All rail subsidy to be axed?

[WillPS]

This is total nonsense.

 

[sulli_os]

Just a thought though - what would the railways look like if it wasn't nonsense? Would, for example, all services be OA with PTEs etc paying for the services necessary to plug the gap?

*Shudders at thought*

 

[185]

The Daily Mail's silly season runs from 1st Jan - 31st Dec.

The Daily Mail's nasty season runs from 1st Jan - 31st Dec.

 

[12CSVT]

Back to the Serpell report ? The real danger is that the ConDem / Tory-led government might see it as an excuse to adopt it as government policy.
Just like they deliberately misinterpreted directive 91/440 in 1993 to pretend they were compelled by Europe to privatise the railways. This directive only required seperate accounts to be kept of infrastructure and train operation.

 

[Deerfold]

Interesting that fares may go up by 50%.

If inflation stays at current levels they'll be going up by nearly 30% in the next 3 years anyway

 

[LE Greys]

Well, I just hope that it's a mistake. If it turns out to be accurate, then I dread to think of the consequences. Interesting that it broke around the same time that Look East ran a story about the upturn in rural passenger numbers because more people are taking holidays in East Anglia.

 

[Oswyntail]

Back to the Serpell report ? The real danger is that the ConDem / Tory-led government might see it as an excuse to adopt it as government policy.....

Historically, The Conservatives have tended to be the party that supported railways (albeit grudgingly) with t'other lot neglecting or closing lines.

 

[IanXC]

I'd certainly hope that that would be the case. Providing they don't decide to trade in "maintaining a dense railway" for something rubbish

Having said that, if 'eliminating harmful subsidies' to railways was accompanied with 'ensuring all forms of transport pay for their externalities' I could see a remote possibility of it being implemented.

Rail would get more expensive, but Road and Air would become very significantly more expensive. Hmm

 

[LE Greys]

Having said that, if 'eliminating harmful subsidies' to railways was accompanied with 'ensuring all forms of transport pay for their externalities' I could see a remote possibility of it being implemented.

Rail would get more expensive, but Road and Air would become very significantly more expensive. Hmm

VAT on aviation fuel, a significant tax increase on road fuel (possibly compensated for by abolishing VED) and possible motorway tolls, all ploughed into the environmental fund necessary to compensate for all the damage done. Perhaps that might include rail grants as an environmental measure (in other words, subsidy). OK, that makes travel a lot more expensive than now, but that might balance things more effectively.

 

[exile]

The gist of the actual proposal is to ensure transport users pay their full costs including congestion and pollution, and the whole thrust of it is generally pro-rail.

 

[yorksrob]

Having said that, if 'eliminating harmful subsidies' to railways was accompanied with 'ensuring all forms of transport pay for their externalities' I could see a remote possibility of it being implemented.

Rail would get more expensive, but Road and Air would become very significantly more expensive. Hmm

That's a very interesting thought.

However, if you start piling on the costs for all transport, you end up impeding large numbers of people's travel. While tele-conferencing and the internet all have their place, I don't think we're anywhere near the stage where you could clamp down hard on mass travel without causing serious economic problems.

 

[IanXC]

That's a very interesting thought.

However, if you start piling on the costs for all transport, you end up impeding large numbers of people's travel. While tele-conferencing and the internet all have their place, I don't think we're anywhere near the stage where you could clamp down hard on mass travel without causing serious economic problems.

Exactly. As in theory you'd see a fall in the overall tax burden, it would become a high income groups can afford it, low income groups can't. Which is rather unpalatable to most politicians.

 

[WatcherZero]

Virgin West Coast cash cow.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebe5cd0-c744-11e0-a9ef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VEZydBlJ

Shareholders make £40m in profit, Dft takes £110m.

 

[NSEFAN]

This first sight documentary from the early 90s criticises BR for various things. I found it fascinating to watch, as I was a bit young back then to remember the whole privatisation movement happening!

At about 2:50 onwards, subsidy is discussed. It mentions how Intercity ran without any subsidy at all. Is this still the case for former intercity routes?

 

[WatcherZero]

West Coast ran without subsidy this year after a long period with during West Coast upgrades. East Coast was profitable to the government in the last year of private ownership but now records a huge loss after being nationalised.

 

[Jonny]

Looks like the Daily mail has been sold yet another tall tale and not bothered to check the facts. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson by now...

Or it suited their europhobe agenda to publish in order to stir up dissent. They're in less of a majority now that News International are close to finished.