Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[yorksrob]

Your argument is back-to-front. The reason the railway is financially squeezed is because Government has finally woken up to how much it is costing and the railway’s own inability to manage its costs.

Costs that have been increased by the ability of train companies to compete with eachother for staff perchance ?

Now who was it who introduced that system I wonder !

Fair play to the staff for getting a good deal I say, but it's a bit rich for the half-wit Tory party to start whining about costs when they've done the most to introduce additional costs into the system.

 

[43096]

Costs that have been increased by the ability of train companies to compete with eachother for staff perchance ?

Now who was it who introduced that system I wonder !

Fair play to the staff for getting a good deal I say, but it's a bit rich for the half-wit Tory party to start whining about costs when they've done the most to introduce additional costs into the system.

All very well playing the politics card, but the opposition did nothing about it when they were in power for well over a decade, despite a load of promises at the time.

 

[The Ham]

Your argument is back-to-front. The reason the railway is financially squeezed is because Government has finally woken up to how much it is costing and the railway’s own inability to manage its costs.

The problem is to close the railways would require about a 10% increase in road capacity (as 10% of miles traveled are done so by train).

No the existing roads couldn't cope with that, the difference between term time and school holidays (obviously except for tourist areas) is a fall of about 10% (but often a reduction of a third in journey time), now image trying to add 5% more traffic and delays would rocket up significantly as even more junctions would be at capacity (if not over capacity).

For motorways (other than the junctions which are often the pinch point) it's fairly easy to do hard shoulder running (for those not already doing so), but for every other road in the country it's going to cost a LOT of money.

That's the reason that trains remain, that they would actually cost more to remove than they cost to keep.

The problem with being pro car is that you soon find that those who think that their life is going to improve find that their journeys get worse from more people driving.

Arguably, those who like driving should want as many other people to stop driving at possible so things improve for them.

Imagine if we could double the miles traveled by train, in doing so reduce car use to 90% of the current amount and therefore make driving to work like it's the summer holidays all year round.

That's much better for car drivers than cutting rail use by 20% and having 102% the normal traffic (by the way those days where getting to work is a nightmare and it being better than normal during term time for no apparent reason is also about 2%).

Costs that have been increased by the ability of train companies to compete with eachother for staff perchance ?

Now who was it who introduced that system I wonder !

Fair play to the staff for getting a good deal I say, but it's a bit rich for the half-wit Tory party to start whining about costs when they've done the most to introduce additional costs into the system.

Someone was complaining that rail staff had seen (I don't recall the numbers but something like the following) a 35% pay increase since 2013, they went very quiet when it was pointed out that inflation has been 33.3% over the same timeframe. The fact that other industries haven't paid (broadly) inflation matching increases isn't the fault of rail staff getting a reasonable (but by no means excessive) increase in their pay.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is to close the railways would require about a 10% increase in road capacity (as 10% of miles traveled are done so by train).

No the existing roads couldn't cope with that, the difference between term time and school holidays (obviously except for tourist areas) is a fall of about 10% (but often a reduction of a third in journey time), now image trying to add 5% more traffic and delays would rocket up significantly as even more junctions would be at capacity (if not over capacity).

For motorways (other than the junctions which are often the pinch point) it's fairly easy to do hard shoulder running (for those not already doing so), but for every other road in the country it's going to cost a LOT of money.

That's the reason that trains remain, that they would actually cost more to remove than they cost to keep.

The problem with being pro car is that you soon find that those who think that their life is going to improve find that their journeys get worse from more people driving.

Arguably, those who like driving should want as many other people to stop driving at possible so things improve for them.

Imagine if we could double the miles traveled by train, in doing so reduce car use to 90% of the current amount and therefore make driving to work like it's the summer holidays all year round.

That's much better for car drivers than cutting rail use by 20% and having 102% the normal traffic (by the way those days where getting to work is a nightmare and it being better than normal during term time for no apparent reason is also about 2%).



Someone was complaining that rail staff had seen (I don't recall the numbers but something like the following) a 35% pay increase since 2013, they went very quiet when it was pointed out that inflation has been 33.3% over the same timeframe. The fact that other industries haven't paid (broadly) inflation matching increases isn't the fault of rail staff getting a reasonable (but by no means excessive) increase in their pay.

Quite.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is to close the railways would require about a 10% increase in road capacity (as 10% of miles traveled are done so by train).

Only if you closed the entire railway.

You could Serpell the railway and achieve major reductions in total costs without shedding very much of the railways actual traffic.

Huge portions of the railway serve negligible transport purpose.

The railway now burns an awful lot of money each year, given that total National Highways spending is only around £4.4bn a year.

 

[nw1]

Only if you closed the entire railway.

You could Serpell the railway and achieve major reductions in total costs without shedding very much of the railways actual traffic.

Which option of Serpell? Seemed there were quite a few, some more controversial than others. But even Thatcher was not militant enough to take up any of the options, even the less bad ones.

But is this the sad state that we've come to, that things like Serpell are being brought up again?

 

[HSTEd]

Which option of Serpell? Seemed there were quite a few, some more controversial than others.

Well to put it one way, these operators:

• GTR (6.8bn passenger km)
• SWR (4bn passenger km)
• Southeastern (3.1bn passenger km)
• Greater Anglia (2.9bn passenger km)
• Elizabeth Line (1.7bn passsenger km)
• London Overground (1.1 bn passenger km)
• c2c (0.8bn passenger km)
• Merseyrail (0.5bn passenger km)
• Heathrow Express (0.1bn passenger km)

Make up ~21 billion passenger km out of 53.3 total on Network Rail. So like 40% by themselves
And London Underground makes up about 11 billion by itself [hard to get a concrete figure though]

So ~32bn out of 63.3bn, so like half.

Rather lot of the rail infrastructure vanishes if you exclude everything not required by those companies, and many of those companies also have backwaters.
Sure there are some busy sections outside those operators, but I'm just trying to illustrate something.

 

[yorksrob]

Only if you closed the entire railway.

You could Serpell the railway and achieve major reductions in total costs without shedding very much of the railways actual traffic.

Huge portions of the railway serve negligible transport purpose.

The railway now burns an awful lot of money each year, given that total National Highways spending is only around £4.4bn a year.

Nonsense.

"Huge portions of the railway serves no negligible transport purpose"

Usual motorist tripe. Those of us who don't drive have limited benefit from the A toad network.

Removing more and more bits of the railway network would make what remains less and less useful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2023 ==

Well to put it one way, these operators:

• GTR (6.8bn passenger km)
• SWR (4bn passenger km)
• Southeastern (3.1bn passenger km)
• Greater Anglia (2.9bn passenger km)
• Elizabeth Line (1.7bn passsenger km)
• London Overground (1.1 bn passenger km)
• c2c (0.8bn passenger km)
• Merseyrail (0.5bn passenger km)
• Heathrow Express (0.1bn passenger km)

Make up ~21 billion passenger km out of 53.3 total on Network Rail. So like 40% by themselves
And London Underground makes up about 11 billion by itself [hard to get a concrete figure though]

So ~32bn out of 63.3bn, so like half.

Rather lot of the rail infrastructure vanishes if you exclude everything not required by those companies, and many of those companies also have backwaters.
Sure there are some busy sections outside those operators, but I'm just trying to illustrate something.

The M1 and M62 probably carry more traffic than the road to Penzance. What is your point ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2023 ==

All very well playing the politics card, but the opposition did nothing about it when they were in power for well over a decade, despite a load of promises at the time.

Why shouldn't I play the politics card ?

I had a fairly rubbish service under New Labour. Annoying, but it got me there.

Then, once the Tory hslfwits got in, things started to get problematic.

Before the pandemic, a year plus of Northern being on strike.

After pandemic, non-stop industrial action amongst all railway companies, leading to continual problems.

43*** whatever the hell you're number is, the current situation on the railway is the worst it's been in decades, and I can't understand your determination to defend i.

 

[brad465]

The problem is to close the railways would require about a 10% increase in road capacity (as 10% of miles traveled are done so by train).

No the existing roads couldn't cope with that, the difference between term time and school holidays (obviously except for tourist areas) is a fall of about 10% (but often a reduction of a third in journey time), now image trying to add 5% more traffic and delays would rocket up significantly as even more junctions would be at capacity (if not over capacity).

For motorways (other than the junctions which are often the pinch point) it's fairly easy to do hard shoulder running (for those not already doing so), but for every other road in the country it's going to cost a LOT of money.

That's the reason that trains remain, that they would actually cost more to remove than they cost to keep.

The problem with being pro car is that you soon find that those who think that their life is going to improve find that their journeys get worse from more people driving.

Arguably, those who like driving should want as many other people to stop driving at possible so things improve for them.

Imagine if we could double the miles traveled by train, in doing so reduce car use to 90% of the current amount and therefore make driving to work like it's the summer holidays all year round.

That's much better for car drivers than cutting rail use by 20% and having 102% the normal traffic (by the way those days where getting to work is a nightmare and it being better than normal during term time for no apparent reason is also about 2%).



Someone was complaining that rail staff had seen (I don't recall the numbers but something like the following) a 35% pay increase since 2013, they went very quiet when it was pointed out that inflation has been 33.3% over the same timeframe. The fact that other industries haven't paid (broadly) inflation matching increases isn't the fault of rail staff getting a reasonable (but by no means excessive) increase in their pay.

This doesn't get realised enough. Just because one does not use a service directly, doesn't mean one doesn't benefit from that service indirectly. It reminds me of a joke Stephen Fry once made: "Sainsburys is a very useful supermarket, as they keep the s**m out of Waitrose."

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Before the pandemic, a year plus of Northern being on strike.

After pandemic, non-stop industrial action amongst all railway companies, leading to continual problems.

Surely the blame for that lies with the relevant unions, not the Government?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Surely the blame for that lies with the relevant unions, not the Government?

So you would accept a real terms pay cut and significant worsening of conditions?

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the blame for that lies with the relevant unions, not the Government?

No, this is clearly not the case as devolved Nations have been able to come up with agreements that work to this day.


How have the other nations and Merseyrail etc been able to sort the problems out, yet the Tory government has failed continually to reach agreement in England?

 

[Gloster]

It reminds me of a joke Stephen Fry once made: "Sainsburys is a very useful supermarket, as they keep the s**m out of Waitrose."

Alan Coren used that joke years ago, long before Stephen Fry. Honour to the originator.

 

[brad465]

Alan Coren used that joke years ago, long before Stephen Fry. Honour to the originator.

Thanks for clarifying, Fry was who I first heard it from. I use a slightly different version to praise the existence of Ryanair.

 

[yorksrob]

Alan Coren used that joke years ago, long before Stephen Fry. Honour to the originator.

Absolute legend of Radio 4

 

[Busaholic]

Absolute legend of Radio 4

If only he hadn't spawned Giles Coren!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So you would accept a real terms pay cut and significant worsening of conditions?

Actually I have done that this year (although as a self-employed person rather than an employee). Obviously I would have preferred not to, but I did it willingly because I knew the company paying me was in difficulties and couldn't afford to continue on the previous terms.

Of course real terms pay cuts are never pleasant, but I would like to think that, if I was working for an industry that was only getting by courtesy of massive subsidies from a cash-strapped Government, and I knew that, because of various national difficulties, most people were having to accept a real-terms pay cut (because for whatever reason, that's the situation the UK is in), then I wouldn't be going on strike to demand that this cash-strapped Government stump up even more subsidy so that I could uniquely have my living standards protected - presumably with everyone else taking an even bigger real-terms cut in order to protect my own living standards.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Actually I have done that this year (although as a self-employed person rather than an employee). Obviously I would have preferred not to, but I did it willingly because I knew the company paying me was in difficulties and couldn't afford to continue on the previous terms.

Of course real terms pay cuts are never pleasant, but I would like to think that, if I was working for an industry that was only getting by courtesy of massive subsidies from a cash-strapped Government, and I knew that, because of various national difficulties, most people were having to accept a real-terms pay cut (because for whatever reason, that's the situation the UK is in), then I wouldn't be going on strike to demand that this cash-strapped Government stump up even more subsidy so that I could uniquely have my living standards protected - presumably with everyone else taking an even bigger real-terms cut in order to protect my own living standards.

If the government is cash strapped why is it considering reducing inheritance tax which benefit the much better off?

 

[The Ham]

Only if you closed the entire railway.

You could Serpell the railway and achieve major reductions in total costs without shedding very much of the railways actual traffic.

Huge portions of the railway serve negligible transport purpose.

The railway now burns an awful lot of money each year, given that total National Highways spending is only around £4.4bn a year.

Which is why I went on to say even reducing rail use by 20% would add 2% to the roads, which would cause more than enough extra traffic to make things noticeable worse.

For example a junction at 85% capacity sees fairly few delays, however that ramps up (not exponentially, but it's more like that sort of curve rather than a constant line) the more you go above that. Which would be fine if every junction was at 85% capacity, however there's lots at 93% capacity, so am extra 2% of traffic would add significant delays (and potentially block back through junctions which otherwise should be fine causing more delays).

This doesn't get realised enough. Just because one does not use a service directly, doesn't mean one doesn't benefit from that service indirectly. It reminds me of a joke Stephen Fry once made: "Sainsburys is a very useful supermarket, as they keep the s**m out of Waitrose."

Indeed, and why I like Asda (as I'm the scum that shop in Sainsbury's)

 

[Falcon1200]

Arguably, those who like driving should want as many other people to stop driving at possible so things improve for them.

Yes; Most, if not all motorists, would say they want a reduction in traffic on the roads; What they actually mean is for others to stop driving to make their own journeys easier.

Imagine if we could double the miles traveled by train, in doing so reduce car use to 90% of the current amount and therefore make driving to work like it's the summer holidays all year round.

It would be wonderful for the railway and the roads, but I doubt it will ever happen, for the reason in the first paragraph.

I though Rishi Sunak would be a breath of moderation and fresh air after the excesses of BoJo and FizzyLizzy, his recent pronouncements have very much changed my view; For example, no matter what the rights and wrongs of LTNs, Central Government should not be interfering with such local issues.

 

[nw1]

If the government is cash strapped why is it considering reducing inheritance tax which benefit the much better off?

I realise you are asking this rhetorically, but the answer of course is that it's an bribe incentive to get people to vote Tory. And if it succeeds (which it won't), they can then make swingeing spending cuts immediately after the election to make up the shortfall, knowing that they won't have to face the public again for another 5 years.

But I suspect it won't work because you can't claim there's no money when simultaneously removing a further 7 billion from the spending budget, and I suspect most people (with intelligence, at least) realise that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2023 ==

Actually I have done that this year (although as a self-employed person rather than an employee). Obviously I would have preferred not to, but I did it willingly because I knew the company paying me was in difficulties and couldn't afford to continue on the previous terms.

Of course real terms pay cuts are never pleasant, but I would like to think that, if I was working for an industry that was only getting by courtesy of massive subsidies from a cash-strapped Government, and I knew that, because of various national difficulties, most people were having to accept a real-terms pay cut (because for whatever reason, that's the situation the UK is in), then I wouldn't be going on strike to demand that this cash-strapped Government stump up even more subsidy so that I could uniquely have my living standards protected - presumably with everyone else taking an even bigger real-terms cut in order to protect my own living standards.

Except by going on strike where appropriate (and there may be some cases where it isn't, but I think real-term pay cuts are a legitimate reason), you are making a stand against the problem. In this case, you're making a stand against real-term pay cuts being a viable option to solve the Government's problems (IMO partly self-imposed). You're standing up, in general, for the principle of decent pay and conditions, and everyone benefits from that in the sense that poor pay and conditions are not allowed to become normalised.

Without strikes being used as an option where appropriate, we move towards a society where employers wield more and more unreasonable power, and employees have to accept worse and worse conditions (excessive workload) and pay.

 

[HSTEd]

Which is why I went on to say even reducing rail use by 20% would add 2% to the roads, which would cause more than enough extra traffic to make things noticeable worse.

That requires some fairly dodgy assumptions, because it assumes that the lost rail traffic is identically distributed to traffic on the road system.

Given the rail traffic is at least partially a function of population density, I'd argue its far more liely that the lost rail traffic would be in areas with comparatively low road traffic densities.

 

[JGurney]

I would like to think that, if I was working for an industry that was only getting by courtesy of massive subsidies from a cash-strapped Government, ..... then I wouldn't be going on strike

Would you feel an equivalent obligation to stay in that job, forgoing resigning to take up an opportunity to move to a better-paid one?

It is the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff, not strike threats, which have driven recent pay rises in many jobs. Staff being willing to resign, rather than being willing to strike, is piling pressure on employers in the current climate.

 

[The Ham]

That requires some fairly dodgy assumptions, because it assumes that the lost rail traffic is identically distributed to traffic on the road system.

Given the rail traffic is at least partially a function of population density, I'd argue its far more liely that the lost rail traffic would be in areas with comparatively low road traffic densities.

Total travel milage of 2% would likely be added to the roads (which is more than 2% of total road milage which at 88% of the total means the increase becomes 2.7%, so even a 25% reduction would still result in broadly 2% extra traffic) arguably some of the transferred travel would be from those unable to drive (for example 16 year olds) and so you could actually see double trips undertaken to get them where they going - as parents then take them and then go about their normal travel.

Clearly any broad brush assumptions made are going to be impacted by multiple factors.

The problem with choosing rural lines is that once in a car people will stay in a car when they enter an urban area - I'd guess that fairly few are traveling between two rural locations if they are using rail.

Unless you give replacement buses the same legal protection as rail services it's likely to be fairly difficult to close lines. I certainly wouldn't wish to be the person to do so.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Would you feel an equivalent obligation to stay in that job, forgoing resigning to take up an opportunity to move to a better-paid one?

Of course not. If a person feels that, in view of the actual remuneration and working environment in their current work, they would prefer to seek some alternative employment, then that is a perfectly legitimate decision - and is also a fundamental part of how the market works in employment. As you say, if a company - be it train company or any other company - finds that they cannot attract enough staff then that's a clear indication that they need to offer something better. Although in the case of TOCs, I wonder whether the issue is that TOCs haven't been willing to train enough people.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2023 ==

Except by going on strike where appropriate (and there may be some cases where it isn't, but I think real-term pay cuts are a legitimate reason), you are making a stand against the problem. In this case, you're making a stand against real-term pay cuts being a viable option to solve the Government's problems (IMO partly self-imposed).

It's not really about solving the Government's problems: It's economic reality. No country can, as a whole, sustain a standard of living that is greater than the wealth it is creating - for the simple reason that you can't consume wealth (be that houses, food, power, or whatever goodies you want) unless you (or someone) has actually created that wealth first. For whatever reason (and you may be correct to partly blame the Government) the UK apparently cannot produce enough wealth to maintain the standard of living we had a few years ago, and it is therefore inevitable that our aggregate standards of living will decline by a corresponding amount (unless/until the country can start producing more). To demand otherwise is - for all practical purposes - to demand that we change the laws of mathematics. Good luck with that one...

You're standing up, in general, for the principle of decent pay and conditions, and everyone benefits from that in the sense that poor pay and conditions are not allowed to become normalised.

That sounds to me like a political principle. Are you saying that people should strike in order to achieve political goals?

 

[The Ham]

That sounds to me like a political principle. Are you saying that people should strike in order to achieve political goals?

There's always going to be a political element to any strike (or lack of strike). For example if doctors, nurses, train drivers, council workers, fire fighters, etc. are all striking then it could be that others find it easier to vote for strike action than if they were the only group voting to strike.

As clearly the government isn't doing the right thing for workers, so if I don't stand up for my rights then who will.

Conversely, if strikes aren't happening, the thought might be that maybe the government are doing enough, so why should I be asking for that.

People may not verbalise it, but it's likely to colour their judgement.

 

[GWVillager]

Only if you closed the entire railway.

You could Serpell the railway and achieve major reductions in total costs without shedding very much of the railways actual traffic.

Huge portions of the railway serve negligible transport purpose.

That is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who travels by train on almost any line will know that they are heavily used and relied upon by many.

 

[SynthD]

it is therefore inevitable that our aggregate standards of living will decline by a corresponding amount

The triple lock pension saves some people from joining in that free marketing rebalancing. Should they be insulated from economic reality? If so, why only them?

 

[telstarbox]

That is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who travels by train on almost any line will know that they are heavily used and relied upon by many.

It's not ridiculous - the railway follows the Pareto principle in that 20% of the lines carry 80% of the traffic.

 

[The Ham]

It's not ridiculous - the railway follows the Pareto principle in that 20% of the lines carry 80% of the traffic.

I'm not sure that it does, as that would mean (given that about 40% of the network is electrified) that almost no one uses (for example) the northern section of the MML and the B&H lines, as 80% of passenger use would be on the busiest 50% of electrified routes.

For example if we took London and Southeast as the busiest part of the network that's roughly a one third/two thirds split in terms if passenger numbers across rail sectors, however I'd be surprised if it had less than 30% of the track miles.

In terms of station usage that's likely to be true, however if you cut out 80% of stations you certainly wouldn't be left with 80% of the traffic, as people going to those very busy stations have to come from somewhere.