My apologies (though in my defence I was only a year out). Either way VXC did not act alone in procuring those trains and it does not change the fact that that government involvement in train procurment has almost certainly contributed to the stagnation that we've seen in rolling stock.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?
- Thread starter PaxVobiscum
- Start date
- Status
My apologies (though in my defence I was only a year out). Either way VXC did not act alone in procuring those trains and it does not change the fact that that government involvement in train procurment has almost certainly contributed to the stagnation that we've seen in rolling stock.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Anon Mouse
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,274
You have picked up on some fair points there Greenback. Privitization certainly failed in the promise for value for money and if anything there seems to be more red tape now than what there was when it was British Rail!
It was Virgin's decision to order the Voyagers. OPRAF would have approved the plan but back then it wasn't like it is now where the DfT dictates everything and I haven't see any evidence that Virgin wanted something different and were forced to order the Voyagers.
Last edited:
Anon Mouse
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,274
Schnellzug
Established Member
is there any discernible difference between New labour and Same Old Tories?
You don't seem to realise TOCs are transient. Northern is currently operated by Serco/Abellio, was operated by a mixture of FirstGroup and Arriva (amongst others) prior to the merging of NW and NE services and will be operated by other companies in the future.
Why would Serco/Abellio want to own trains that it has no interest in if it doesn't retain the franchise? Do you really think they would just hand over the trains for free to the next franchise holder?
Yes - at least the Tories actually try to do something. New Labour promised lots and did nothing (eg, I have a letter from Claire Short from just before the 1997 election, saying that renationalisation of the railways was a top priority:roll
Even though it wasn't in the manifesto.
If you quoted the next line of my post, I stated that I understand it is not as simple as that. But if radical cuts are needed, there is surely some way it can be made to work.
Given that there are already so many stipulations and clauses that determine what stock is used by whom and how much should be paid for it, why can't the stock be transferred to the next franchise at a fixed cost which depreciates year on year taking into account the age of the stock. This also allows the current franchisee to respond the market accordingly, and upgrade their stock if they wish to do so which in turn increases income they receive should they not retain the franchise. Any future franchise bid would have this cost taken into account when making their bid, knowing full well what stock was part of the franchise agreement.
Again, it's not as simple as that, but to me it doesn't seem as complicated as many make it out to be.
Probably because we don't live in a communist country where the Government dictates to people and companies what they can or cannot do with their property, which they have invested their money in to purchase, maintain and upgrade. That is just a starter...
Really? I'd say we are as close to that as we have ever been.
blacknight
Member
Getting rid of booking office staff certainly won't solve the problem of high costs. The railways have far bigger problems to worry about. But, as Tesco say, "every little helps" (), and I genuinely don't think ticket offices will be necessary within the next decade or two.
Who would have thought just one decade ago that millions of people would buy tickets at home, via a telephone line, without even having to speak to someone!
So in short by closing ticket offices you are disenfranchising the right of the poor in this country who cannot afford internet at home the chance to travel by train, that's one way of reducing overcrowding on trains & getting the class war started.
Last edited:
Anon Mouse
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,274
Thats not Communisim. Besides, in a Communist Country (in theory) the propety is owned by the state and there not private individuals to buy and sell. At least in a Communist Country the railway would be invested in, completly staffed and provided by the state to provide a service in the interests of the people and not corporations
Schnellzug
Established Member
Yes - at least the Tories actually try to do something. New Labour promised lots and did nothing (eg, I have a letter from Claire Short from just before the 1997 election, saying that renationalisation of the railways was a top priority:roll
To be entirely fair to them, yes, the Cameron lot do seem to be good at announcing vast projects; they don't seem to be much good at running things on a day to day level, though, that's the thing. Perhaps it might work better if mr. C and his crew were in charge of Big Projects, (e.g. HS2 and Electricfiction), and let someone else run things (by which I mean the country as am whole, not just the railways) on a day to day basis.
Alternatively, perhaps, if no one in Government ran them at all, but just let them get on and run themselves? There's a suggestion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I do think that a Democracy is the worst kind of Government for getting anything done; it's just an endlessly repeating cycle of promises in order to get elected, which are then ignored while the Government does just what it wants to do and which the People have no say in at all, and then all forward planning is put on hold while they concentrate on trying to get Elected all over again. It's very much like the Franchise system, which is perhaps why no Government seems to be able to think of any other way of doing it.
Last edited:
Schnellzug
Established Member
Who ironically came to fame by being, to all intents and purposes, a Dictator, didn't he? Albeit one who allowed a surprising amount of criticism, but still who knew that the way to get things down was to disregard the usual morass of party politics and knew how to engineer public Opinion and push things through. Compare with the difficulties that Roosevelt had with trying to assist the UK prior to Pearl Harbor in the face of American isolationsim. The only way to defeat a Dictator was to be a virtual one yourself.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
One decade ago, we certainly did!
Two decades ago, no, but even then, email was already becoming widely used. Fifteen years ago Amazon was begining to dominate book and music sales.
But back to rail tickets:
Here's some useful trends, look at just how many sales are still from Booking Offices (the red line); still more than 3 times the level of internet sales: (beware of the different vertical scales on the left and right) (click to enlarge)
Last edited:
You expect the Tories to suggest that? Even Labour are not interested.
Last edited:
Most people need to remind themselves that when the Government spends more, it's invariably the tax payer that is funding it.
Do tax payers want to pay more? If they do, then we don't need to worry about cutting costs and can just increase taxes to cut fares. Job done - in no time at all.
Has anyone asked the general public if they'd pay another penny or two on income tax to not have to worry about making cost savings - from transport to the NHS and schools etc?
Do tax payers want to pay more? If they do, then we don't need to worry about cutting costs and can just increase taxes to cut fares. Job done - in no time at all.
Has anyone asked the general public if they'd pay another penny or two on income tax to not have to worry about making cost savings - from transport to the NHS and schools etc?
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
It is indeed!
There may be variations on that simple truth, such as Bond Issues, but they are just minor adjustments to the need to raise the money from the nation.
However, in the specific question of investment in Rail, then I guess there's often an unspoken condition to the question. That is "Could the Government shift more of its expenditure on road transport (or air) towards investment in the railways".
Its quite possible for the Treasury to increase one levy and decrease another and/or to spend the difference. Sadly, the most popularly proposed adjustments are to increase duty on aviation fuel and decrease investment in road enhancement. "Sadly", because these debates never seem to reach any viable alternative proposals.
The SNP stood with a 'Penny for Scotland' pledge in their manifesto about ten years ago (when the Scottish Parliament was very unlikely to have tax-raising powers). Labour won the Scottish elections that year. That pretty much sums it up.
Personally, I'd repeal every single law relating to tax right back to Magna Carta and start from scratch with something much simpler - which should save several billion a year, but would not be good for staffing levels at the Inland Revenue. Mind you, I'm no expert.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Abolish Vehicle Excise Duty and raise the money from fuel duty instead. That's just about the fairest form of road pricing there is, and should provide some savings because it's harder to dodge fuel duty than VED.
Rational Plan
Member
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2011
- Messages
- 235
You are either to young or could not be bothered to look into the reality.
I used to live in West Berlin and had been east of the curtain prior to the fall, and lets just say there was an all pervasive threadbare state everything.
A man once said of the United States it was private affluence and public poverty. But the reality of communism was poverty for everybody and it showed in all public buildings and structures as well. State run corporations are not run in the interests of the customer, in theory they are run in of the 'national interest' (whatever that actually means) but in practice they end up being run for the convenience for those that work there and the bureaucrats in control.
Railways in communist countries may have carried the bulk of the public as no one could afford a car, or even buy one if they could, but as the economy was stunted there was relatively need to travel compared to the West.
I must admit, I disagree wholeheartedly with the assumption which is sometimes stated that any sort of state ownership or public enterprise must automatically be synonymous with communism. Many societies, in Western Europe in particular have had varying levels of private and state ownership of assets over the years without lapsing into communism.
Schnellzug
Established Member
Heavens, you wouldn't believe the number of times I've seen Obama desribed as a Socialist (which in America, of course, is a grave insult) or even a Communist, on account of wanting to introduce state healthcare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So does that differ materially from big corporations (such as, for instance, Train Operaing Companies) being run for the benefit of the bureaucrats in control and the shareholders? The interests of the Customer and service to the Public is hardly the priority, is it. Not to even mention our friends at Not Work Rail.
These are some of the things I would suggest:
-invest in more efficient stock to reduce operating costs and keep less viable services running (eg PPMs?)
-tailor capacity to demand, possibly involving shorter trains off peak (eg off peak Padd-Hereford HSTs)
-axe services with no or very little usage (eg Westbury-Warminster shuttles), providing alternatives where required or necessary.
-increase flexibility for train operators, giving them more say over their operations, rather than fixing exactly what they have to do and running unnecessary services/frequencies and not allowing them to do commercial services not necessarily in the franchise for financial gain.
-reducing staff over time on quieter services, possibly through DOO with a commitment to no compulsory redundancies.
I believe these ideas would cut costs and promote growth in the rail industry, opposed to a taxpayer funded industry!
-invest in more efficient stock to reduce operating costs and keep less viable services running (eg PPMs?)
-tailor capacity to demand, possibly involving shorter trains off peak (eg off peak Padd-Hereford HSTs)
-axe services with no or very little usage (eg Westbury-Warminster shuttles), providing alternatives where required or necessary.
-increase flexibility for train operators, giving them more say over their operations, rather than fixing exactly what they have to do and running unnecessary services/frequencies and not allowing them to do commercial services not necessarily in the franchise for financial gain.
-reducing staff over time on quieter services, possibly through DOO with a commitment to no compulsory redundancies.
I believe these ideas would cut costs and promote growth in the rail industry, opposed to a taxpayer funded industry!
Indeed. It seems to be a feature of the political landscape over there !
I'm can think of many private organisations that don't seem to act particularly altruistically towards their customers, many of them non-railway related.
This. Think of the admin savings too. A few countries have recently introduced 'Flat Taxes' where the rates of tax levied on income, profit, capital gains, inheritance and so on are all identical, with thd same tax free allowance.
The jury is still out but it seems to be raising more tax (due to lower avoidance, allowing rates to be reduced), at a lower cost. Plus allowing the economy to grow through being more efficient.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No longer! With wholesale borrowing rates very very much higher its much harder to make such returns. HSBC, RBS and Santander have now all sold their ROSCOs, which are now owned by consortia of infrastructure companies, pension funds and investment funds.
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,270
OK - one decade-ish.
Those statistics are very interesting. However I do believe that online ticket sales have not risen as dramatically as hoped simply because people find online booking engines confusing. They are confusing. Many people won't switch to them unless they become easier to use and present more (much more!) useful information (e.g. the restrictions for an Off-Peak ticket, which are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find on a booking engine).
Anon Mouse
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,274
I did not say that Communisim is the answer, I was just pointing out a bit of theory and pointing out that railways are more of a priority in a Communist Country. Take The Peoples Republic of China, they are getting mosre investment than we can ever dream of in their rail network.
Electrification was a priority in many 'Eastern Block' countries after the war (with the exception, admittedly of East Germany) which developed their railways quite a bit quicker than many Western Countries. Also staffing levels traditionally are much higher in a Communist Country than in the West, no nonesense of closing ticket offices, sacking guards and scrimping on security.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Including Germany
- Status