

As for your other question, I see no reason to "target" subsidy at lower income households as public transport provides a benefit to all sections of society and the economy as a whole. I do, however see a great benefit in making rail more accessible to lower income households and that means lower fares.

 

[A0]

I assumed that the second question was rhetorical as it seemed quite asinine.

The people who I see on my train are often young and in shop floor uniform.

So not *management* just wearing a suit or uniform which suggests they work on a "shop floor".

In the last 20 years, I've known senior management to be dressed in smart casual - chinos, shirt, that kind of thing. Yet shop floor staff in retail would still be suits or some form of uniform. So I suspect you're personal bias here is wrong - very wrong.

As for your other question, I see no reason to "target" subsidy at lower income households as public transport provides a benefit to all sections of society and the economy as a whole. I do, however see a great benefit in making rail more accessible to lower income households and that means lower fares.

Right - so you're not going to answer the question, because you don't like or don't agree with the premise of the question. Of course, overlooking the fact the fare cap for buses achieves all of those things and disproportionately benefits those on lower incomes. It, of course, doesn't benefit you because you don't like buses - as you tell us frequently.

The fact such lower fares will disproportionately benefit the better off doesn't bother you. The reality is it's because *you* want lower fares for *your* personal benefit to lower *your* cost of gallivanting around the country on marginally used trains. Why not be honest about it ?

 

[yorksrob]

So not *management* just wearing a suit or uniform which suggests they work on a "shop floor".

In the last 20 years, I've known senior management to be dressed in smart casual - chinos, shirt, that kind of thing. Yet shop floor staff in retail would still be suits or some form of uniform. So I suspect you're personal bias here is wrong - very wrong.



Right - so you're not going to answer the question, because you don't like or don't agree with the premise of the question.

The fact such lower fares will disproportionately benefit the better off doesn't bother you. I suspect the reality is it's because *you* want lower fares for *your* personal benefit to lower *your* cost of gallivanting around the country on marginally used trains. Why not be honest about it ?

It was clearly a perception. Short of conducting an impromptu employment survey of my fellow passengers, it was only ever going to be.

No, I'm not going to answer your other question because it's a poor question. You are clearly content to use fares to bar lower income groups from the railway and keep it as a "rich man's toy". Perhaps that makes your own travel experience more comfortable. That seems like a poor use of a national asset to me.

As it happens, if you really wanted to direct more subsidy towards lower income groups, you would spend more on the regional railway and intra-urban services (including those such as the Coastway lines) that people on lower incomes tend to use, rather than the longer distance routes converging on London that wealthier commuters and business travellers tend to use. But the Westminster/Tory/motorist Establishment don't like subsidising such routes because we're always being told that they cost too much and they think buses are cheaper to run !

 

[zwk500]

It was clearly a perception. Short of conducting an impromptu employment survey of my fellow passengers, it was only ever going to be.

My impression of shops like Pc World/Currys is that the Shop floor management wear broadly the same branded shirt and black trousers as the rest of the staff and are often not much older than many of their colleagues. The office-based managers of course would be in Office wear and indistinguishable from your accountants or secretaries.

No, I'm not going to answer your other question because it's a poor question. You are clearly content to use fares to bar lower income groups from the railway and keep it as a "rich man's toy". Perhaps that makes your own travel experience more comfortable. That seems like a poor use of a national asset to me.

An answer to how to target rail subsidies for the poorest families, which you've actually passingly referred to at one point, is to offer a means-tested railcard. Such assessments are already made regularly for things like free school meals, so the administrative costs would not be onerous. Then you're not subsidising fares of those who can afford it but increasing the options for those who wouldn't have otherwise been able to.

 

[yorksrob]

My impression of shops like Pc World/Currys is that the Shop floor management wear broadly the same branded shirt and black trousers as the rest of the staff and are often not much older than many of their colleagues. The office-based managers of course would be in Office wear and indistinguishable from your accountants or secretaries.

An answer to how to target rail subsidies for the poorest families, which you've actually passingly referred to at one point, is to offer a means-tested railcard. Such assessments are already made regularly for things like free school meals, so the administrative costs would not be onerous. Then you're not subsidising fares of those who can afford it but increasing the options for those who wouldn't have otherwise been able to.

Yes, the means tested railcard would indeed do that in a very direct way. However, I think that as a country we need to be taking a more continental approach and looking at the railways as a way of generating economic activity and social connections across the board.

For this reason, I would favour something like a Bahncard or National Railcard, but perhaps make the initial railcard discounted for lower income groups.

 

[A0]

My impression of shops like Pc World/Currys is that the Shop floor management wear broadly the same branded shirt and black trousers as the rest of the staff and are often not much older than many of their colleagues. The office-based managers of course would be in Office wear and indistinguishable from your accountants or secretaries.

Usually in retail an amount of the uniform is provided by the employer to ensure a consistent look.

Office based people (which won't be those who are store based) will often be in 'smart casual' - that's how most retail HQ's have been for the last ~20 years (having worked in a couple of them, I know what the policy was).

As it happens, if you really wanted to direct more subsidy towards lower income groups, you would spend more on the regional railway and intra-urban services (including those such as the Coastway lines) that people on lower incomes tend to use, rather than the longer distance routes converging on London that wealthier commuters and business travellers tend to use. But the Westminster/Tory/motorist Establishment don't like subsidising such routes because we're always being told that they cost too much and they think buses are cheaper to run !

Bit in bold - exactly what happens at present. Using 18/19 figures, because it was pre Covid https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati...-franchised-passenger-operator-up-to-2018-19/ and passenger journey figures from https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati...ge/table-1223-passenger-journeys-by-operator/

Total subsidy or premium by TOC £ m:

ATW / TFW - £ 367.1 Passenger journeys 33.5 m
C2C - £ 16.8. Passenger journeys 49.1m
Caledonian Sleeper - £ 36.2. Passenger journeys 0.3m
Chiltern - £ 43.4. Passenger journeys 29.3m
Cross Country - £206.6. Passenger journeys 40.6m
VTEC / LNER - £ 4.4 (interestingly it was a premium under VTEC i.e. no subsidy). Passenger journeys 22.3m
EMT - £ 154.3. Passenger journeys 26.7m
GTR (includes Southern) - £ 229.9. Passenger journeys 341.5m.
GWR - £ 646.5. Passenger journeys 100m.
GA - £ 42.4. Passenger journeys 84.9m.
WMT - £ 314.0. Passenger journeys 78.7m
Northern - £ 763.3. Passenger journeys 101.3m
Scotrail - £ 638.9. Passenger journeys 97.8m.
SWR - £ 22.0. Passenger journeys 216m.
South Eastern £ 358.2. Passenger journeys 183.2m.
TPE - £ 136.4. Passenger journeys 29.2m.
VTWC / Avanti - £ 100.8. Passenger journeys 39.5m.
London Overground / TFL Rail - £ 99.6. Passenger journeys 239.4m
Merseyrail - £ 129.0. Passenger journeys 30.8m

So the only operator who's services are *just* London commuter services paid a premium (C2C).

You've then got SWR, Chiltern and GA who predominantly provide London commuter services but also have a number of secondary / rural services.

The high subsidy (> £150m) , low passenger numbers (< 150m) are operators like Northern, TPE, WMT, Scotrail and EMT, of which only one provides London commuter services - WMT for the LNWR services.

 

[yorksrob]

Usually in retail an amount of the uniform is provided by the employer to ensure a consistent look.

Office based people (which won't be those who are store based) will often be in 'smart casual' - that's how most retail HQ's have been for the last ~20 years (having worked in a couple of them, I know what the policy was).



Bit in bold - exactly what happens at present. Using 18/19 figures, because it was pre Covid https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati...-franchised-passenger-operator-up-to-2018-19/ and passenger journey figures from https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati...ge/table-1223-passenger-journeys-by-operator/

Total subsidy or premium by TOC £ m:

ATW / TFW - £ 367.1 Passenger journeys 33.5 m
C2C - £ 16.8. Passenger journeys 49.1m
Caledonian Sleeper - £ 36.2. Passenger journeys 0.3m
Chiltern - £ 43.4. Passenger journeys 29.3m
Cross Country - £206.6. Passenger journeys 40.6m
VTEC / LNER - £ 4.4 (interestingly it was a premium under VTEC i.e. no subsidy). Passenger journeys 22.3m
EMT - £ 154.3. Passenger journeys 26.7m
GTR (includes Southern) - £ 229.9. Passenger journeys 341.5m.
GWR - £ 646.5. Passenger journeys 100m.
GA - £ 42.4. Passenger journeys 84.9m.
WMT - £ 314.0. Passenger journeys 78.7m
Northern - £ 763.3. Passenger journeys 101.3m
Scotrail - £ 638.9. Passenger journeys 97.8m.
SWR - £ 22.0. Passenger journeys 216m.
South Eastern £ 358.2. Passenger journeys 183.2m.
TPE - £ 136.4. Passenger journeys 29.2m.
VTWC / Avanti - £ 100.8. Passenger journeys 39.5m.
London Overground / TFL Rail - £ 99.6. Passenger journeys 239.4m
Merseyrail - £ 129.0. Passenger journeys 30.8m

So the only operator who's services are *just* London commuter services paid a premium (C2C).

You've then got SWR, Chiltern and GA who predominantly provide London commuter services but also have a number of secondary / rural services.

The high subsidy (> £150m) , low passenger numbers (< 150m) are operators like Northern, TPE, WMT, Scotrail and EMT, of which only one provides London commuter services - WMT for the LNWR services.

Which suggests that the greater part of the subsidies are going towards services used by lower income groups, rather than longer distance commuters/business travellers.

 

[A0]

An answer to how to target rail subsidies for the poorest families, which you've actually passingly referred to at one point, is to offer a means-tested railcard. Such assessments are already made regularly for things like free school meals, so the administrative costs would not be onerous. Then you're not subsidising fares of those who can afford it but increasing the options for those who wouldn't have otherwise been able to.

To an extent, such a thing already exists - https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tickets-railcards-and-offers/railcards/concessionary-travel/ see 'Job Centre Plus Travel Discount Card'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2023 ==

Which suggests that the greater part of the subsidies are going towards services used by lower income groups, rather than longer distance commuters/business travellers.

Which is what a number of us have been saying already and you've been denying.......

 

[43066]

Northern, TPE, WMT, Scotrail and EMT, of which only one provides London commuter services - WMT for the LNWR services.

Is that right?

So who are all those people who board EMR class 360s wearing smart casual carrying laptop bags?

 

[zwk500]

To an extent, such a thing already exists - https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tickets-railcards-and-offers/railcards/concessionary-travel/ see 'Job Centre Plus Travel Discount Card'.

Indeed, and plays against the accusation of the railways as a 'rich man's toy' although that jobseeker's railcard is quite limited and I personally would strongly support widening the validity of the card such that people in lower-paid full time employment could also access it (or something similar) to reduce the chances of them needing to fall back on Jobseeker's schemes in the first place.

 

[A0]

Is that right?

So who are all those people who board EMR class 360s wearing smart casual carrying laptop bags?

The 360s weren't with EMR in 2018/2019.

 

[yorksrob]

Pre covid it very much was the reality that as a whole richer people used trains than buses. They was some disquiet in progressive circles that rail subsidies were basically subsidising the rich. Here is report from back in 2015 when passenger rail was paying its own way.
Richest households receive three times the rail subsidy of the poorest says new report

Richest households receive three times the rail subsidy of the poorest says new report

Report calls on Department for Transport to review impact of existing policies on inequality

www.railmagazine.com

I've had a quick skim through the report, and while it contains some very useful analysis, it seems clear that they're comparing railway use as a whole (which is skewed by those long distance commuters and business travellers) versus subsidy with bus usage as a whole (which isn't) versus subsidy.

This misses out some of the nuance I've mentioned in that a lot of the subsidy goes towards those routes away from the long distance commuters.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2023 ==

To an extent, such a thing already exists - https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/tickets-railcards-and-offers/railcards/concessionary-travel/ see 'Job Centre Plus Travel Discount Card'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2023 ==



Which is what a number of us have been saying already and you've been denying.......

I've not been denying that at all.

Another part of the report points out that rail usage is fairly steady across all income groups, with the exception of a significant increase in the highest income level, so lower income households don't use the train significantly less than the majority of us.

 

[A0]

I've not been denying that at all.

Really ?.....

As it happens, if you really wanted to direct more subsidy towards lower income groups, you would spend more on the regional railway and intra-urban services (including those such as the Coastway lines) that people on lower incomes tend to use, rather than the longer distance routes converging on London that wealthier commuters and business travellers tend to use. But the Westminster/Tory/motorist Establishment don't like subsidising such routes because we're always being told that they cost too much and they think buses are cheaper to run !

 

[yorksrob]

Really ?.....

Just because a large proportion of subsidy currently goes to the regional railway doesn't mean that more couldn't go towards it, theoretically at least.

I'm not saying that that would be desirable to take subsidy away from the other sectors (I use South Eastern and InterCity services as well) just answering the question that you posed.

 

[Thirteen]

I didn't realise the non DfT TOCs got subsidy.

 

[43066]

The 360s weren't with EMR in 2018/2019.

True. Your post was written in the present-tense, though.

 

[eldomtom2]

Tell that to the city guy in a suit who had drinks thrown over him by street kids on the London D7 I was on once.

Mixing socio-economic groups on a bus, or even in housing estates does do not inspire the poor to be better, or the wealthy to be more philanthropic.

It propogates hatred and jealously that turns to opportunistic theft by those poor from the wealthier around them.

It doesnt build communities, it literally builds walls… wealthier developments proceed to be gated communities to reduce crime.

Tower Hamlets / Isle of Dogs is the best example to see that.

socialism only works when everyone has nothing to begin with, and fails as soon as someone wants more. Its against human nature and against most mammal instincts from millions of years evolution… Humans hunt, compete to survive… thats why western europe has the blood thirsty history it has, but is economically stronger. Its also why after socialism fades, that other regions are rapidly challenging us.

The wheels on the bus might go round and round, and the driver in the car might shout and shout, but if someone is late for work they are going to get vocal no matter what the mode of transport.
I noticed those peacenik liberals mixing

By protesting on the carriage roof of tube at Canning Town never repeated their stunt when the builders, contractors of “different social class” to them took matters into their own hands and ripped them off the carriage roof.

Tube protest was a mistake, admit leading Extinction Rebellion members

Senior figures in protest group forced to rethink future tactics

www.theguardian.com

whipping up some idealistic socialist drivel for the UK will simply see us overtaken and defeated in the future. Weve already taken the Brexit step backwards, we dont need to take any more.

Is this satire?

 

[A0]

Just because a large proportion of subsidy currently goes to the regional railway doesn't mean that more couldn't go towards it, theoretically at least.

I'm not saying that that would be desirable to take subsidy away from the other sectors (I use South Eastern and InterCity services as well) just answering the question that you posed.

But once again, that's not the point - the point is when asked what could be done to target rail subsidy to poorer households who currently use the bus, you argued for subsidy to rural and non-London focused suburban routes. When it's then demonstrated to you that's already happening, you simply say "well there should be more of it", without actually providing evidence that that it's effective at focusing the subsidy on those who need it........

It's like your only solution is "more subsidy" - without ever providing evidence that said subsidy has the desired effect. Whereas there *is* evidence to support the current bus fare cap will be of benefit to those on lower earnings etc.

 

[yorksrob]

But once again, that's not the point - the point is when asked what could be done to target rail subsidy to poorer households who currently use the bus, you argued for subsidy to rural and non-London focused suburban routes. When it's then demonstrated to you that's already happening, you simply say "well there should be more of it", without actually providing evidence that that it's effective at focusing the subsidy on those who need it........

It's like your only solution is "more subsidy" - without ever providing evidence that said subsidy has the desired effect. Whereas there *is* evidence to support the current bus fare cap will be of benefit to those on lower earnings etc.

I already told you that your question was wrong to start off with.

I don't see why you're presenting it as some sort of a revelation to me that we subsidise socially necessary routes - this is something I've been agreeing with since I joined the forum in 2009.

I think:

1) the railway should be providing the sort of service it was before the pandemic, maybe with some tweaks to reflect genuine changes in peak usage (rather than just cuts dressed up as a response to covid changes).
2) that there should be some sort of price offer, similar to those being introduced in some continental countries, to encourage rail travel and make it more affordable for passengers.

If that means "more subsidy" then so be it.

I refer you to figure 1.3 "train trips per person, per year by household by income quartile, page 8 of the report on public transport subsidies posted earlier. This illustrates that low income households would categorically benefit from lower train fares as much as the majority of us.

 

[zwk500]

I don't see why you're presenting it as some sort of a revelation to me that we subsidise socially necessary routes - this is something I've been agreeing with since I joined the forum in 2009.

It might be because in several posts you've explicitly accused the government of considering the railway a rich man's toy and claimed that they refuse to subsidise routes not used by the wealthy.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

“Not union or management bashing”, but you thought you’d drop by anyway to point out that “unions haven’t helped over many years.”

Helped what, exactly?!

The cause of the railways.
Nor has management. Nor has the government. Nor has the treasury. Nor has the DfT