Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[absolutelymilk]

Yet, it works , is cheaper more frequent, more integrated has higher customer satisfaction, a less complicated ticketing system than say GWR, Southern, GTR Arriva Trains Wales, and comparing the underground map to the route map of any franchise and the London Undergound is more complicated.

LU has a less complicated ticket system because it does not have a mix of commuter, regional and intercity trains, it just has one type.

It is more frequent because national rail trains serve many different end destinations whereas the train going from one Tube station will be going to one of only a few possible destinations.

As an example, look at the satisfaction/PPM of c2c, which have historically been much higher because it is an isolated system, it doesn't have a mix of intercity and commuter traffic and doesn't have a lot of different end destinations.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yet, it works , is cheaper more frequent, more integrated has higher customer satisfaction, a less complicated ticketing system than say GWR, Southern, GTR Arriva Trains Wales, and comparing the underground map to the route map of any franchise and the London Undergound is more complicated.

Woah!

Cheaper? Show your working please.

Higher customer satisfaction by which metric? Remember that mass transit/tube passengers have different priorities than those of heavy rail (and the long distance and regional TOCs well outperform the 85% satisfaction LU currently has...).

The tube is an entirely different operation than the main line railway; for the most part, it is insular and shares tracks with other operators on only a handful of stretches. Its passengers demand far less of it than they would a heavy rail operator, with priorites even more tightly focused on operational efficiency and punctuality.

Saying that the Tube map is more complicated than the main line railway is daft. Get a Quail map and have a look at third-rail land in the South.

A less complicated ticketing system? I don't agree. See: http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/ to understand the complexities of Oyster.

this isn't an argument for or against nationalisation, but I'm trying to explain you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

 

[matt_world2004]

Woah!

Cheaper? Show your working please.

What is the cash single fare on the heathrow express compared to the cash single fare going to the same destination on the tube please.

 

[AlterEgo]

What is the cash single fare on the heathrow express compared to the cash single fare going to the same destination on the tube please.

*rubs temples, pinches nose, walks away*

:roll:

 

[matt_world2004]

Woah!

Cheaper? Show your working please.

Higher customer satisfaction by which metric? Remember that mass transit/tube passengers have different priorities than those of heavy rail (and the long distance and regional TOCs well outperform the 85% satisfaction LU currently has...).

The tube is an entirely different operation than the main line railway; for the most part, it is insular and shares tracks with other operators on only a handful of stretches. Its passengers demand far less of it than they would a heavy rail operator, with priorites even more tightly focused on operational efficiency and punctuality.

Saying that the Tube map is more complicated than the main line railway is daft. Get a Quail map and have a look at third-rail land in the South.

A less complicated ticketing system? I don't agree. See: http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/ to understand the complexities of Oyster.

this isn't an argument for or against nationalisation, but I'm trying to explain you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

That is why I said within London the 86% customer satisfaction is for journeys within London compared to the 68% for national rail. that is comparing like for like.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

*rubs temples, pinches nose, walks away*

:roll:

Well can you think of an example where a completely private operator runs between two of the same points as a completely public operator . You know its all about fair comparisions and everything. Heathrow, Paddington is the only example. Heathrow Express, provides a perfect example of what happens when you leave the railway to complete private sector control.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well can you think of an example where a completely private operator runs between two of the same points as a completely public operator . You know its all about fair comparisions and everything. Heathrow, Paddington is the only example.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Surely anyone can see this.

The premium paid for on HEX is because you get:

1) A journey three times as fast as the Tube
2) WiFi
3) Charging points
4) A member of customer facing staff on every train
5) Bigger seats with less chance of standing
6) Potential to upgrade to First Class
7) The ability to buy onboard (for a small extra fee), saving time

Do you not understand that different fees are charged because the customer proposition and market are different, rather than just "one's private and one's public"?

 

[matt_world2004]

This is a ridiculous comparison. Surely anyone can see this.

The premium paid for on HEX is because you get:

1) A journey three times as fast as the Tube
2) WiFi
3) Charging points
4) A member of customer facing staff on every train
5) Bigger seats with less chance of standing
6) Potential to upgrade to First Class
7) The ability to buy onboard (for a small extra fee), saving time

Do you not understand that different fees are charged because the customer proposition and market are different, rather than just "one's private and one's public"?

Yet runs at a third of the frequency of the tube and journey planner actually show it takes the heathrow express longer to reach any destination east of charing Cross. , Wifi and charging points do not get me to my destination any quicker, and that member of staff is costing you £2 a minute, and while your waiting 15 minutes for that additional member of staff three other members of staff on the tube have passed through driving trains. Honestly at £2 a minute, I would expect a member of staff for each passenger on board.

From what I have seen and this is no disrespect to those CSA's who work on the Heathrow Express their utility is rather limited on a two stop service, from a customer service perspective. its unlikely you are going to be unsure of what ticket to buy or what stop to get off at

 

[southern442]

A better comparison:

Marylebone to Amersham £8.50
Baker Street to Amersham £4.10

 

[Domh245]

Well can you think of an example where a completely private operator runs between two of the same points as a completely public operator . You know its all about fair comparisions and everything. Heathrow, Paddington is the only example. Heathrow Express, provides a perfect example of what happens when you leave the railway to complete private sector control.

You are effectively trying to compare something like Emirates with Easyjet. One is going to cost a lot more because it is aiming for a completely different market to the other, and therefore has a lot of other features that drive the price up. How you can try to compare the 2 and draw conclusions about whether privatised services or nationalised services are better is beyond me.

Furthermore, a more fair comparison would be between Heathrow Connect and the Tube. They serve a far more similar purpose and thus are more in competition with each other. You've taken an open access TOC (by far and away the minority of trains on the network) that aims for luxury and business travellers and tried to compare it to a metro system.

 

[AlterEgo]

A better comparison:

Marylebone to Amersham £8.50
Baker Street to Amersham £4.10

Which one's quicker?

Which one's actually part of a longer distance journey, therefore distorting prices for short-trip passengers?

How is this comparison a valid illustration of the potential costs between a nationalised and privatised railway?

Apples and oranges.

 

[matt_world2004]

You are effectively trying to compare something like Emirates with Easyjet. One is going to cost a lot more because it is aiming for a completely different market to the other, and therefore has a lot of other features that drive the price up. How you can try to compare the 2 and draw conclusions about whether privatised services or nationalised services are better is beyond me.

Furthermore, a more fair comparison would be between Heathrow Connect and the Tube. They serve a far more similar purpose and thus are more in competition with each other. You've taken an open access TOC (by far and away the minority of trains on the network) that aims for luxury and business travellers and tried to compare it to a metro system.

I avoided the Heathrow Connect as a comparision because that still recieves a subsidy for part of the route, Still is subject to franchise requirments, and therefore is not a completely privately run and funded service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which one's quicker?

Which one's actually part of a longer distance journey, therefore distorting prices for short-trip passengers?

How is this comparison a valid illustration of the potential costs between a nationalised and privatised railway?

Apples and oranges.

Me and a friend timed this, semi fast metropolitan line and Chilterns to rickmandsworth and the semi fast metropolitan line, is quicker. the chilterns between harrow on the hill and Marleybone is slow. To the point where if you had all stations metropolitan line leave harrow on the hill, at the same time as a chiltern, the all stations met will get to baker street quicker.

harrow on the hill timings

19 minutes to baker street on an all stations met
18 minutes to marleybone on an chilterns.

 

[AlterEgo]

Me and a friend timed this, semi fast metropolitan line and Chilterns to rickmandsworth and the semi fast metropolitan line, is quicker. the chilterns between harrow on the hill and Marleybone is slow. To the point where if you had all stations metropolitan line leave harrow on the hill, at the same time as a chiltern, the all stations met will get to baker street quicker.

19 minutes to baker street on an all stations met
18 minutes to marleybone on an chilterns.

That's all very well, but:

How is this comparison a valid illustration of the potential costs between a nationalised and privatised railway?

 

[southern442]

That's all very well, but:

How is this comparison a valid illustration of the potential costs between a nationalised and privatised railway?

Chiltern is more expensive because it needs to make a profit, whereas TfL reinvest all their income on the services?

I don't understand how it isn't a valid illustration. Yes I know that Chiltern's trains are more kitted out etc but that wouldn't add much to the cost of operating, plus in the peak when you have to stand, you would hardly notice.

 

[matt_world2004]

That's all very well, but:

How is this comparison a valid illustration of the potential costs between a nationalised and privatised railway?

You asked the question

Which one's quicker?

legroom is better on the S stock too.

 

[AlterEgo]

Chiltern is more expensive because it needs to make a profit, whereas TfL reinvest all their income on the services?

I don't understand how it isn't a valid illustration. Yes I know that Chiltern's trains are more kitted out etc but that wouldn't add much to the cost of operating, plus in the peak when you have to stand, you would hardly notice.

This is daft.

Chiltern have higher spec trains with far lower capacity.

Chiltern trains are going a further distance and therefore should actively disincentivise short-hop travel which encourages standees. (key point here)

Chiltern operate out of a major London terminus.

I could go on and on.

You asked the question

Yes, my apologies for asking something irrelevant to the topic.

Perhaps you could explain how your points are relevant to the debate at hand - namely your assertion that all everything that applies to LU's operation is directly relevant to the consideration that the heavy rail network be nationalised. I have already dissected your points in full and you haven't been able to counter them.

(I also note that you answered the question about which trains were faster between Amersham and London by instead answering something different, about Rickmansworth - and not only that, the public timetable and TfL journey planners totally disagree with you!)

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Chiltern is more expensive because it needs to make a profit, whereas TfL reinvest all their income on the services?

If TfL reinvested all their INCOME they would have nothing to pay their staff with.

i think what you mean is that TfL reinvest all their PROFITS which slightly neuters the argument.

 

[matt_world2004]

(I also note that you answered the question about which trains were faster between Amersham and London by instead answering something different, about Rickmansworth - and not only that, the public timetable and TfL journey planners totally disagree with you!)

because that was the journey I made on the train, but what do you expect the chiltern train to do beyond rickmansworth dematerialise through the metropolitan line train in front of it. , the journey times from Rickmansworth are going to be capped to the speed of the slower train, :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, my apologies for asking something irrelevant to the topic.

Perhaps you could explain how your points are relevant to the debate at hand - namely your assertion that all everything that applies to LU's operation is directly relevant to the consideration that the heavy rail network be nationalised. I have already dissected your points in full and you haven't been able to counter them.

You asked the question I answered it. My guess is you were trying to make a point about the chiltern train being faster and more comfortable when it is neither.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If TfL reinvested all their INCOME they would have nothing to pay their staff with.

i think what you mean is that TfL reinvest all their PROFITS which slightly neuters the argument.

You do know paying staff to help run a service is considered investing income to run a service right?

 

[AlterEgo]

because that was the journey I made on the train, but what do you expect the chiltern train to do beyond rickmansworth dematerialise through the metropolitan line train in front of it. , the journey times from Rickmansworth are going to be capped to the speed of the slower train, :roll:

Please respond to my point which relates to the focus of the thread.

Additionally, you are simply incorrect about journey times. The TfL journey planner clearly shows it takes between 46 and 49 minutes between Baker Street and Amersham.

The Chiltern trains are shown to take between 34 and 41 minutes.

At no point is it suggested that Chiltern trains overtake the Met trains, but it also doesn't mean the journey times have to be the same.



You aren't even making any points about rail nationalisation, you're making daft comparisons between dissimilar operations.

 

[matt_world2004]

Please respond to my point which relates to the focus of the thread.

Additionally, you are simply incorrect about journey times. The TfL journey planner clearly shows it takes between 46 and 49 minutes between Baker Street and Amersham.

The Chiltern trains are shown to take between 34 and 41 minutes.

At no point is it suggested that Chiltern trains overtake the Met trains, but it also doesn't mean the journey times have to be the same.

Read my post Where did I say an all stations stopper on the Metrpolitan line is quicker than a chilterns between Amersham and marleybone?

 

[AlterEgo]

Read my post Where did I say an all stations stopper on the Metrpolitan line is quicker than a chilterns between Amersham and marleybone?

I'm not going to engage with you any more, as you're dragging this off topic, and totally disinterested in replying to my points which explained you were comparing apples with oranges.

If you want the timetable explained (with headways, including explanations of how even fast services are slower than CH trains), please PM me and I will clear this up.

 

[matt_world2004]

I'm not going to engage with you any more, as you're dragging this off topic, and totally disinterested in replying to my points which explained you were comparing apples with oranges.

If you want the timetable explained (with headways, including explanations of how even fast services are slower than CH trains), please PM me and I will clear this up.

I did reply to the questions you asked and so did other FM's do you want the answers quoted to you? You cannot ask a question in a thread and claim a direct response to that question is off topic, if you believed the question was off topic, you shouldnt have asked it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This is a silly argument.

Cross London Trains have paid £35m this year in interest on debt borrowed to finance the Class 700 fleet.

Government debt funding this would have saved anything from £32m to £38m (yes, a small profit of around £3m based on negative borrowing costs).

It's not about visible costs and fare prices, it's about the detail hidden in balance sheets of companies - like First Greater Western's £28.5m profit and their £50m return to shareholders.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

You do know paying staff to help run a service is considered investing income to run a service right?

That's not investment, it's operating costs.

 

[southern442]

That's not investment, it's operating costs.

You are still investing income to pay for it.

 

[AlterEgo]

You are still investing income to pay for it.

You're arguing that every operating cost is an investment. It isn't.

 

[matt_world2004]

You're arguing that every operating cost is an investment. It isn't.

If you don't spend money running a service, the service does not run, so people do not buy tickets to use that service, it sounds like the very definition of investment.

 

[Harbornite]

I've always thought of operating costs being one thing (in this case, the maintenance of rolling stock, stations and the wages of staff) whereas investment is something else. For example,when things are purchased to improve the service, so the purchase of new rolling stock or the funding of station facilities improvements are investments.

 

[matt_world2004]

I've always thought of operating costs being one thing (in this case, the maintenance of rolling stock, stations and the wages of staff) whereas investment is something else. For example,when things are purchased to improve the service, so the purchase of new rolling stock or the funding of station facilities improvements are investments.

I believe TfLs advertising statement is something like this "TfL reinvests all of its income in improving and running our services" It seems to qualify investing for service improvements and day to day running as seperate things. For every extra minute a customer on average waits for a bus TfL's busses income drops 1% so day to day operations frequency do directly correlate with income.

 

[southern442]

You're arguing that every operating cost is an investment. It isn't.

This is all beyond the point. The point is that TfL uses all of its income to help run the service (including paying staff etc) whereas a TOC has shareholders to pay off as well. A public service doesn't need to make a profit but a company does, so if the railways were public lots more income could be spent on investment into the network or it could go towards reducing costs. With a TOC you can't do that as much.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is all beyond the point. The point is that TfL uses all of its income to help run the service (including paying staff etc) whereas a TOC has shareholders to pay off as well. A public service doesn't need to make a profit but a company does, so if the railways were public lots more income could be spent on investment into the network or it could go towards reducing costs. With a TOC you can't do that as much.

This is true.

A public service doesn't need to make a profit. If it doesn't make a profit, and makes a loss instead, who makes up the shortfall?

A public service means the taxpayer bears all of the risk of major capital investment.

I agree with the premise that privatised TOCs mean money is going away from the railway - this is undeniably true. But it does mean that with many investment projects (such as commissionning new stock etc), the risk is borne largely by private enterprise.