Commuting 'not coming back': Harper

[Starmill]

There are huge swathes of the country where the bus or train just isnt vaible. How about commuting from Pateley Bridge to Leeds, or Settle to Blackburn, Tenbury Wells to Worcester or Kirkby Stephen to - well anywhere. All reasonable car journeys

Nobody is arguing against any of that. We're just pointing out that where there's a public transport option it's usually too expensive so people might not use it anyway.

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

Perhaps I need to clarify.

Ministers (not just Shapps, and not just Transport ministers) have, of course, said that they spent large amounts of public money (our money, remember) supporting the railways through the pandemic.

What they haven’t done is then used it as a reason for reducing services.

What they have done is used it as a reason for pushing ahead with industry reform - as we have seen. This is at structural level (organisation of the industry and the contractual position) and at workforce level (as we have seen). Of course this industry reform was going to happen anyway, the pandemic is simply another (and some may say convenient) reason for doing so.

There also have been, and no doubt will continue to be, announcements that say “passenger numbers have changed, and rail services need to change to reflect that”


But to reiterate, there hasn’t ever been, nor do I think there ever will be, a statement from a minister that links these two issues and says “we spent x billion supporting the railways during the pandemic, and therefore need to cut services as a result”.

This all seems very philosophical. You claim the quotes are about "industry reform". Other people have claimed the quotes are about a more direct form of real cost cut, i.e. to the supply of rail services. You don't deny the industry is cutting supply, and by definition too given the trading conditions are being deliberately made harsher by the large lowering of tax rates applying to personal motoring and domestic air travel.

Are you therefore surprised that some people have drawn a clear conclusion between, say, a permanent service cut to a service in an urban area and the statements made by Minsters? Plenty of these cuts, say Rainhill being cut to 1tph for example, aren't being justified on the basis of, as you put it "passenger numbers have changed" - St Helens Junction, Rainhill and Whiston produced about the same level of demand as they always did. It's government diktat that has seen the service cut in half, not "industry reform" or "changing passenger numbers". Plenty of other places in built-up areas with long-standing services are in the same circumstances of cuts.

 

[Krokodil]

What they have done is used it as a reason for pushing ahead with industry reform

"Reform" (like "modernisation") could have been one of Bernard Woolley's irregular verbs:

"I reform, you cut, he is employing staff on zero-hours contracts with no fatigue rules."

 

[Tetchytyke]

What they have done is used it as a reason for pushing ahead with industry reform - as we have seen. This is at structural level (organisation of the industry and the contractual position) and at workforce level (as we have seen).

“Industry reform” is a beautiful euphemism for “having fewer staff and paying them less”, with the attendant cuts this brings. After all, “commuting is dead” and the railway was “kept on life support”.

Of course not even this government are stupid enough to publicise the fact that they’re cutting railway services. So in that regard you’re correct; they haven’t used anything to justify cuts because they haven’t admitted that there are cuts.

 

[Ken H]

“Industry reform” is a beautiful euphemism for “having fewer staff and paying them less”, with the attendant cuts this brings. After all, “commuting is dead” and the railway was “kept on life support”.

Of course not even this government are stupid enough to publicise the fact that they’re cutting railway services. So in that regard you’re correct; they haven’t used anything to justify cuts because they haven’t admitted that there are cuts.

Government wont make cuts. There will be a challenging spending review leading to difficult choices in Network Rail and the TOCs'. The railway is a network of quangos to distance ministers from making unpopular decisions. And has been since 1948.

 

[yorksrob]

I too see it as political opportunism. It may not have been the intention back in spring 2020, and it may well have been the case that prolonging the emergency Covid measures for *far* longer than necessary was down to other reasons, however it’s now obvious the government wishes to use this situation as a convenient reason to implement other, politically motivated, policy - or more likely ideological - objectives.

There’s the same agenda going on in respect of TFL, in this case quite obviously to punish London for not voting Conservative in parliamentary and mayoral elections.

I’d say the cat was let out of the bag when Truss mentioned rail unions multiple times in her final PMQ session. I don’t often agree with Mark Drakeford, however his rant in the Welsh Assembly at the arrogance of the Conservatives after Truss trashed the economy was about right. What sort of world does this government belong in?

Political opportunism is a very good description of what is happening. The Government is intent on settling scores with the railway, and to hell with the needs of the passenger.

 

[43066]

Ok, I'm out. You clearly aren't willing to consider any other viewpoint, and just see what you want to see.

I’m just going by the text of the speech!

I’m happy to discuss any viewpoint, but you have stretched credibility to breaking point, in my view.

Political opportunism is a very good description of what is happening. The Government is intent on settling scores with the railway, and to hell with the needs of the passenger.

As with the other disputes, I think it suited them politically last year to have the railway dispute running as a distraction from other matters, and to create a “winter of discontent” narrative: “the reason you feel poor and can’t pay your gas bill isn’t anything to do with the political party that has been running the country for the last decade, it’s because of the evil unions”.

Polling has consistently shown that the public blame ministers rather than unions for the disputes, so the strategy hasn’t worked as they hoped it would. We’re now getting closer to the election and Sunak wants to be seen as a competent problem solver, hence the change in the mood music, and an apparent appetite to settle.

None of this has anything to do with the best interests of tax payers, passengers, staff, or the industry as a whole, of course. It’s about a collection of senior Tories who are deeply worried for their futures, hence the “my daily rate is £10,000 sterling” embarrassment, pathetic appearances of sitting MPs on I’m a celebrity, and overall desperation to seek other avenues.

I say that as a long term conservative voter who acknowledges that the party I grew up respecting has drifted way too far to the right…

 

[Bikeman78]

As a point of comparison, in Germany, £3828 buys you a year of unlimited travel across the entire rail network (only excluding open-access operators), and also unlimited travel on metropolitan bus/tram/u-bahn services in over 120 towns and cities.

£6488 gets you the same in first class.

It's mind boggling that the all line rover had time restrictions applied a few years ago. 571 x 52 + 29,692. Who on earth is spending anywhere near that much on a season ticket?

 

[Bikeman78]

I didn’t use the word subsidy.

But, in any event (and to use just one example), NS in the Netherlands are doing exactly the same as here.

My understanding is that the NS have cut back some routes owing to lack of staff. Unless that is a convenient excuse. They certainly haven't cut out vast chunks of the fleet without replacement. A few Koplopers have gone in the bin but that's it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

My understanding is that the NS have cut back some routes owing to lack of staff. Unless that is a convenient excuse. They certainly haven't cut out vast chunks of the fleet without replacement. A few Koplopers have gone in the bin but that's it.

And what's more the cuts have been targetted at sections of route with 10-minute headways, often a fairly recent innovation, being reduced to a 15-minute headway (though not always evenly spread) so that the reduction in passenger convenience is minimised. It's hard to imagine the Dutch would think it acceptable to reduce 2tph to just hourly unlike here. In other words it's not a good comparison with GB rail.

 

[Bikeman78]

And what's more the cuts have been targetted at sections of route with 10-minute headways, often a fairly recent innovation, being reduced to a 15-minute headway (though not always evenly spread) so that the reduction in passenger convenience is minimised. It's hard to imagine the Dutch would think it acceptable to reduce 2tph to just hourly unlike here. In other words it's not a good comparison with GB rail.

Cutting frequency on NS would be a disaster. Commuting has definitely come back there. Last year I went on peak time trains that were rammed. Not just a few standees but a solid line of standees throughout a 26m carriage. In all cases where I bothered to check, the previous train ran as booked so it wasn't overspill from a cancellation.

 

[JonathanH]

It's mind boggling that the all line rover had time restrictions applied a few years ago. 571 x 52 + 29,692. Who on earth is spending anywhere near that much on a season ticket?

No one. However, the all line rover was undercutting the cost of people travelling a number of times in a given week on business trips and not apportioning revenue accordingly.

 

[Bikeman78]

No one. However, the all line rover was undercutting the cost of people travelling a number of times in a given week on business trips and not apportioning revenue accordingly.

Wouldn't those people buy a weekly season? Or were the business journeys on different routes within the same week? Must have been a tiny number of people though. I'd love to see some numbers to explain the decision.

 

[bramling]

Political opportunism is a very good description of what is happening. The Government is intent on settling scores with the railway, and to hell with the needs of the passenger.

Indeed, and this certainly wasn’t in their 2019 manifesto. Frankly I’ll be amazed if anyone votes for them when the election finally comes.

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

I’m just going by the text of the speech!

I’m happy to discuss any viewpoint, but you have stretched credibility to breaking point, in my view.



As with the other disputes, I think it suited them politically last year to have the railway dispute running as a distraction from other matters, and to create a “winter of discontent” narrative: “the reason you feel poor and can’t pay your gas bill isn’t anything to do with the political party that has been running the country for the last decade, it’s because of the evil unions”.

Polling has consistently shown that the public blame ministers rather than unions for the disputes, so the strategy hasn’t worked as they hoped it would. We’re now getting closer to the election and Sunak wants to be seen as a competent problem solver, hence the change in the mood music, and an apparent appetite to settle.

None of this has anything to do with the best interests of tax payers, passengers, staff, or the industry as a whole, of course. It’s about a collection of senior Tories who are deeply worried for their futures, hence the “my daily rate is £10,000 sterling” embarrassment, pathetic appearances of sitting MPs on I’m a celebrity, and overall desperation to seek other avenues.

I say that as a long term conservative voter who acknowledges that the party I grew up respecting has drifted way too far to the right…

I would agree with all the above, except possibly the very last bit. I’m not sure they’ve veered to the *right*, especially given some of the ways they *do* seem happy to splash out cash. I’d say it’s more a case that they’ve simply disintegrated into a collection of personalities with various agendas and scores to settle. It’s a very unfortunate state of affairs when I find myself agreeing with the likes of Mark Drakeford and Ian Blackford!

Indeed the only thing that’s keeping this government afloat at the moment is that Kier Starmer has as much charisma as a 40-watt light bulb in a hurricane, and a continuing mistrust in other senior Labour figures. Were it not for these factors, I suspect the mood of the country would feel rather more akin to 1996. And we all know what happened in 97…

 

[XAM2175]

No one. However, the all line rover was undercutting the cost of people travelling a number of times in a given week on business trips and not apportioning revenue accordingly.

Wouldn't those people buy a weekly season? Or were the business journeys on different routes within the same week? Must have been a tiny number of people though. I'd love to see some numbers to explain the decision.

I'm far from an expert on the rationale, but as JonathanH says it was to do with undercutting Anytime Returns even for journeys on only one route. For example (and using current prices for simplicity), the Anytime Return (code AOR) Manchester to Euston, route any permitted, is £369.40 - meaning that an ALR at the current price but without restrictions would be cheaper if you were making that journey even twice within the ALR's period of validity.

There is a season for that route, priced at £447.00 per week, but similarly to avoid undercutting the AOR the shortest period for which the season can be issued is four weeks.

 

[43066]

I’m not sure they’ve veered to the *right*, especially given some of the ways they *do* seem happy to splash out cash.

That’s a fair comment, but I suppose the cash splashing was under Johnson’s tenure. The serve to the right for me was under Truss, an utterly dislikable individual. That’s the point I completely felt I’d lost touch with the Tories. Sunak has pulled it back somewhat, but what they fail to remember is that many of us who voted Conservative in 2019 really liked Boris Johnson, and feel utterly betrayed by he way he has been treated by the party. He won them an 80 seat majority and they will not do so well next time…

I’d say it’s more a case that they’ve simply disintegrated into a collection of personalities with various agendas and scores to settle. It’s a very unfortunate state of affairs when I find myself agreeing with the likes of Mark Drakeford and Ian Blackford!

I do my best to ignore Scottish nationalists, Nicola Sturgeon was an incredibly accomplished operator. The independence cause has been set back thirty years by her departure and will soon slide into obscurity.

Indeed the only thing that’s keeping this government afloat at the moment is that Kier Starmer has as much charisma as a 40-watt light bulb in a hurricane, and a continuing mistrust in other senior Labour figures. Were it not for these factors, I suspect the mood of the country would feel rather more akin to 1996. And we all know what happened in 97…

I don’t dislike Starmer as a person. There’s no way I could ever vote Labour, mostly because of the likes of Angela Rayner being present in the shadow cabinet, albeit I’m having thoughts in that direction!

Most likely I just won’t vote. Mostly I just feel betrayed by the Tories (I hope they lose the next election), and utterly turned off politics.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Indeed, and this certainly wasn’t in their 2019 manifesto. Frankly I’ll be amazed if anyone votes for them when the election finally comes.

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



I would agree with all the above, except possibly the very last bit. I’m not sure they’ve veered to the *right*, especially given some of the ways they *do* seem happy to splash out cash. I’d say it’s more a case that they’ve simply disintegrated into a collection of personalities with various agendas and scores to settle. It’s a very unfortunate state of affairs when I find myself agreeing with the likes of Mark Drakeford and Ian Blackford!

Indeed the only thing that’s keeping this government afloat at the moment is that Kier Starmer has as much charisma as a 40-watt light bulb in a hurricane, and a continuing mistrust in other senior Labour figures. Were it not for these factors, I suspect the mood of the country would feel rather more akin to 1996. And we all know what happened in 97…

I have a horrible feeling that it is nowadays a case of which party is least worst !. A terrible state for democracy to be in perhaps. Although I would go along with democracy meaning there can be times when not many get what they want because there are too many disparate views/desires/requirements.

---

A simple question :-
If the Tories wanted to decimate the rail industry at all why on earth did they subsidise the rail industry through the thick of Covid ?. Surely they could have treated the railways the same as the Hospitality sector and let things slide. The railways seemed to have got more support than just Furlough !.

Notice how retail and catering are cutting back. What is so different about the railways ?. Is there any point now continuing support at the same level as it was during the thick of Covid when the passenger carryings don't look to have fully recovered ?.

We can all wonder what a more socialist party would have done during Covid or now. But I was a bit surprised (relieved) how much support the railways AND others got from the Tories. I am glad they did support during a national emergency but I reluctantly accept that this/that or similar kind support cannot be afforded forever. I shudder to think how much this country owes.

...................................

Most likely I just won’t vote. Mostly I just feel betrayed by the Tories (I hope they lose the next election), and utterly turned off politics.

That would be a shame. I struggle myself to get motivated and exercise my democratic right. I remind myself of all the people who died in various conflicts so that we can have these sorts of discussions and even vote. Ask an Eastern European what they think of Russia's approach to doing things we take for granted.

 

[bramling]

That’s a fair comment, but I suppose the cash splashing was under Johnson’s tenure. The serve to the right for me was under Truss, an utterly dislikable individual. That’s the point I completely felt I’d lost touch with the Tories. Sunak has pulled it back somewhat, but what they fail to remember is that many of us who voted Conservative in 2019 really liked Boris Johnson, and feel utterly betrayed by he way he has been treated by the party. He won them an 80 seat majority and they will not do so well next time…

To be honest, I feel more betrayed by Johnson himself than those who removed him, indeed that process - the first time I believe we’ve seen a prime minister removed from office for dishonourable conduct - took far longer than it should have done. The rancid man is still not off the scene even now.

Whilst we all knew Johnson was something of a maverick, I thought he would conduct himself with decency in office. I was badly wrong, his tenure was nothing short of a disgrace, both in terms of his behaviour, and more fundamentally his total and utter weakness when it came to taking important decisions. Hence why we ended up with the likes of Hancock running the Covid show.

I’m as peeved as anyone at the way the 2019 government has turned out, however my view is that Johnson himself is largely to blame for that.

I don’t dislike Starmer as a person. There’s no way I could ever vote Labour, mostly because of the likes of Angela Rayner being present in the shadow cabinet, albeit I’m having thoughts in that direction!

Agreed. One still gets the feeling that a significant element of the Corbyn legacy is still bubbling away beneath the public surface which is Starmer. That said, if there was an election tomorrow I would certainly seriously consider voting Labour.

Most likely I just won’t vote. Mostly I just feel betrayed by the Tories (I hope they lose the next election), and utterly turned off politics.

Agreed. A very depressing time indeed.

 

[43066]

A simple question :-
If the Tories wanted to decimate the rail industry at all why on earth did they subsidise the rail industry through the thick of Covid ?. Surely they could have treated the railways the same as the Hospitality sector and let things slide. The railways seemed to have got more support than just Furlough !.

The Tories had to support the railway because it’s an essential service. It’s rather more important than serving pints to OAPs and tramps in Wetherspoons.

Notice how retail and catering are cutting back. What is so different about the railways ?. Is there any point now continuing support at the same level as it was during the thick of Covid when the passenger carryings don't look to have fully recovered ?.

Retail and catering have been bailed out rather more than the railway has, reference furlough, and of course “eat out to help out”.

We can all wonder what a more socialist party would have done during Covid or now. But I was a bit surprised (relieved) how much support the railways AND others got from the Tories. I am glad they did support during a national emergency but I reluctantly accept that this/that or similar kind support cannot be afforded forever. I shudder to think how much this country owes.

Who here is a socialist? Not me, I can assure you, not by a long chalk.

But the support being provided now isn’t what was being provided during the “national emergency”. Nobody is asking for that level of support to be provided “forever”, those of us involved with the industry would like to see it being allowed to grow, yet the government is choosing to cut services just as demand is rising.

You’re once again channeling something Grant Shapps told you in that carefully crafted speech last summer. This is a man who is a complete and utter spiv, who is even dishonest about his own name, when it suits him in his business dealings.

 

[bramling]

I have a horrible feeling that it is nowadays a case of which party is least worst !. A terrible state for democracy to be in perhaps. Although I would go along with democracy meaning there can be times when not many get what they want because there are too many disparate views/desires/requirements.

---

A simple question :-
If the Tories wanted to decimate the rail industry at all why on earth did they subsidise the rail industry through the thick of Covid ?. Surely they could have treated the railways the same as the Hospitality sector and let things slide. The railways seemed to have got more support than just Furlough !.

I suspect the reason behind that is because the whole thing was never expected to drag on as long as it did. Hence kicking the can down the road. Also if we remember back there was the whole thing about “key workers” needing to get to work. There’s also the issue that closing down the railway network may well not actually have saved very much.

Notice how retail and catering are cutting back. What is so different about the railways ?. Is there any point now continuing support at the same level as it was during the thick of Covid when the passenger carryings don't look to have fully recovered ?.

How do we reconcile that with the general government line that they’d prefer people not to travel by car? This government’s answer is probably simple - at times I feel they’d be happy for us all to be stuck at home while they throw a Bullingdon Club style party and laugh at the population. Sounds implausible… oh.

We can all wonder what a more socialist party would have done during Covid or now. But I was a bit surprised (relieved) how much support the railways AND others got from the Tories. I am glad they did support during a national emergency but I reluctantly accept that this/that or similar kind support cannot be afforded forever. I shudder to think how much this country owes.

The answer to that is that the Covid response shouldn’t have been allowed to drag on as long as it did. It seems a substantial reason for that was Johnson’s inability to challenge the so-called scientists.

 

[43066]

To be honest, I feel more betrayed by Johnson himself than those who removed him, indeed that process - the first time I believe we’ve seen a prime minister removed from office for dishonourable conduct - took far longer than it should have done.

Whilst we all knew Johnson was something of a maverick, I thought he would conduct himself with decency in office. I was badly wrong, his tenure was nothing short of a disgrace, both in terms of his behaviour, and more fundamentally his total and utter weakness when it came to taking important decisions. Hence why we ended up with the likes of Hancock running the Covid show.

This is where conservatives differ. There are those who hate him and those of us who would happily shake his hand if we bumped into him tomorrow. I’m firmly in the latter camp!

I still really like the bloke, he was a breath of fresh air, he delivered on the Brexit vote. My main criticism of him is that he imposed many Covid restrictions I profoundly disagreed with.

I suspect, if his own party had allowed him to continue in office, he would have weathered the storm, we wouldn’t have had the Truss debacle, we would be in a better position than we are today.

As things stand, they stabbed him in the back, and I actively look forward to them losing the next election! They won’t be getting my vote, that’s for sure.

Agreed. One still gets the feeling that a significant element of the Corbyn legacy is still bubbling away beneath the public surface which is Starmer. That said, if there was an election tomorrow I would certainly seriously consider voting Labour

It’s so tribal for me, it would be hard to do so.

Agreed. A very depressing time indeed.

Yup!

 

[bramling]

This is where conservatives differ. There are those who hate him and those of us who would happily shake his hand if we bumped into him tomorrow. I’m firmly in the latter camp!

I might have taken that line in 2019 and 2020, but by 2021 absolutely not. In my view time has shown him to be a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work, as well as incompetent.

I still really like the bloke, he was a breath of fresh air, he delivered on the Brexit vote. My main criticism of him is that he imposed many Covid restrictions I profoundly disagreed with.

And this is part, but only part, of the problem. His fundamental weakness and lack of competence led to an emergency response becoming “business as usual” for the best part of 18 months. We very nearly got plunged back into it with Omicron.

I’d say Brexit was another of his flaws. He was elected on the back of that, yet had little idea what else he wanted to do when he became Prime Minister. That’s not serious politics. Had Covid not happened I think he’d still have come unstuck in one way or another.

There’s also of course the story of the two speeches. There may well be some truth to the theory that is decision on Brexit was purely for self-serving reasons. His whole public life and profile seems to have been built off the back of being disgusting and insulting.

I suspect, if his own party had allowed him to continue in office, he would have weathered the storm, we wouldn’t have had the Truss debacle, we would be in a better position than we are today.

We may have avoided the Truss debacle, but probably at the cost of a *total* collapse of standards in public life. Having said that, we’re virtually there now. Blair and Campbell laid the foundations for this, Johnson finally achieved it.

Being brutally honest, it is my view that the Johnson era is a cautionary tale in the history of British politics. Learning that lesson only cost us, er, four hundred billion pounds…

 

[43066]

I might have taken that line in 2019 and 2020, but by 2021 absolutely not. In my view time has shown him to be a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work, as well as incompetent.

I think he’s fine, a little bumbling. The man has a rich and deep charisma, I’ve perhaps fallen for. Sunak just comes across as a bland man, presenting a spreadsheet in a meeting room at Goldman’s Fleet Street offices.

And this is part, but only part, of the problem. His fundamental weakness and lack of competence led to an emergency response becoming “business as usual” for the best part of 18 months. We very nearly got plunged back into it with Omicron.

Agreed. You would have expected a true libertarian to have resisted the restrictions more effectively. Instead he listened to Hancock. And his mind was clearly elsewhere.

We are truly lions led by donkeys, in this country.

I’d say Brexit was another of his flaws. He was elected on the back of that, yet had little idea what else he wanted to do when he became Prime Minister. That’s not serious politics. Had Covid not happened I think he’d still have come unstuck in one way or another.

There’s also of course the story of the two speeches. There may well be some truth to the theory that is decision on Brexit was purely for self-serving reasons. His whole public life and profile seems to have been built off the back of being disgusting and insulting.

All true re the two speeches, you have to admire the sheer brazenness and brass neck. Those of us who wanted a hard Brexit knew he was only offering that for his own reasons, but we saw him as a path to achieve it, so voted accordingly. We were vindicated, he delivered, that objective was ultimately achieved. Whatever happened to Johnson afterwards was largely immaterial.

But, I’d still shake his hand, just for that! If he was still PM, I’d almost certainly vote conservative at the next election. There is precisely zero me chance of me doing so otherwise! Many others feel the same, hence they’re almost certainly toast.

As Johnson fans, we have been utterly shafted, and let down by the party we voted for!


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2023 ==

We may have avoided the Truss debacle, but probably at the cost of a *total* collapse of standards in public life. Having said that, we’re virtually there now. Blair and Campbell laid the foundations for this, Johnson finally achieved it.

The utter collapse in standards in public (and private) life, has sadly occurred anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

I have a horrible feeling that it is nowadays a case of which party is least worst !. A terrible state for democracy to be in perhaps. Although I would go along with democracy meaning there can be times when not many get what they want because there are too many disparate views/desires/requirements.

---

A simple question :-
If the Tories wanted to decimate the rail industry at all why on earth did they subsidise the rail industry through the thick of Covid ?. Surely they could have treated the railways the same as the Hospitality sector and let things slide. The railways seemed to have got more support than just Furlough !.

Notice how retail and catering are cutting back. What is so different about the railways ?. Is there any point now continuing support at the same level as it was during the thick of Covid when the passenger carryings don't look to have fully recovered ?.

We can all wonder what a more socialist party would have done during Covid or now. But I was a bit surprised (relieved) how much support the railways AND others got from the Tories. I am glad they did support during a national emergency but I reluctantly accept that this/that or similar kind support cannot be afforded forever. I shudder to think how much this country owes.


That would be a shame. I struggle myself to get motivated and exercise my democratic right. I remind myself of all the people who died in various conflicts so that we can have these sorts of discussions and even vote. Ask an Eastern European what they think of Russia's approach to doing things we take for granted.

The difference is that one can choose to go to a pub or restaurant, or an alternative pub or restaurant. The railway is a public service. For a lot of journeys, there are no practical alternatives to rail.

As @43066 points out, the railways are in no way receiving "similar" level of support to what they were during the covid crisis and it is disingenuous to imply that they are.

 

[Meerkat]

The Tories had to support the railway because it’s an essential service. It’s rather more important than serving pints to OAPs and tramps in Wetherspoons.

Bits of it are an essential service. They could have shut down significant chunks without a huge impact during lockdown restrictions. Perfect opportunity if they were really as anti railway as you allege.

Retail and catering have been bailed out rather more than the railway has, reference furlough, and of course “eat out to help out”.

Have you got numbers for that, as it sounds in bit unlikely in terms relative to the size of the industries.

 

[notverydeep]

To me its obvious that the government will eventually reign in the subsidies. If the railways have lost 20% of their passengers then roughly 20% of subsidy would go. Very roughly and I believe putting off the worst for as long as possible. If that has been happening for the last nine months then that says to me that the government have been facing their belief that not much more recovery is possible.

It does not necessarily follow that 20% of the subsidy should be removed or indeed that 20% of the service should be removed in the event that demand reduces by 20%. The DfT, treasury or other subsidising bodies such as Local Authorities will each need to evaluate what benefits they are buying for their subsidy and whether those benefits are still being delivered. They will also need to understand and forecast as best they can what will happen to the drivers of demand. Many services are the same frequency now as they were when demand was more than 20% lower (in London this would have been around 2010).

There are several benefits that lead to subsidy. Historically access to employment opportunity has been a key driver, especially for more rural rail routes. Promotion of employment in city centres, plus pollution and congestion reduction have tended to drive subsidy of commuter services. Some of these benefits may still hold at 20% lower demand.

Historically, demand is a function of the number of potential passengers and their trip rate. The former is a function of population growth or decline and the number of tourist visitors from elsewhere. In addition to the more recent influence of the ability and desire to work from home, the trip rate is a function of employment levels, real fares growth or decline, real incomes growth or decline and 'weighted' journey time (frequency, convenience, run time and crowding) Since government will be at least trying / hoping to improve these in the future, further recovery in passenger demand can be expected if they are successful (I accept that is quite a large 'if' for the moment)! Much as I personally like working from home, employers (including mine) and government are becoming aware that it does come at the cost of 'economies of agglomeration' and this is a further benefit of the rail subsidy.

Political factors are likely to play a part of course. While not really stated as a rationale, the DfT's revealed preference has been to make up much of the increased cost of the fragmented model of UK rail privatisation, while consistently expressing a desire to see these costs fall. British Rail may not have been totally effective at providing the quality, safety or volume of rail services the country desired, but at least in its last years, what those services it did provide, were operated more cost effectively. Subsidy may be protected by a strong aversion to voter's reaction to cuts in rail services and an apparent desire not to admit the present fragmented model of privatisation has been very expensive and is still falling short of delivering the originally stated goals.

 

[Sleepy]

The difference is that one can choose to go to a pub or restaurant, or an alternative pub or restaurant. The railway is a public service. For a lot of journeys, there are no practical alternatives to rail.

As @43066 points out, the railways are in no way receiving "similar" level of support to what they were during the covid crisis and it is disingenuous to imply that they are.

Alternatives to those without cars appear very limited, you only have to look at comments on National Express adverts on Facebook to read
about slashed routes, poor frequencies and "ambitious" journey timings. Covid and driver shortages seem to have been a great excuse to cut routes and miss out small towns on busier services.

 

[ar10642]

Plus take into account the full (i.e not just fuel) cost of running a car (plus parking) and the fact a season ticket could be used on a weekend and the difference will look less stark.

Nobody does this. You don't say "shall I use the car today or shall I sell it and exclusively take public transport from this day forward". You look at the comparative costs of doing one or the other for that journey. If the train is a stupid price, people will drive unless there is no alternative. Equally if you don't own a car already you don't say shall I take the train or buy a car for this journey instead.

 

[Horizon22]

Nobody does this. You don't say "shall I use the car today or shall I sell it and exclusively take public transport from this day forward". You look at the comparative costs of doing one or the other for that journey. If the train is a stupid price, people will drive unless there is no alternative. Equally if you don't own a car already you don't say shall I take the train or buy a car for this journey instead.

I never said people did. But a failure to do so means it is unfair comparison to rail prices. That's just human nature - people normally think only about the immediate costs (partly why credit is popular even if more expensive in the long run), but it is something the railway has to contend with in price comaprisons.

 

[43066]

Nobody does this. You don't say "shall I use the car today or shall I sell it and exclusively take public transport from this day forward".

Some people do. I decided not to replace my car in 2020 and have used public transport ever since.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2023 ==

Bits of it are an essential service. They could have shut down significant chunks without a huge impact during lockdown restrictions. Perfect opportunity if they were really as anti railway as you allege.

Except it would have been virtually impossible to start it up again, so it wasn’t a “perfect opportunity” to do anything of the sort - hence why they didn’t.

Have you got numbers for that, as it sounds in bit unlikely in terms relative to the size of the industries.

Look up the cost of furlough, which was a direct “bail out” to retail and catering. Eat out to help out alone was nearly £1bn.

 

[Ken H]

I never said people did. But a failure to do so means it is unfair comparison to rail prices. That's just human nature - people normally think only about the immediate costs (partly why credit is popular even if more expensive in the long run), but it is something the railway has to contend with in price comaprisons.

but people do this all the time. They will drive past Manchester airport to catch a flight from Heathrow without a thought of the cost of getting to Heathrow. Or they will drive to an Aldi in the next town 16 miles away because the Waitrose where they live is too expensive.