I work on the railway,I'm not sure who does the thinking when it comes to these figures,but the numbers are far higher.As was commented by one Guard who went down the train ,on the North London line I believe it was,he said people were annoyed that they had to pay when they were so unused to it, and told him so.Some late services have no ticket checks at all because of security issues,many people only pay from their last stop instead of where they boarded from,everyone in the industry knows the problem is massive but no-one can come up with an answer.
-
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!
Massive own goal 2 by railway industry
- Thread starter Metroland
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I don't miss the point at all. The public don't see NR spending money on coach services as saving money at all, they simply ask was there any need to travel in the first place? And what sort of industry sends its staff by completing modes of transport - especially when it was 'free' when it was nationalised? They already complain about the cost of train tickets and while there is a lot of nonsense talked, its hard to understand why NR is looking at buying the most expensive fares in any case. The industry argues people should book advanced tickets, and then prove that even for its own uses they are impractical.
From an industry point of view its an own goal, because its proof, yet again, that the current privatised system is a money making ponzi scheme which doesn't provide value.
I will not be explaining myself again either.
From an industry point of view its an own goal, because its proof, yet again, that the current privatised system is a money making ponzi scheme which doesn't provide value.
I will not be explaining myself again either.
Old Timer
Established Member
So the whole thrust of your argument is that Network Rail should have paid £27,000 which would be kept in the Industry, yes ?
So where would it be kept in the Industry ? A Goodly part of that would go to pay various other organisations and in turn their profits. These profits are taken from the Industry and do not come back.
For £27,000 NR could have about 15 12 hour road/rail machine shifts, which would be of much greater benefit to the Industry than simply passing £27,000 around various Companies.
Reading your posts led to initially to believe you were a teenager with little experience in how business actually works. On checking your profile I see that you are much older so I will give you the benefit of arguing from a Left Wing point of view, because that in effect is what you are doing.
Unfortunately your views are not backed up by any apparant experience of managing a business or even an operational profit / loss budget, neither do your assertions work out except in some theoretical idealogical form.
Your lack of life experience is shown by the comment
The £27,000 saved by NR is money that can be used elsewhere, to either reduce the costs of operation or it could well go a long way to saving even just ONE job.
Money given by NR to TOCs/FOCs is money straight out of the Industry and into some very tax efficient arrangement. I am sure that pinacle of Socialist belief who runs a major TOC but has very tax efficient Company arrangements which involve offshore Companies who do not pay tax would agree.
Anyway I have said as much as I wish to, as there is no point in debating an issue with someone who has a closed mind.
So where would it be kept in the Industry ? A Goodly part of that would go to pay various other organisations and in turn their profits. These profits are taken from the Industry and do not come back.
For £27,000 NR could have about 15 12 hour road/rail machine shifts, which would be of much greater benefit to the Industry than simply passing £27,000 around various Companies.
Reading your posts led to initially to believe you were a teenager with little experience in how business actually works. On checking your profile I see that you are much older so I will give you the benefit of arguing from a Left Wing point of view, because that in effect is what you are doing.
Unfortunately your views are not backed up by any apparant experience of managing a business or even an operational profit / loss budget, neither do your assertions work out except in some theoretical idealogical form.
Your lack of life experience is shown by the comment
. I quoted just one example earlier and just a little thought will bring forth a whole range of reasons and Industries where similar arrangements occur.
The £27,000 saved by NR is money that can be used elsewhere, to either reduce the costs of operation or it could well go a long way to saving even just ONE job.
Money given by NR to TOCs/FOCs is money straight out of the Industry and into some very tax efficient arrangement. I am sure that pinacle of Socialist belief who runs a major TOC but has very tax efficient Company arrangements which involve offshore Companies who do not pay tax would agree.
Anyway I have said as much as I wish to, as there is no point in debating an issue with someone who has a closed mind.
OT I wouldnt bother...when it comes to Metroland he is always right:roll:
Anyone with half a brain can see that NR has saved money by using coaches instead of forking over 27k for train tickets. If you want to argue about how expensive train travel is I suggest you point some of your opinionated demeanor towards the TOCs.
Its you and people like you that twists these sorts of stories and make everything out of nothing to suit you and its hell to everyone elses opinion.
Anyone with half a brain can see that NR has saved money by using coaches instead of forking over 27k for train tickets. If you want to argue about how expensive train travel is I suggest you point some of your opinionated demeanor towards the TOCs.
Its you and people like you that twists these sorts of stories and make everything out of nothing to suit you and its hell to everyone elses opinion.
Old Timer
Established Member
Thank you GB
It seems a shame that where NR is trying to genuinely save money, or at least achieve value for money, that it should be criticised for doing so.
I think the criticsm should be of the Telegraph reporter who tried to make something out of a non event. I wonder if he will criticise BAA next time their staff travel by train ?
I feel a letter to the Editor coming on.
Mind you in recent years the Telegraph appears to have lost its way and is not sure whether to run with the hare or hunt with the hounds.
At least Dacre at the Daily Mail is a known and admitted friend of Gordon Brown, and has been very supportive of him in the past much to the annoyance of the paper's readers who would prefer to see Brown's head mounted on a post somewhere rather than he being worshipped on an alter.
By the way do we have an "ignore" option on here ?
It seems a shame that where NR is trying to genuinely save money, or at least achieve value for money, that it should be criticised for doing so.
I think the criticsm should be of the Telegraph reporter who tried to make something out of a non event. I wonder if he will criticise BAA next time their staff travel by train ?
I feel a letter to the Editor coming on.
Mind you in recent years the Telegraph appears to have lost its way and is not sure whether to run with the hare or hunt with the hounds.
At least Dacre at the Daily Mail is a known and admitted friend of Gordon Brown, and has been very supportive of him in the past much to the annoyance of the paper's readers who would prefer to see Brown's head mounted on a post somewhere rather than he being worshipped on an alter.
By the way do we have an "ignore" option on here ?
Click Here to edit your ignore list.
As tempting as it is to add people, I find it disrupts the flow of the thread sadly.
'Metroland' is one of the most pro-sustainable transport person I can think of so perhaps some of these self-confessed "friends of the railway" ought to reconsider whether they support the railway under its current structure with public relations at a low-ebb with dissatisfaction with many of the services they provide.
So "pro-sustainable" that he advocates wasting £1000s of pounds when there is a cheaper and just as effective alternative available???
He seems to think that becuase NR is rail company that it should, without disregard, work hand in hand with TOCs....sorry but the real world does not work like that.
Its already been pointed out what the money could actually be useful for, but he has chosen to ignore it.
If companies wasted money as he suggests then there wouldnt be much of a buisness or service to sustain would there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well thats the way its coming across to most people!
He seems to think that becuase NR is rail company that it should, without disregard, work hand in hand with TOCs....sorry but the real world does not work like that.
Its already been pointed out what the money could actually be useful for, but he has chosen to ignore it.
If companies wasted money as he suggests then there wouldnt be much of a buisness or service to sustain would there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well thats the way its coming across to most people!
You know you still don't get it do you? I wasn't advocating NR rail spending £27,000k at all.
- I was advocating, a joined up industry, that makes the best use of resources.
- One that thinks about the PR of its decision making and how the public think, and thus the effect on public lobbying for or against spending money on rail. A lot of lobby groups, especially road (for example the RAC) and air (for example Ryan air) are arguing that rail is a waste of money. Some groups even want the entire network shut down. (for example Transport Watch)
- Questioning the need for 200 staff to travel from Reading to Coventry at all - especially at peak times.
- And the ever increasing subsidy, often caused by internal arrangements. It's going to get to such a stage at some point, that rail will simply price itself out of the market.
- Questioning the notion that spending money on alternative transport is the right way to save overall public subsidy to the industry, considering the Arriva Cross Country gets considerable public subsidy, ad do many TOCs for shipping thin air about at off peak times. And I provided some evidence to show this.
- I was advocating, a joined up industry, that makes the best use of resources.
- One that thinks about the PR of its decision making and how the public think, and thus the effect on public lobbying for or against spending money on rail. A lot of lobby groups, especially road (for example the RAC) and air (for example Ryan air) are arguing that rail is a waste of money. Some groups even want the entire network shut down. (for example Transport Watch)
- Questioning the need for 200 staff to travel from Reading to Coventry at all - especially at peak times.
- And the ever increasing subsidy, often caused by internal arrangements. It's going to get to such a stage at some point, that rail will simply price itself out of the market.
- Questioning the notion that spending money on alternative transport is the right way to save overall public subsidy to the industry, considering the Arriva Cross Country gets considerable public subsidy, ad do many TOCs for shipping thin air about at off peak times. And I provided some evidence to show this.
That maybe so, but the thread went of on a tangent you didn't like, and you started being condescending and rude to people, stated your opinion as fact, and ignored what other people were saying, and the points they were trying to make, whether you agreed with them or not.
OT you make some very good points only to spoil them with rants about Gordon Brown!.You are quite correct network Rail has little option but to choose the cheapest mode of travel,that said ,it does look bad when the 'flagbearer' of the industry sends its staff by another mode of transport albeit not their fault. One could also expect that because Network Rail is an integral part of the industry and the bad publicity this sort of story throws up,some kind of accomodation could have been made by the TOC's and Network rail to facilitate this sort of travel.I certainly do not dispute the substance of what you have said regarding the whys and wherefores ,because working for the company I well aware of the cost savings we have to make,but there is another debate in itself.
In fact as someone put on the Connect forum,'its a non story',and made the same point that Network Rail is a stand alone business and as such has to make,and spend money on that basis.
In fact as someone put on the Connect forum,'its a non story',and made the same point that Network Rail is a stand alone business and as such has to make,and spend money on that basis.
gordonthemoron
Established Member
couldn't NR have sent them on an engineering train?
There's nowhere in this thread that I'm being condescending or rude to people - what you thought I said to you I was typing on something else, hence why it was deleted. I told someone they are wrong, because they simply cannot back up what the say and I provided evidence. This is the normal way debate works. The same cannot be said for other people's attitudes to me, I think I have been amazingly patient considering they monumentally missed the whole point of the thread which is very common on this forums, as well as inability to back up what people actually state. I normally do.
Old Timer
Established Member
This is what you said in your first post
This is what you said in your second post
Both my emphasis are in Red and I think afair presumption as to where you feel the money should go. ?
Lets examine you second post in more detail, shall we ?
Recovery of the base costs has to be done on the basis of a strong full fare market. In the railway there is no real marginal pricing because of the way that the Industry operates. The whole cost of operating a train from A to B is costed once. It does not vary with usage, so you cannot identify what the marginal cost would be so therefore you cannot recover it.
BR attempted to recover its operating costs from predicted levels and cheap faresere meant to encourage the use of trains OFF PEAK so as to maximise revenue. These fares were never based upon marginal costing, but on what it was considered was a marketable fare.....something quite different.
I found this out when having managed to achieve what had been set in year 1, I was told that this would form the basis for year 2, but with further reductions required, and this at a time when utilities costs and wages were increasing !
From what I know of NRs offices, they are very unlikely to be suitable for that sort of meeting
This is what you said in your second post
Both my emphasis are in Red and I think afair presumption as to where you feel the money should go. ?
Lets examine you second post in more detail, shall we ?
Neither organisation exists to minimise costs. The TOCs are required to make a profit (or at least operate within the subsidy agreed), in the case of Network Rail it is required to cover its operating cost plus an allowance for investment.
No extra costs are being created. Marginal cost accounting does not really come into play at all. A marginal costs is the cost of the prouduction of one extra unit. Any increase in say fuel costs would be so insignificant as to be less than measureable in this scenario.
It is not clear what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that all fares should be the same, or that fares should be based upon marginal costs (which is not in any way a sensible thing to do given the situation) or are you saying that costs should be set to recover the true costs of the train ?.
Recovery of the base costs has to be done on the basis of a strong full fare market. In the railway there is no real marginal pricing because of the way that the Industry operates. The whole cost of operating a train from A to B is costed once. It does not vary with usage, so you cannot identify what the marginal cost would be so therefore you cannot recover it.
BR attempted to recover its operating costs from predicted levels and cheap faresere meant to encourage the use of trains OFF PEAK so as to maximise revenue. These fares were never based upon marginal costing, but on what it was considered was a marketable fare.....something quite different.
THere is not terribly much different from the arrangements when BR operated train services. WE had an agreed amount that was given by HM Treasury, albeit rather than any revenue increases going into the Railway, they were immediately taken back into HM Treasury. Furthermore, when cuts targets were achieved, this set the benchmark for the following year which actually left little incentive to improve.
I found this out when having managed to achieve what had been set in year 1, I was told that this would form the basis for year 2, but with further reductions required, and this at a time when utilities costs and wages were increasing !
They are going on the journey for presumably some sort of briefing or training event. Coventry is close to NRs Westwood training centre.
From what I know of NRs offices, they are very unlikely to be suitable for that sort of meeting
I don't think a single person in this thread has disputed the fact that the industry should be more joined up, which you now claim is what your point was - you certainly didn't suggest that in your first post, it was just an attack on the scenario.
You still haven't commented on what I said:
What do you think the media reaction would have been if the £27k had been paid for rail travel when there was an option which was over 10 times cheaper available? Don't you think it would have been a hell of a lot worse?
The fact that the industry is not as joined up as it could be has no relevance to that question which you have not commented on.
And yes, I regularly type "Are you completely thick?" AND click 'submit' on a forum site by accident regularly :roll:
87015
Established Member
Could have chartered a train for a lot less than £27k.....
Hopefully the more fuss the media makes about the farcical fares setup something might one day get done about it.
And if they couldn't, they need a new, more creative, accountant.
Eh? in my opening post, leaving the title aside I said 'in BR days, managers simply wrote the tickets. These days we have a magical money go round system where costs are being applied where they weren't before.'
Does not that imply something about structure and internal arrangements?
I've already said, there is no positive publicity at all in sending rail staff on coaches to a conference, even if it saved money. Either they shouldn't go at all, or there should be internal arrangements to cover it which reflected real costs rather than paying at for the most expensive peak tickets. If NR had spent £27k on train tickets (which IMHO they don't need to anyway) it wouldn't have reached the papers, or don't you understand that?
As you like backing things up with facts, can you do so here?
No? Just the same as I can't back up that it would reach the media.
You see - two perfectly valid points, but neither is necessarily right or wrong. This is what you don't seem to be able to understand. Your opinion is not fact.
Correct.
But he can not prove that there would be no negative publicity had they been sent by train at a cost of £27k.
Just because he thinks something doesn't make it true.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,729
Probably all going to Westwood which is at Tile Hill outside Coventry. Purpose built (originally for C&W) training and conference facility with accomodation for all NR employees use.
Depending on the numbers, how much would it have cost to hire a hotel or other conference room big enough and to feed all the people going ??
Also, Id be rather suprised if advance fares werent looked at to be honest, and for chartering a train, how much would that have cost and would you have got a path to get them to Coventry, find somewhere to hide the train and back when they needed to be ??
Depending on the numbers, how much would it have cost to hire a hotel or other conference room big enough and to feed all the people going ??
Also, Id be rather suprised if advance fares werent looked at to be honest, and for chartering a train, how much would that have cost and would you have got a path to get them to Coventry, find somewhere to hide the train and back when they needed to be ??
I think insinuating people were autistic for 'not getting it' and calling people thick is considered rude.
dk1
Veteran Member
As somebody who suffers travel sickness on a coach, it;s a good job i don't work for NR as i'd tell them to go whistle if they expected me to travel all that way. Norwich to Diss RR was more than enough for me last Saturday!
- Status