My idea to reduce peak demand

[transmanche]

What are Snowden revelations?

The widespread monitoring of electronic communications by GCHQ and the US's NSA?

 

[Goatboy]

In what way is a season ticket a bargain?

Lets look at a Reading to London Terminals ticket.

Reading is a town thats a reasonable distance from London - if you drove there and back every day you'd be doing near enough 85 miles a day and it would take you at least an hour each way.

The rail service will get you from central Reading to central London in just 25 minutes. Considerably faster than the car.

Yet for this you are charged just £11.23 a day using an annual season. If thats not a bargain, I don't know what is. An entire years unlimited travel between the capital city and a town some 40 miles away for just £11.23 a day? It's stunning value.

Even if you say 'Well I'd only use it to go to work, I would never ever visit London at any other time' it's still only 20 quid a day which is still a bargain.

Not convinced? What about Milton Keynes? The season for Milton Keynes is such a bargain that it's cheaper to buy a weekly season than it is to purchase a walkon anytime return!

Season tickets are a bargain - or walkon fares are incredible expensive. One of the two.

 

[Moonshot]

Lets look at a Reading to London Terminals ticket.

Reading is a town thats a reasonable distance from London - if you drove there and back every day you'd be doing near enough 85 miles a day and it would take you at least an hour each way.

The rail service will get you from central Reading to central London in just 25 minutes. Considerably faster than the car.

Yet for this you are charged just £11.23 a day using an annual season. If thats not a bargain, I don't know what is. An entire years unlimited travel between the capital city and a town some 40 miles away for just £11.23 a day? It's stunning value.

Even if you say 'Well I'd only use it to go to work, I would never ever visit London at any other time' it's still only 20 quid a day which is still a bargain.

Not convinced? What about Milton Keynes? The season for Milton Keynes is such a bargain that it's cheaper to buy a weekly season than it is to purchase a walkon anytime return!

Season tickets are a bargain - or walkon fares are incredible expensive. One of the two.

Bolton to Manchester - travel time 22 mins by rail. Season ticket price £964. Or £2 per journey/£4 per day. Some posters on here really should be opening their eyes ......

 

[Goatboy]

Bolton to Manchester - travel time 22 mins by rail. Season ticket price £964. Or £2 per journey/£4 per day. Some posters on here really should be opening their eyes ......

Another great value season. Massively cheaper than the car.

Are single/return ticket buyers subsidising commuters who are afforded exceptionally low cost season tickets?

Perhaps we should tip the balance a bit and even things out?

 

[Tetchytyke]

What about Milton Keynes? The season for Milton Keynes is such a bargain that it's cheaper to buy a weekly season than it is to purchase a walkon anytime return!

BRFares says that an anytime day return for that route is £38, and a weekly season ticket is £119.30.

£119.30 may or may not be cheap, but it is not cheaper than £38.

An entire years unlimited travel between the capital city and a town some 40 miles away for just £11.23 a day? It's stunning value.

Based on an average working year, that's actually £18 a day for the point-to-point season.

It's not bad, admittedly, but it is hardly "stunning value". It's the same price as an off-peak day return (which is £17.70). What is shows is just how astoundingly extortionate the anytime day return of £42.50 actually is.

 

[Goatboy]

BRFares says that an anytime day return for that route is £38, and a weekly season ticket is £119.30.

£119.30 may or may not be cheap, but it is not cheaper than £38.

I shall concede that one then, I've got the wrong origin. It came up in another thread.

There is a station on that route for which the Anytime Return is more than the Day Season.

 

[fowler9]

I wish I could find a job which was just basic 9 to 5. Every job I have gone for in the last 5 years has had pain in the backside shift patterns.

 

[telstarbox]

Bolton to Manchester - travel time 22 mins by rail. Season ticket price £964. Or £2 per journey/£4 per day. Some posters on here really should be opening their eyes ......

Of course this ticket is subsidised by Transport for Greater Manchester and therefore indirectly by council tax payers in Greater Manchester.

 

[gordonthemoron]

working from home seems to be tolerated more for permanent employess rather than contractors. As some companies seem keen to increase the number of contractors at the expense of permanent employees, I can't really see much growth in home working

 

[fowler9]

working from home seems to be tolerated more for permanent employess rather than contractors. As some companies seem keen to increase the number of contractors at the expense of permanent employees, I can't really see much growth in home working

It is a shame as it would seem to be the way forward. What I can't work out based on how much money my mates who are contractors are earning is how it is cheaper for the company. A hell of a lot of money must have been being wasted somewhere.

 

[Taunton]

This whole discussion seems to centre around pushing the lifestyles of the passengers around to suit the convenience of the rail operators.

The industry will grow up when it realises that what it actually needs to propose is a service pattern which suits the requirements of society, rather than making society bend to what is easiest for it to do. The commercial world does work, to an extent, around standard hours, that is what people want to do.

In London, at least, the peak has spread out such that from maybe 3 to 7 pm is now a substantial demand. In fact the trains can be more crowded in the shoulders of this time than in the true peak, given the propensity to run full length trains only at the traditional peak points (and not always then), and then uncouple down to abbreviated formations just outside these times (including a two-car set from London Bridge to East Croydon recently in the morning peak, loaded to about 200% of seating capacity).

 

[fowler9]

This whole discussion seems to centre around pushing the lifestyles of the passengers around to suit the convenience of the rail operators.

The industry will grow up when it realises that what it actually needs to propose is a service pattern which suits the requirements of society, rather than making society bend to what is easiest for it to do. The commercial world does work, to an extent, around standard hours, that is what people want to do.

In London, at least, the peak has spread out such that from maybe 3 to 7 pm is now a substantial demand. In fact the trains can be more crowded in the shoulders of this time than in the true peak, given the propensity to run full length trains only at the traditional peak points (and not always then), and then uncouple down to abbreviated formations just outside these times (including a two-car set from London Bridge to East Croydon recently in the morning peak, loaded to about 200% of seating capacity).

I think this slips over to another thread about rail in the north that I recently commented on. London is full. It can either building upwards near the centre like Hong Kong which won't happen or we can spend billions on new underground rail networks which again I doubt will happen. The most sensible option would seem to me to be to get more businesses to operate in other cities and stop trying to drag more and more people to London with HS2, new airports or airport expansions etc. Given that most of the big business is finance based in this country now there is no need at all for all of it to be in London.

 

[transmanche]

Given that most of the big business is finance based in this country now there is no need at all for all of it to be in London.

No, it could be in Paris, Frankfurt or Singapore instead.

The 'big businesses' you mention don't choose between London and Pontefract. They choose between London and other world cities.

 

[fowler9]

No, it could be in Paris, Frankfurt or Singapore instead.

The 'big businesses' you mention don't choose between London and Pontefract. They choose between London and other world cities.

Really? Many of the worlds biggest companies don't have their HQ in one of the big global cities. And really it is a bit childish mentioning Pontefract. Its like the right wingers who say you can have Neoliberalism or North Korea, they are the only choices.

 

[JamesRowden]

What about having time restricted season tickets which explicitly state a 3 hour range (for example) of departure times and arrival times for a particular direction and refer to a particular day or particulars days of the week. For example, such a ticket could be selected with 7pm-10pm as the departure time and 8pm-11pm as the arrival time. It would allow a passenger to start/stop short on any train that would be a reasonable journey within the time restrictions, an online tool could be developed to show passengers which trains are valid.

Each journey could have an individual regulated fare attributed to it with the time restricted season ticket being equal to the most expensive journey that it permits. If a passenger needs to travel to/from work at a variety of times during a week, the passenger could have a season ticket for each variation.

My idea would also solve the present anomaly of the cost of a season ticket being independent of the direction of the commute.

Perhaps this would allow an employer to set slightly unusual working times to reduce the cost and bother of the employees commuting which would allow there to be a slight decrease in the wages of the employees which would still be smaller than the money saved by commuting outside of the peak.

 

[transmanche]

Really? Many of the worlds biggest companies don't have their HQ in one of the big global cities.

You said you were referring to finance-based 'big businesses'. So looking at just the top 20 banks by total assets; they have their headquarters in:

Beijing (4)
Paris (3)
Tokyo (3)
London (2)
New York City (2)
Amsterdam (1)
Charlotte (1)
Edinburgh (1)
Frankfurt (1)
San Francisco (1)
Santander (1)​

Of those eleven cities, ten of them appear in the GaWCRN list of global cities; eight of them in the alpha, alpha+ or alpha++ categories.

 

[fowler9]

You said you were referring to finance-based 'big businesses'. So looking at just the top 20 banks by total assets; they have their headquarters in:

Beijing (4)
Paris (3)
Tokyo (3)
London (2)
New York City (2)
Amsterdam (1)
Charlotte (1)
Edinburgh (1)
Frankfurt (1)
San Francisco (1)
Santander (1)​

Of those eleven cities, ten of them appear in the GaWCRN list of global cities; eight of them in the alpha, alpha+ or alpha++ categories.

I said businesses, you listed banks. Probably part of the problem is people confusing business with just being banks. Without everything else we do in the world the banks don't exist.

 

[transmanche]

I said businesses, you listed banks.

No you did not. You said:

Given that most of the big business is finance based

I picked banks as their information was close at-hand. And to be frank, they're a good example to use for finance-based businesses, as they are involved in most forms of finance in some form or another.

But back to the point; most of those big businesses are going to choose to operate in a global city.

 

[Goatboy]

Of course this ticket is subsidised by Transport for Greater Manchester and therefore indirectly by council tax payers in Greater Manchester.

And benefits council tax payers in Greater Manchester as a result - everyone benefits from an inexpensive integrated mass transit network, even those who don't ever use the system themselves but happily benefit from the quieter roads or plethora of business activity that grows up as a natural consequence of a well connected city.

It is absolutely right than transit networks should be government/taxpayer funded in this way. The countries that 'get' this are generally better off as a result.

 

[Deerfold]

What about having time restricted season tickets which explicitly state a 3 hour range (for example) of departure times and arrival times for a particular direction and refer to a particular day or particulars days of the week. For example, such a ticket could be selected with 7pm-10pm as the departure time and 8pm-11pm as the arrival time. It would allow a passenger to start/stop short on any train that would be a reasonable journey within the time restrictions, an online tool could be developed to show passengers which trains are valid.

Sounds like a recipe for confusion - if people are confused by current restrictions.

How many options would you have for each ticket?

Each journey could have an individual regulated fare attributed to it with the time restricted season ticket being equal to the most expensive journey that it permits. If a passenger needs to travel to/from work at a variety of times during a week, the passenger could have a season ticket for each variation.

My idea would also solve the present anomaly of the cost of a season ticket being independent of the direction of the commute.

At once point I had a season ticket but sometimes worked night shifts so did my morning commute in the peak but away from work.

Your suggestion means I'd need more than one season ticket to vary my times.

Why is the cost of a season ticket being unrelated to which way someone commutes an anomoly?

Perhaps this would allow an employer to set slightly unusual working times to reduce the cost and bother of the employees commuting which would allow there to be a slight decrease in the wages of the employees which would still be smaller than the money saved by commuting outside of the peak.

Can't see that being attractive for employees - and outside of London few companies can assume that most staff commute in by public transport.

I can see this going some way to killing off the commuter market - I travelled to work by coach for a while (on a route which no longer exists). It was at great times for my normal work times, but didn't run late evenings so I couldn't stay out socialising after work so I didn't use it for long.

This might suit some people, but one of the things I love about my season ticket is that I don't have to worry about any time restrictions - so long as the trains are running I can catch any one.

 

[OxtedL]

This whole discussion seems to centre around pushing the lifestyles of the passengers around to suit the convenience of the rail operators.

The industry will grow up when it realises that what it actually needs to propose is a service pattern which suits the requirements of society, rather than making society bend to what is easiest for it to do. The commercial world does work, to an extent, around standard hours, that is what people want to do.

You overlook that easiest typically equals cheapest. This is key if we want to minimise fare increases and perhaps reduce subsidy.

 

[fowler9]

No you did not. You said:

I picked banks as their information was close at-hand. And to be frank, they're a good example to use for finance-based businesses, as they are involved in most forms of finance in some form or another.

But back to the point; most of those big businesses are going to choose to operate in a global city.

Fair enough, but Charlotte, Edinburgh, Santander etc. Massive global cities there. Amsterdam and San Francisco aren't exactly massive banking cities either so thats half your list being irrelevant.

 

[transmanche]

Fair enough, but Charlotte, Edinburgh, Santander etc. Massive global cities there.

Pathetic nit-picking. But only one of those three isn't actually on the global cities list. Even if you ignore those three, then 17 of the top 20 banks have their HQ in cities even you accept as being a 'global city'.

So to reiterate the real point. It's folly to assume you can "get more businesses to operate in other [UK] cities", when those businesses are thinking globally - and are more likely to move their operations overseas to other global cities, then to other regions of the UK.

 

[fowler9]

Pathetic nit-picking. But only one of those three isn't actually on the global cities list. Even if you ignore those three, then 17 of the top 20 banks have their HQ in cities even you accept as being a 'global city'.

So to reiterate the real point. It's folly to assume you can "get more businesses to operate in other [UK] cities", when those businesses are thinking globally - and are more likely to move their operations overseas to other global cities, then to other regions of the UK.

Hang on, you said companies tend to go to global cities and I listed 5 out of 11 cities that arguably are not, how is that pathetic nitpicking? It was almost 50% of your list.

 

[transmanche]

Hang on, you said companies tend to go to global cities and I listed 5 out of 11 cities that arguably are not, how is that pathetic nitpicking? It was almost 50% of your list.

Er, you listed three - not five. And only one of those three (Santander) was not on the global cities list. So 19 out the 20 banks have their HQs in a global city - even if you want to nitpick about two of them.

And whilst the Santander's HQ may nominally be located in the city of that name for PR purposes, I doubt that they base the bulk of their operations there.

I think you should stop digging now.

[Edit: Oh I see you edited your post. Whilst you might believe that Amsterdam and San Francisco are not massive banking cities, they are nonetheless 'global cities'.]

 

[SS4]

What are Snowden revelations?

The widespread monitoring of electronic communications by GCHQ and the US's NSA?

Indeed that is what I was referring to

 

[fowler9]

Er, you listed three - not five. And only one of those three (Santander) was not on the global cities list. So 19 out the 20 banks have their HQs in a global city - even if you want to nitpick about two of them.

And whilst the Santander's HQ may nominally be located in the city of that name for PR purposes, I doubt that they base the bulk of their operations there.

I think you should stop digging now.

[Edit: Oh I see you edited your post. Whilst you might believe that Amsterdam and San Francisco are not massive banking cities, they are nonetheless 'global cities'.]

So one of the places on your list doesn't really count because it doesn't fit your argument. Amsterdam and San Francisco don't make Alpha Plus on the list of global cities, actually neither does Beijing. Carry on.

 

[transmanche]

So one of the places on your list doesn't really count because it doesn't fit your argument. Amsterdam and San Francisco don't make Alpha Plus on the list of global cities, actually neither does Beijing. Carry on.

More pathetic nit-picking. Rather than accept the truth that London is competing against other global cities, rather than regional parts of the UK - you're trying to nit-pick to draw attention from the fact you were wrong.

Amsterdam, San Francisco and Beijing are all on the Alpha list of global cities - I didn't claim otherwise.

Carry on digging...

 

[Deerfold]

Amsterdam and San Francisco don't make Alpha Plus on the list of global cities, actually neither does Beijing. Carry on.

And transmanche didn't claim that they did.

eight of them in the alpha, alpha+ or alpha++ categories.

 

[fowler9]

Fair enough guys. I apologise for any mistakes I made in what I said. I certainly do not apologise for wanting to change the world from the way it is set up which includes diverting funds away from London.