Fare increases - folk don't like them

[Dave1987]

You have a really quite patronizing view of passengers don't you? Displayed across multiple comments.

I sincerely hope you don't have a customer facing role.

Sorry but I just stating simple facts at the state the trains end up in! I do not have a patronising view of all passengers. I don't think some passengers appreciate all the hard work happens behind the scenes. I am sorry that you think I am being patronising. I am merely trying to put over the point of view from the staff side.

 

[EM2]

So? Thats hardly something new or impossible to clean up. They should be being cleaned at every turnaround.

Difficult for some services. GA Metros are available to board as soon as the train pulls into to LST and the doors open.They have something like a seven-minute turnaround in the peak.

 

[Dave1987]

I have a relatively easy commute into London compared to most and these are the main gripes;

455/456s very often no heat, 455s are terrible for this apart from the motor vehicle which tends to have minimal heat coming through.
455 seats are awful. 455 'refresh' seems to be no more than painting the handrails. I'm so used to 321s the 456 seats are fine by me!
Sets never cleaned at terminal turnaround, in PM still Metro's knocking about.
PM peak train seats often covered in pigeon excrement as they've locked one in as the units sit in the platform all afternoon.
Two minutes added to journeys from December TT - no reason given or appearing obvious. Its very slow at 21 mins PTT for 6 miles.

Small things to fix in the main, nothing revolutionary required...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So? Thats hardly something new or impossible to clean up. They should be being cleaned at every turnaround.

I understand your point and I do think TOC's could do more during the turnaround.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Fare increases - folk don't like them

Why is is that whenever I see the title of this thread I am reminded of the late Clive Dunn?

Sorry - please carry on. I won't interrupt again.

 

[chuckles1066]

If the price of anything goes up, then people are going to moan about it on Twitter! At the end of the day, no amount of press releases, spin or weasly words are going to make anyone happy to pay more for any product or "service".

Especially when it remains pitiful at best and I corrected your typo.

In November 2010 I bought a monthly season ticket from Patchway - Bath.

Service was fairly abysmal (as per my previous posts) when it was actually useable (or turned up) and the price was hiked in the January.

Hey ho.

In June and September 2012 I had the misfortune to have to use the railways again (thankfully only for a week on each occasion) and observed that the price had gone up (again).

And the services still were, on occasions, unuseable and failed to turn up.

There's only so many times you can tell the punters that the above-inflation fare increases they're paying are to improve the infrastructure when the service remains p*******.

Funnily enough, in all this rain we've been having recently, I've lost count of the number of HSTs (as I used to call them in my youth) that have miraculously been able to stop at Patchway even though the Hopwood character assures me that extra stops there aren't economically viable.

I guess it's something to do with punters who've been bussed across from Bristol Parkway.

But either something's "economically viable" or it's not.......you can't cherry pick just because the rail network has shamefully failed to cope with a bit of rain.

See my other post about how New Zealand copes with feet of snow.

Yes, feet of snow, not inches of rain.

 

[AndyLandy]

Higher frequency impossible on quite a few lines, a lot of peak services can't get any longer, new destinations served need lines ripped up replacing!

I never said it was easy or cheap. But you asked what Average Joe Commuter would consider a meaningful improvement, and that's what I listed. Mr Arlesey doesn't give a damn about the pretty glass façades at STP or KGX, he doesn't care how quickly you can get to Paris or Brussels either.

That's not to say he's right, but if you ask a commuter in London about what improvements he considers meaningful, those are the answers you'll get.

 

[Tracky]

You have a really quite patronizing view of passengers don't you? Displayed across multiple comments.

I sincerely hope you don't have a customer facing role.

Sorry Westboy but the reality is a lot of passengers do not respect the trains. Quick to moan but little respect.

From the mothers who feed their kids flakey pastry sausage rolls, we then find schoolkids who shred newspaper like gerbils and tear used tickets. We then see even the most smartly dressed commuter eat a banana or orange and leave the skin in the tip up table when there is a bin nearby or next to the exit door.

An old lady with a dog might feel it acceptable to have it sat on the seat for company but the businessman who finds his suit hairy will not appreciate it. Lads may leave a half drunk Red Bull or Stella can on the adjacent seat which falls over spilling it and ultimately staining the next customers skirt.

At the end of the night those that have had too many and a fast food fix vom down the wall...

 

[Holly]

... The problem is that the cost of UK railways has risen significantly since privatisation and these costs appear to be significantly above those in other European countries. ...

That's about the size of it.
A privately owned railway is bound to cost more than a monopoly publically owned service. Interest to lenders and refusal to provide cheap/free things to other parts of the railway being the big extras. Shareholder dividends are highly visible but mostly a distraction, small amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
And that is why "the cost of UK railways has risen significantly since privatisation". Which brings us full circle.

The public voted for de-nationalisation, if the railways are to continue the public must be prepared to pay for it; such things are not cheap.

 

[Tracky]

While I don't disagree with some of the ideas mentioned even if the railway was operated publicly as one massive organisation there would still be separate budgets for each part of the business and all decisions and spending would have to be justified. The government may also be too scared of the big spends to embark on projects that have been pushed forward under privatisation.

 

[Paule23]

They should be being cleaned at every turnaround.

Whilst this is obviously desirable, as has been pointed out it is not always practical/possible. Surely we as rail passengers can help this by being more responsible with our rubbish? I know bins are few and far between on most services but they are generally available somewhere, and if not we can take our rubbish with us when we leave and take it to the nearest bin. Surely this is not too difficult and would be a start in making the travelling environment more pleasant. For those less socially responsible we can also help by asking them to take their rubbish as well, admittedly this will not always work and many people are just too lazy/ arrogant to do this, however there is no harm in asking and before I get all the replies about the abuse you get for doing this, I do this and am regularly surprised by the positive response I get, particularly from those you would initially think would tell you where to go!

 

[Tracky]

Turnarounds are often very tight to allow for maximum efficiency in terms of rolling stock use. Also consider the cost of extra cleaners. Customers can help this by being more responsible with rubbish - In my examples there is no need for any of the mess creation, its just thoughtlessness and a lack of respect.

My Mum would never have given me a sausage roll on a train as a child, I did not shred paper/tickets, I was taught to use bins and not leave a mess.

I have been known to Vomit after a drink but would at least feel some shame...

 

[Flamingo]

Whilst this is obviously desirable, as has been pointed out it is not always practical/possible. Surely we as rail passengers can help this by being more responsible with our rubbish? I know bins are few and far between on most services but they are generally available somewhere, and if not we can take our rubbish with us when we leave and take it to the nearest bin. Surely this is not too difficult and would be a start in making the travelling environment more pleasant. For those less socially responsible we can also help by asking them to take their rubbish as well, admittedly this will not always work and many people are just too lazy/ arrogant to do this, however there is no harm in asking and before I get all the replies about the abuse you get for doing this, I do this and am regularly surprised by the positive response I get, particularly from those you would initially think would tell you where to go!

Thank you!

If everybody tried to do this, it would make a big difference.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Improved journey times?
New/refurbished trains with renewed seating?
Higher frequency?
New destinations served?
Longer trains with more seats?
Catering provision?

Those are the ones that come off the top of my head...

Which route in the Northern Rail franchise has all those much-to-be-admired improvements incorporated ?..

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Which route in the Northern Rail franchise has all those much-to-be-admired improvements incorporated ?..

None, just like probably every other franchise in the country - nothing stands out nationwide as having all of them.

 

[NSEFAN]

While I don't disagree with some of the ideas mentioned even if the railway was operated publicly as one massive organisation there would still be separate budgets for each part of the business and all decisions and spending would have to be justified. The government may also be too scared of the big spends to embark on projects that have been pushed forward under privatisation.

Privatisation, for all its faults, gave the railways a big cash injection which would never have come from the government at the time. Before then, BR had to manage with a trickle of funding from a reluctant treasury. The railways were seen as a burden, not the social asset they should be (IMHO).

I'm grateful for the improvements made since privatisation, but I feel that privatisation shouldn't have been necessary in order to make them happen. From a point of principle, I think that passenger services should be publicly run and freight/charters operated privately. This way the pax get a service run for them while freight can benefit from genuine competition.

 

[Drsatan]

None, just like probably every other franchise in the country - nothing stands out nationwide as having all of them.

The only improvement common to a lot of franchises across the country would be improved frequency - a good example being FGW which introduced a half-hourly off peak service from Paddington to Cardiff.

Unfortunately, franchising hasn't resulted in improved journey times or better catering provision...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The only improvement common to a lot of franchises across the country would be improved frequency - a good example being FGW which introduced a half-hourly off peak service from Paddington to Cardiff.

Unfortunately, franchising hasn't resulted in improved journey times or better catering provision...

Indeed: (as a consequence?) all trains now call at Swindon, and half at Didcot, which didn't happen back in the days of hourly service. Ditto Bristol: Chippenham wasn't a stop on every train either. Gone too are the days where peak services call only at Bath and Reading (uplift / setdown only) - IIRC the journey times for them were much lower than equivalent services today.

 

[AndyLandy]

Which route in the Northern Rail franchise has all those much-to-be-admired improvements incorporated ?..

I think that would be approximately none of them. In fact, I wonder if someone at Northern has got their wires crossed somewhere and negated that list. Passengers want to spend as long as possible on short-formation, dirty trains that are infrequent and don't call anywhere useful any more!

 

[Goatboy]

Privatisation, for all its faults, gave the railways a big cash injection which would never have come from the government at the time. Before then, BR had to manage with a trickle of funding from a reluctant treasury

In the 6 years before privisation, BR were spending money like mad. Route modernisation, massive rolling stock replacement projects - there must have been as much new stock introduced between 1988 and 1994 as there has been at any point since surely?

IC225's, Sprinters, 158/159's, 165/166's, Networkers... thats a LOT of rolling stock.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think that would be approximately none of them. In fact, I wonder if someone at Northern has got their wires crossed somewhere and negated that list. Passengers want to spend as long as possible on short-formation, dirty trains that are infrequent and don't call anywhere useful any more!

I believe frequency on all Northern routes is as good as if not better than when they took over, save a couple of peak services that have been fiddled around with. In fact, under Northern the following service improvements have occured:
- Two local trains per hour from Preston-Manchester,
- Hourly York-Blackpool on Sundays,
- Half-hourly services via Hyde Central,
- Sub-1 hour Bradford-Manchester trains,
- A third train per hour from Wigan-Liverpool,
- Sunday Atherton line services,
- Additional late services across East Lancashire.

Also, what on earth does the second comment I bolded in your post mean?

 

[tbtc]

As you will know the Sheffield Midland - Worksop service is served mainly by Lincoln Central services , only a few stop short at either Worksop or Retford High Level.

As I will say again the timetable for rural services in Lincolnshire is shocking, their is the Doncaster - Gainsborough - Lincoln - Sleaford - Spalding - Peterborough service which is well used but again a poor timetable is putting passgengers off using it.

And of course their is my friend the Brigg line , where people are screaming out for the Monday to Friday service to come back after 20 years.

Network Rail has opened the new Lincoln PB replacing a number of boxs in the area to reduce cost, if this is rolled out across Lincolnshire then the burden from fare payers from other lines will come down.

At the end of the day Lincolnshire needs a propper railway system as " regional routes " are the backbone of any railway system

Yup - the busy bit of the service is the section far away from Lincolnshire.

How many people are "screaming out" for the Brigg Line to get weekday trains? It's a fairly empty part of the country - what big flow is being uncatered by this?

As for the other routes, they tend to see an appropriate level of service. Lincoln to Peterborough is roughly hourly, Lincoln - Grimsby is roughly bi-hourly, about the only service that seems under-represented is Lincoln - Nottingham (and the lack of paths over the flat crossing at Newark will always hinder this.

But it remains fact that currently some of the 'costs' in the railway are profit to shareholders of privately owned companies. In a non-profit organisation, this profit would be surplus and back into the system.

That assumes that a "not for profit" organisation is able to run things as efficiently.

Look at how Network Rail seems to struggle to keep a lid on its costs.

Look at how most Co-op supermarkets are more expensive than Tesco/ ASDA/ Sainsburys/ Morrisons (despite the Co-op not taking a profit).

Are you sure that a not-for-profit train company would be able to keep costs down to a minimum?

 

[AndyLandy]

I believe frequency on all Northern routes is as good as if not better than when they took over...

<snip>

Also, what on earth does the second comment I bolded in your post mean?

It was a rather tongue-in-cheek comment, I've certainly not seen any actual decrease in service from Northern. As I've said on many threads, the one thing Northern needs more than anything else are cleaner trains.

The other remark was equally flippant and the inference was that fewer destinations were being serviced. (As in the opposite of additional calling points/new destinations served)

 

[87015]

That assumes that a "not for profit" organisation is able to run things as efficiently.

Look at how Network Rail seems to struggle to keep a lid on its costs.

Look at how most Co-op supermarkets are more expensive than Tesco/ ASDA/ Sainsburys/ Morrisons (despite the Co-op not taking a profit).

Are you sure that a not-for-profit train company would be able to keep costs down to a minimum?

I've only worked under the privatised system but i fail to see why costs will suddenly balloon? There are so many layers of duplication and everyone taking a profit that even if some costs were allowed to rise the overall reduction should still be huge. It wouldn't be nice to see hundreds of rail staff out of a job overnight, perhaps myself included, but the savings that could be made there would surely far outweigh any non-efficiency of making it not-for-profit? It is really not as though the current system is run at 100% efficiency!

Sadly however some of the biggest benefits of a nationalised, one for all, system have been lost forever as you'd never get conditions, wages and the like harmonised again.

 

[NSEFAN]

In the 6 years before privisation, BR were spending money like mad. Route modernisation, massive rolling stock replacement projects - there must have been as much new stock introduced between 1988 and 1994 as there has been at any point since surely?

IC225's, Sprinters, 158/159's, 165/166's, Networkers... thats a LOT of rolling stock.

True, but a lot of projects suffered from a "do it cheap or not at all" mentality. Two such examples were the Bournemouth-Weymouth and ECML electrification schemes, the former limiting Weymouth to 1tph, the latter still causing OHLE reliability problems to this day.

BR overall did very well with the money it had, but a lot of the problems were caused by decades of neglect and managed decline. Network Southeast, for example, had a policy of total route modernisation to try and maximise improvement in its investments, but it only really had the resources to do one line at a time.

 

[IanD]

I will not criticise someone who works a 60 hour week running their own business and gets a decent amount of money for it.

Except Richard Branson?

 

[tbtc]

I believe frequency on all Northern routes is as good as if not better than when they took over, save a couple of peak services that have been fiddled around with. In fact, under Northern the following service improvements have occured:
- Two local trains per hour from Preston-Manchester,
- Hourly York-Blackpool on Sundays,
- Half-hourly services via Hyde Central,
- Sub-1 hour Bradford-Manchester trains,
- A third train per hour from Wigan-Liverpool,
- Sunday Atherton line services,
- Additional late services across East Lancashire.

Also, what on earth does the second comment I bolded in your post mean?

If people actually compared Northern 2013 with Northern 2004 they'd understand that the TOC has increased services on many lines (the Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield - Nottingham is a great leap forward compared to what the service used to be), they've introduced a lot more compatible trains, a lot of existing services now have more seats (40% more seats over-all?).

Yet we see plenty of "grim up north" comments that give the impression that there's been no improvements.

Exactly. And once every train is maximum length and there's not a single path free (and the network has so much dual redundancy that it can virtually guarantee that nothing can cause a delay that messes it all up) then that's your lot without another astronomical amount of investment needed.

And still for the rest of the day, trains will be going around carrying fresh air

...which is why TOCs end up selling "bargain" off peak tickets - the seats would be empty otherwise, other than for a couple of services a day.

Peak tickets cost a lot because a lot of seats required in the peaks are not required during the rest of the week - hence commuters having to pay a high price (and possibly not the full cost of their ticket). Try telling the people interviewed on the telly that though!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've only worked under the privatised system but i fail to see why costs will suddenly balloon? There are so many layers of duplication and everyone taking a profit that even if some costs were allowed to rise the overall reduction should still be huge. It wouldn't be nice to see hundreds of rail staff out of a job overnight, perhaps myself included, but the savings that could be made there would surely far outweigh any non-efficiency of making it not-for-profit? It is really not as though the current system is run at 100% efficiency!

Sadly however some of the biggest benefits of a nationalised, one for all, system have been lost forever as you'd never get conditions, wages and the like harmonised again.

Compare the costs of running some Government service and the costs when they are taken over by the private sector. Someone like Serco/ Capita/ G4S can undercut the "state" costs despite taking their profits. See my previous Co-op/ Tesco example too.

I just think that the idea that a not-for-profit TOC would be able to keep making the same level of profits that current TOCs are making (and therefore reinvest these millions back into the railway) seems to require challenging before it becomes quoted as "fact" on here.

 

[yorksrob]

BR overall did very well with the money it had, but a lot of the problems were caused by decades of neglect and managed decline. Network Southeast, for example, had a policy of total route modernisation to try and maximise improvement in its investments, but it only really had the resources to do one line at a time.

I think a lot of the managed decline had more to do with the motor car age than the ownership of the railway per se. The whole debate in the early 90's illustrates the extent to which public transport investment was becoming a political issue. Any Government failing to listen to this and continuing the early 1980's shoestring policy in the face of increasingly life expired rolling stock, increasing road congestion and rising passenger numbers would have suffered at the polls.

With regard to TRM's, I doubt it would have been logistically wise, or indeed efficient to attempt more than one Kent Link scale scheme at a time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I just think that the idea that a not-for-profit TOC would be able to keep making the same level of profits that current TOCs are making (and therefore reinvest these millions back into the railway) seems to require challenging before it becomes quoted as "fact" on here.

If they can indeed be considered true profits, in the context of a railway which doesn't cover its infrastructure costs.

 

[Dave1987]

Whilst this is obviously desirable, as has been pointed out it is not always practical/possible. Surely we as rail passengers can help this by being more responsible with our rubbish? I know bins are few and far between on most services but they are generally available somewhere, and if not we can take our rubbish with us when we leave and take it to the nearest bin. Surely this is not too difficult and would be a start in making the travelling environment more pleasant. For those less socially responsible we can also help by asking them to take their rubbish as well, admittedly this will not always work and many people are just too lazy/ arrogant to do this, however there is no harm in asking and before I get all the replies about the abuse you get for doing this, I do this and am regularly surprised by the positive response I get, particularly from those you would initially think would tell you where to go!

Well said! Excellent post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I never said it was easy or cheap. But you asked what Average Joe Commuter would consider a meaningful improvement, and that's what I listed. Mr Arlesey doesn't give a damn about the pretty glass façades at STP or KGX, he doesn't care how quickly you can get to Paris or Brussels either.

That's not to say he's right, but if you ask a commuter in London about what improvements he considers meaningful, those are the answers you'll get.

Yes I do understand where you are coming from I think the railway should do more to explain where the money is being spent.

 

[Butts]

Compare the costs of running some Government service and the costs when they are taken over by the private sector. Someone like Serco/ Capita/ G4S can undercut the "state" costs despite taking their profits. See my previous Co-op/ Tesco example too.

Generally speaking the reduction of costs is achieved by paying the staff less money with poorer conditions of employment- see Prisons etc. Okay if it's not your job

 

[Dave1987]

Except Richard Branson?

Never criticised his wage did I? I criticised the way he likes to take the credit for all the WCML improvements.