The sceme will be funded by the taxpayer, but after that when it is up and running, they will no longer needed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree and that will benifit the railways as well
-
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
The sceme will be funded by the taxpayer, but after that when it is up and running, they will no longer needed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree and that will benifit the railways as well
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
At one point, there was a plan for half-sized HSTs with four trailers and a DVT to work some XC services. Cost-cutting turned it into a 47 and 5 MkIIs, which became 7 MkIIs when someone realised that there was insufficient brake force with 5. It's always annoyed me that they didn't use the 50s, thus setting top speed at a very frustrating 95 mph, but they were non-standard by then and had to go. Virgin were thinking of 67s with new trailers at one point as well. Possibly they would have used half rakes from ICWC with the DVTs and buffets from the MkII rakes. However, then the GEML would have been stuck with their MkIIs for longer, and possibly gone for EMUs instead.
The point is though that it will be unfair as it will only affect the poor. If the idea is indeed to restrict car usage and get people onto public transport then by using legislation it would be the same for everyone.
I've always wondered, who does own the roads? The Highways Agency? The government? County councils? The Queen?
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
Except to pay the tax to use the road....[/blindinglyobvious]
Yes but it still has the effect of pricing the poor off the roads and benefiting the rich with congestion free roads. I don't think this is a great idea.
It is not a tax, becuas it is charged by a company to have a right to use the roads
Eagle
Established Member
In England, the trunk roads are owned by the Highways Agency, which is effectively a division of the DfT; all other roads are owned by local authorities. Similar structures exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Eagle
Established Member
We've already got a railway that's fit for purpose. It's not excellent, but it works.
In London former trunk roads are the responsibility of TfL (I believe the legilsation didn't allow them to take over trunk roads or motorways so they all had to be detrunked and some motorways were downgraded) with other roads the responsibility of the boroughs.
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
The company being a state-owned railway company to fund the state-owned railways? So it's a stealth tax then.
Eagle
Established Member
Indeed; only the M1, the M4 and the M11 are HA-owned roads within Greater London (the M3 and M23 don't actually reach the boundary).
Sometimes I marvel at the amount of devolution Greater London has.
Too much or too little?
It is not fit for purpose, but it is ok
Eagle
Established Member
What? Do you know what "fit for purpose" actually means (hint, look at the three words that make that phrase up)? If it's okay, then it's more than fit for purpose.
Sadly we have to raise money this way because other ways of rasing money for the railway are even harder to do
Eagle
Established Member
Implementing a national road pricing system is easier than fare rises? Don't think so.
You can ask John Reid that...
If not it is railway that is of a decent standard
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Certainly easier than nagging the government for the money
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
I'm bowing out now. I've bitten like a fat guy at Greggs.
Thanks for that.
Eagle
Established Member
Uh? the government nagging the government for money?
The UK rail industry (formally BR) nagging the government for money
Eagle
Established Member
No, you were talking about a hypothetical situation in which the railways had been renationalized.
Yes I agree, but now they had a lot of money, the system wastes it
Flamingo
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 6,806
So, 34 pages in, the conclusions are:
- Privatisation was a mistake, but it was not all bad, and we are stuck with it for now.
- If privatisation had not occurred, we would still have a mess, just a different mess.
- Privatisation was a mistake, but it was not all bad, and we are stuck with it for now.
- If privatisation had not occurred, we would still have a mess, just a different mess.
It isn't a debate. It's some rail folk who live in their own world and expect the real world to revolve around their's!
Those of us who try to inject a little realism (that there's a big world out there with a lot more on its mind than running a railway) get swamped by the next 'lets make everyone else dig deep and pay through the nose to support the railway, maybe we'll then see a class whatsit on such a line' post.
You couldn't make it up!
Somehow I seem to remember that the idea that there was a lack of investment in BR before the pre-privatisation freeze has been proven to be a myth, put about to big-up privatisation. Without privatisation the reasonable level of investment would presumably have continued, as would the licking into businesslike shape of the sectors; the rolling renewals programmes for stock and infrastructure would have continued as planned.
Obviously we cannot tell either way. But please don't distort the starting point.
Obviously we cannot tell either way. But please don't distort the starting point.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Yup.
TBH I tend to give up on most threads once they get over a certain size, they tend to have descended into arguments about nothing to do with the original post (often about British Rail and privatisation...) - there are some interesting points on this thread, but it takes a bit of sorting through, sadly
- Status